March 22, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 of the 4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with a delegation from K. Pihlak, Oak Park Co-operative Children’s Centre, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Council meeting BE RECESSED at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recessed from 4:25 PM to 4:45 PM.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by E. Peloza

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 (13 to 0)

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

5.1   4th Meeting held on February 15, 2022

2022-02-15 Council Minutes - Complete

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 4th Meeting held on February 15, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - Dingman Drive Improvement Project (As the “Approving Authority”)

2022-03-22 Council SR Dingman Drive Improvement Project - Approving Authority - P-2552

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

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 Dingman Drive Improvement Project.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of land as may be required for the project known as the Dingman Drive 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 March 22, 2022 hereto, 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 Dingman Drive improvements project;

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

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the Dingman Drive improvements project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 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 a single request for a Hearing of Necessity was received but was withdrawn in February 2022.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - Dingman Drive Improvement Project (As the “Expropriating Authority”) (Relates to Bill No. 137)

2022-03-22 Council SR Dingman Drive Improvement Project - Expropriation Authority - P-2552

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 22, 022 as  Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the Dingman Drive improvements project” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 Lands; 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 (13 to 0)

6.3   6756 James Street (Z-9401)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

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

6.3     6756 James Street (Z-9401) - Refer to Planning And Environment Stage for consideration with Item 11 (3.4); and,

6.4     Draft By-laws: Program Regulating Distribution of Flyers By-law and Distribution of Graphic Flyers to Residential Properties By-law - Refer to Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for consideration with Item 10 (4.3).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-02-28 CSC Report 4-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Item 7 (4.1).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2021 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    in accordance with Section 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Statements of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    in accordance with City Council resolution of March 2012, the annual report on the Mayor’s Office’s expenditures BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)   in accordance with City Council Travel and Business Expenses Policy, the Statement of Travel Expenses for Senior Administration Officials, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “C” and “D”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for Calendar Year 2021

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 28, 2022 regarding Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act report for the calendar year 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Request for Tender 2022-018 – Revenue from Lease of City-Owned Farmland (Relates to Bill No. 128)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply, with respect to the City-owned lands as shown on Schedule A (Location Map) as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022:

a) the following actions be taken:

i) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars $ 6,750.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package A; BE ACCEPTED, it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ii) the bid submitted by London Dairy Farms Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Four Dollars $ 24,354.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package B, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Eight Nine Dollars and Sixty Cents $ 19,189.60 for a three (3) year term on Land Package C, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iv) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars $ 7,475.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package D, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

v) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Two Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand and Thirty Four Dollars $ 236,034.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package E, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vi) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of One Hundred and Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two Dollars $ 111,972.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package F, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Dollars $ 51,410.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package G, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

viii) the bid submitted by Terradust Acres Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars $1,400.00 for a three (3) year term on Land Package H, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ix) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Fifty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Dollars and Eighty Cents $ 56,990.80 for a three (3) year term on Land Package l, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

x) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Twenty Cents $ 25,270.20 for a three (3) year term on Land Package J, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

b)    the standard form of farm lease included in Tender 2022-018 as Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report, BE AUTHORIZED for execution with each individual proponent; and,

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to accept the bids submitted for Tender No. 2022-018 and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Farmland Lease Agreements.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Cheapside Street, Adjacent 137 Clemens Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property legally described as Part Lot 475, Plan 490, as in 265802 London/London Township, located along Cheapside Street adjacent 137 Clemens Street, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) License Renewal - Infrastructure Ontario (Hydro One Corridor) (Relates to Bill No. 129)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Manager, Purchasing and Supply Operations, with respect to the to the property owned by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, described as Part of Lot 7, Concession C, City of London, Geographic Township of London, as shown on Appendix “A” (Location Map) as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Licence Renewal Agreement, attached as Schedule “A” to Appendix C, BE APPROVED, granting the City the use of a portion of the subject property for recreational purposes, for the sum of $2.00, subject to the terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement, and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “C”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Licence Renewal Agreement”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Sikh Heritage Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated February 7, 2022 from Guru Nanak Mission Society, London Ontario, April 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Sikh Heritage Month.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.1) Election Sign By-law Update (Relates to Bill No. 136)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That section 3.2 of the proposed by-law BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“No person shall place or permit to be placed an election sign for a municipal election, except an Election Sign which is placed on a Campaign Office or private property, earlier than nomination day in the year of a regular election.”

Pursuant to section 11.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the motion moved by Councillor M. Cassidy and seconded by Councillor S. Lewis is, at the joint request of the mover and seconder and with the consent of the Council, withdrawn.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Election Sign By-law BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to prepare a revised by-law to be brought forward to the March 28, 2022 Corporate Services Committee that would include:

a)    a revision to section 3.2, as follows: “No person shall place or permit to be placed an election sign for a municipal election, except an Election Sign which is placed on a Campaign Office or private property, earlier than nomination day in the year of a regular election; and,

b)    a revision to section 3.4 to change the removal requirement from 96 hours to 72 hours.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2   4th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-03-01 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 4th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 25, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 2021 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and 2021 Management Review

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 1, 2022, with respect to the 2021 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System, and the subsequent 2021 Management Review, BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Mobility Master Plan Appointment of Consultant

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 March 1, 2022, related to the appointment of a Consultant for the Mobility Master Plan:

a)        IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. BE APPOINTED the Consulting Engineer to complete the Mobility Master Plan project per their submitted proposal, in the total amount of $898,495.00, 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 as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)        the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; 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. (2022-T05)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Hyde Park EA SWM Works – Assignment ‘B’ 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 March 1, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting services for the Hyde Park EA SWM Works - Assignment ‘B’ project:

a)        Ecosystems Recovery Inc. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Hyde Park EA SWM Works - Assignment ‘B’ project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $172,419.50, including contingency, provisional items and allowances, 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 approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-D03)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Overflow and Bypass Reporting Provincial Funding - Terms and Conditions (Relates to Bill No. 125)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the attached revised by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda dated March 1, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to accept the terms and conditions for funding under the Improving Monitoring and Public Reporting of Sewage Overflows and Bypasses Program between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”) and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement and any future amending agreements. (2022-F11)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Erosion and Sediment Controls: MECP Great Lakes Funding to Reduce Pollution from Construction Runoff through Citizen and Industry Engagement (Relates to Bill No. 126) 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 1, 2022, related to the Great Lakes Fund, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”) and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement and any future amending agreements.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.1) Active Transportation Fund

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 March 1, 2022, to the Government of Canada’s Active Transportation Fund;

it being noted that the communications from S. Levin, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at February 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (5.2) 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 16, 2022:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the London’s Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP):

i)         the Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair, J. Roberts, BE REQUESTED to draft a Letter of Support on behalf of CAC, to advise the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that CAC endorses the adoption and implementation of London’s Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP); and,

b)        and clauses 1.1, 2.2, and 3.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3   5th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-03-08 SPPC Report 5

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 5th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 6 (4.1) and 10 (5.1).

Motion Passed (13 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) 2022 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2022 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2022 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Access to City of London Funding for Social and Economic Recovery –London Community Recovery Network

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to access to City of London funding for social and economic recovery – London Community Recovery Network:

a)    the proposed formal process for accessing community recovery funding, BE ENDORSED;

b)    the amount of $100,000 over two years (2022-2023) from funding set aside by City Council to support social and economic recovery BE APPROVED for allocation to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to create the LCRN Readiness Fund in support of small-scale recovery efforts in the community; and,

c)    the report entitled Access to City of London Funding for Social and Economic Recovery – London Community Recovery Network BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.4) Resignation of C. Neville from the Hyde Park BIA Board of Management

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the resignation of Curtis Neville, Giant Tiger, from the Hyde Park BIA Board of Management BE ACCEPTED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.3) Core Area Action Plan 2021 Review

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the Deputy City Manager, Planning & Economic Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Social & Health Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the staff report dated March 8, 2022 entitled “Core Area Action Plan 2021 Review”, including its appendices, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the changes to the status or end dates of the items included the Core Area Action Plan described in the report and summarized in Appendix “A”: Core Area Action Plan Implementation Status Update, March 2022 BE APPROVED and used as the new basis for future progress reporting;

c)    the extension of the “Project Clean Slate” contract with Youth Opportunities Unlimited for a period from April 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 BE APPROVED at a cost of $146,760; it being noted that funding is available through the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Economy (EEE) Reserve;

d)    the Core Area Action Plan Performance Measurement Plan contained in Appendix “G” to the report BE RECEIVED noting that it will become part of the annual monitoring of the impacts of the Core Area Action Plan and associated report to Council;

e)    the Core Area Action Plan Gap Analysis contained in Appendix “H” to the report BE RECEIVED; and,

f)    staff BE DIRECTED to prepare an updated Core Area Action Plan expanding the current plan to the years 2024 to 2027 inclusive for the consideration of Council in 2023 in coordination with the next Multi-Year Budget and Strategic Plan development processes and based on the general methodology described in the report.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (4.2) Confirmation of Appointments to the Old East Village BIA

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village BIA:

a)  the resignations of Jamie Sinden, Love Alchemy Hair Salon, Ellie Cook, The Root Cellar and Heather Blackwell, Western Fair District BE ACCEPTED; and,

b) Kelli Gough, The Palace Theatre Arts Commons and Michelle Scott, Western Fair District BE APPOINTED for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (4.3) Including a Carbon Offset Strategy - Councillor M. van Holst

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to a carbon offset strategy BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.4) 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on February 17, 2022:

a)  the Governance Working Group BE REQUESTED to consider continued membership or in the appointment process, the re-appointment of existing members to ensure the continuity of Advisory Committee membership; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 7.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.1) Development Charge Area Rating Policy Review – Recommended Approach

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the matter of the Development Charge Area Rating Policy Review – Recommended Approach, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consideration, and research of options that would better recognize true cost discrepancies between new infrastructure costs inside and outside of the build area, including but not limited to stormwater management.

Motion Failed (1 to 12)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

a)    The attached memorandum from Hemson Consulting (Appendix A) on a recommended area rating approach for the 2025 Development Charges Background Study BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to implement an area rating approach of levying development charges within the Urban Growth Boundary and outside the Urban Growth Boundary for the 2025 Development Charges Background Study; and;

c)    The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue a review and analysis of area rating where servicing needs to be extended in order to accommodate anticipated development, should the Urban Growth Boundary be expanded.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve parts a) and b):

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

a)    The attached memorandum from Hemson Consulting (Appendix A) on a recommended area rating approach for the 2025 Development Charges Background Study BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to implement an area rating approach of levying development charges within the Urban Growth Boundary and outside the Urban Growth Boundary for the 2025 Development Charges Background Study; and;

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve part c):

c)    The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue a review and analysis of area rating where servicing needs to be extended in order to accommodate anticipated development, should the Urban Growth Boundary be expanded.

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

8.3.10   (5.1) Palace Theatre Arts Commons Loan Forgiveness Business Case

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Palace Theatre Arts Commons loan forgiveness:

a) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to further extend the deferral period, on Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis for a further period of 274 days, being April 2022 to December 2022, where the applicant has requested a further deferral in writing; it being noted that the Jan 2023 loan repayments will be cashed as planned; and,

b) the Business Case from the Palace Theatre Arts Commons BE APPROVED and the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to forgive the remaining balance of the interest-free loan to the London Community Players, in the amount of $78,749.83, with the previously allocated London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) funding as the source of financing;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 4, 2022 from K. Gough, Chair, Palace Theatre Arts Commons and a communication dated March 7, 2022 from Councillors J. Helmer and J. Fyfe-Millar with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion approve part a):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Palace Theatre Arts Commons loan forgiveness:

a) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to further extend the deferral period, on Community Improvement Plan loan repayments, on an interest-free basis for a further period of 274 days, being April 2022 to December 2022, where the applicant has requested a further deferral in writing; it being noted that the Jan 2023 loan repayments will be cashed as planned; and,

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part b):

b) the Business Case from the Palace Theatre Arts Commons BE APPROVED and the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to forgive the remaining balance of the interest-free loan to the London Community Players, in the amount of $78,749.83, with the previously allocated London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) funding as the source of financing;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 4, 2022 from K. Gough, Chair, Palace Theatre Arts Commons and a communication dated March 7, 2022 from Councillors J. Helmer and J. Fyfe-Millar with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.4   5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-02-28 PEC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West (39T-04510-4) 3

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 Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc. and Claybar Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 23, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, and on the north side of the Heard Drain, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc. and Claybar Developments Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 4 (39T-04510_4) appended to the staff report dated February 28, 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 February 28, 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-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Development Charge Claimable Works for Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1 (39T-18501)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Source of Financing appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE APPROVED with respect to the subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the Development Charge claimable works related to the Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 472 Richmond Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP22-003-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the alteration of the beaver fence, a heritage attribute of the heritage designated property at 472 Richmond Street, individually designated and located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED as submitted and consistent with the Conservation Plan appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix C;

it being noted that the Heritage Planner will be circulated on any submittals to assist in ensuring compliance with the Conservation Plan for the beaver fence.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) 516 Elizabeth Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP22-006-L)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property at 516 Elizabeth Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a)    the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be installed in a manner that replicates the muntins of the former wood windows;

b)    the windows and exterior grilles be painted to match the existing trim work on the building;

c)    the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be completed within six months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

d)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) 346, 370 and 392 South Street, 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street and 124Colborne Street (H-9462) (Relates to Bill No. 146)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by SoHo Vision Alliance, relating to the property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street, 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street and 124 Colborne Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 Residential R4 Special Provision and R8 Special Provision (hh-5R4-6(13)/R8-4(59), hh-5R8-4(56), hh-5R8-4(57), hh-5R8-4(58)) Zone TO a Residential R4 Special Provision and R8 Special Provision (R4-6(13)/R8-4(59), R8-4(56), R8-4(57), and R8-4(58)) Zone to remove the “h” and “h-5” holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road (H-9466)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Baker Planning Group, relating to lands located at 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(19)) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(20)) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-100-R4-6(9)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-100-R6-5(55)) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(19)) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(20)) Zone, a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(9)) Zone, and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(55)) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) 695 and 585 Sovereign Road (H-9467) (Relates to Bill No. 135)

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 Southwest Sun Property Corporation, relating to the property located at 695 and 585 Sovereign Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to deem Lot 19-1 and Lot 28-1, Registered Plan No. M21, City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act;

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

c)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to pay for any costs incurred to register the deeming by-law at the Land Registry Office.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.8) 34 Princeton Terrace - Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 127)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Building and Chief Building Official, the following actions be taken with respect to a Limiting Distance (no-build) Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen, for the property located at 34 Princeton Terrace, London, Ontario:

a)    the proposed Limiting Distance Agreement appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 for the property at 34 Princeton Terrace between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to approve the Limiting Distance Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen for the property at 34 Princeton Terrace, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.9) Building Division Monthly Report - January, 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division Monthly report for January, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (3.1) 493 Springbank Drive - Demolition Request

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the former gate house and maintenance garage on the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the former gate house and maintenance garage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 493 Springbank Drive should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.    (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (3.2) 2631 Hyde Park Road / 1521 Sunningdale Road West - Request to Remove Property from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, that the property located at 2361 Hyde Park Road/1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

 

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    A. Jomaa, no address provided; and,

  •    M. Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (3.3) 655 - 685 Fanshawe Park Road West (Z-9396) (Relates to Bill No. 148)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the  application by SAB Realty Limited, relating to the property located at 655-685 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan, 2016 and the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(21)/RSC4(19)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA5(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individual made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    B. McCauley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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 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 (NCN) designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment provides additional uses that are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area and provides an increased opportunity to effectively utilize the existing buildings.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.14   (3.4) 3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 17, 2022:

a)    the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee heard a verbal presentation from M. McKillop, Environmental Services Engineer and P. De Carvalho, Restoration Specialist and S. Braun, Water Resource Engineer, Matrix Solutions Inc., with respect to the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resiliency Class Environmental Assessment;

b)    the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee heard a verbal presentation from M. McKillop, Environmental Services Engineer and P. De Carvalho, Restoration Specialist and S. Braun, Water Resource Engineer, Matrix Solutions Inc., with respect to the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resiliency Class Environmental Assessment;

c)    the Working Group report relating to the Oxford Street West/ Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that additional comments may be provided to the Civic Administration by the Working Group;

d)    the Working Group report relating to the Windermere Road Improvements Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Environmental Impact Study BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

e)    clauses 1.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 3.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.15   (4.1) 2nd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on February 9, 2022:

a)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the alteration of the beaver fence, a heritage attribute of the heritage designated property located at 472 Richmond Street, individually designated and located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED as submitted and consistent with the Conservation Plan appended to the staff report dated February 9, 2022;

it being noted that the Heritage Planner will be circulated on any submittals to assist in ensuring compliance with the Conservation Plan for the beaver fence;

b)    M. Johnson, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not object to the conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIS), dated September 27, 2021, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to the McCormick’s Biscuit Company located at 1156 Dundas Street; it being noted that the proponent is encouraged to attend a meeting of the LACH early in the site design process to ensure meaningful consultation on the adaptive reuse of the former McCormick Biscuit Factory structure; it being further noted that the Notice of Planning Application, dated December 17, 2021, from M. Johnson, Senior Planner, with respect to a Notice of Planning Application related to a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 1156 Dundas Street, and the above-noted HIS, were received;

c)    the matter of updating City of London Public Meeting Notices and Notices of Planning Applications to include heritage notifications BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Planning and Policy Sub-Committee reviewed the Planning Act (O.Reg. 543/06 (15)) requirements for planning notices, as well as a

number of sample notices from other jurisdictions, and identified the following:

  •    while not explicitly required in the Planning Act, the Sub-Committee believes the identification of designated heritage status on applicable notices would benefit the City’s overall engagement and communications strategy and this would give the public important information on planning applications and would allow more meaningful and informed public

participation;

  •    the Sub-Committee understands that the Civic Administration may have an existing template used for planning notices, but would like to encourage consideration of including designated heritage status on notices during the next review of this template;

  •    the Sub-Committee recommends, for simplicity, identifying heritage designated status (e.g. Part IV or Part V designations and associated Heritage Conservation District) and not properties listed on the City’s heritage register although additional criteria may also be considered; and,

  •    the Sub-Committee notes that the Planning Act requirements are minimums, and the City can choose to go above and beyond on notice requirements; it being noted that this is consistent with London Plan Policies 1615-16 which emphasize the importance of meaningful dialogue, and empowering residents to participate in the planning process;

it being further noted that the Planning and Policy Sub-Committee Report, from its meeting held on January 27, 2022, was received;

d)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property located at 516 Elizabeth Street, within the Old East Heritage  Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be installed in a manner that replicates the muntins of the former wood windows;

  •    the windows and exterior grilles be painted to match the existing trim work on the building;

  •    the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be completed within six months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

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

e)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the former gate house and maintenance garage located on the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the former gate house and maintenance garage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 493 Springbank Drive should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

f)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the property located at 2361 Hyde Park Road/1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

g)    clauses 1.1, 2.2, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 3.7 to 3.9, inclusive, 4.1, 5.3 and 5.5 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5   6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-03-07 PEC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 5 (2.4) and 11 (3.4).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 23, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Draft Victoria Park Secondary Plan (O-8978)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Victoria Park Secondary Plan: 

a)    the draft Victoria Park Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)    the draft Victoria Park Secondary Plan BE CIRCULATED for public comment;

it being noted that feedback received will inform a revised Secondary Plan and implementing Official Plan Amendment that will be prepared for the consideration and approval of Municipal Council at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a staff presentation with respect to these matters.  (2022-D09/R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) 2022 LDD Moth Proposed Management Plan

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the 2022 Lymantria dispar dispar (LDD) Moth* proposed management plan BE RECEIVED for information and the following actions be taken with respect to the provision of LDD aerial spraying services:

a)    the single source estimated price of 100,000 plus HST, pending further negotiation submitted by Zimmer Air Services Inc. to provide an aerial spraying service to control the spread of the LDD moth in select locations as outlined in the report below, BE ACCEPTED;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED within existing budgets;

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

d)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval.  (2022-D05)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) 3024, 3001, 2970 and 2954 Turner Crescent (H-9464)

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 Greengate Village Limited, to exempt Blocks 50, 51, 52 and 53 of Registered Plan 33M-790 from Part-Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting to exempt Blocks 50, 51, 52 and 53, Plan 33M-790 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-5(3) R4-5(4)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, garage front yard depth, exterior side yard depth, and interior side yard depth;

b)    the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Blocks 50, 51, 52 and 53, Plan 33M-790 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xi)    the Applicant shall obtain clearance from the City that requirements d), e) and f) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)    that not more than four (4) reference plans be approved to be registered as part of this application and that Greengate Village limited advise the City of the registration of each reference plan; and,

xiii)    that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question.  (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.6) 3161 and 3138 Turner Crescent (H-9463)

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 Greengate Village Limited to exempt Blocks 48 and 49 of Registered Plan 33M-790 from Part-Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law as appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting to exempt Blocks 48 and 49, Plan 33M-790 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-5(3) R4-5(4)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, garage front yard depth, exterior side yard depth, and interior side yard depth;

b)    the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Blocks 48 and 49, Plan 33M-790 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xi)    the Applicant shall obtain clearance from the City that requirements d), e) and f) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)    that not more than two (2) reference plans be approved to be registered as part of this application and that Greengate Village limited advise the City of the registration of each reference plan; and,

xiii)    that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question.  (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.1) 3524 Grand Oak Crossing (39CD-21520)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application of 2219008 Ontario Ltd. (York Developments), relating to the property located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing;

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

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.2) 600 Oxford Street West (OZ-9437) (Relates to Bill No.’s 132, 134 and 150)

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 Maverick Real Estate Inc., relating to the property located at 600 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend The London Plan to ADD a Specific Area Policy to permit “automotive uses, restricted” within existing buildings, in addition to the uses permitted in the Transit Village Place Type, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 - Specific Area Policies – of The London Plan;

it being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 7 of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit “office”, “retail” and “commercial recreation establishments” within existing buildings, in addition to the uses permitted in the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation; and,

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial/Restricted Service Commercial (HS/RSC1) Zone TO a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes economic development and competitiveness by providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment uses;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the criteria for Specific Area Policies and Planning Impact Analysis; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates uses of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area until such time as the site redevelops; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate an appropriate proposal that facilitates the reuse of the existing buildings with uses that are compatible within the surrounding context.   (2022-D21)

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (3.3) 1420 Hyde Park Road (O-9422/Z-9423) (Relates to Bill No.’s 133 and 151)

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 Hyde Construction (c/o Pete Hyde), relating to the property located at 1420 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London Planning Area – 1989 by ADDING a policy to Section 3.5. – Policies for Specific Residential Areas to permit a maximum residential density of 111 units per hectare to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 a Temporary/Urban Reserve (T-51/UR3) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide a strong pedestrian relationship between the inside and the outside of the building at the intersection of Hyde Park Road and South Carriage Road;

ii)    provide individual lockable front door entrances to ground floor units on the street-facing elevations and design amenity spaces as open courtyards or front porches to create a pedestrian-oriented streetscape; 

iii)    provide direct walkway access from ground floor units to the public sidewalk;

iv)    co-ordinate the design of the site with the memorial plaza to be constructed by the City at Hyde Park Road/South Carriage intersection;

v)    provide further details on the use of the outdoor amenity space at the corner of South Carriage Road and Hyde Park Ave. Remove the wall and fencing to provide for better activation with the street and memorial plaza; 

vi)    design the space between the building and the right-of-way with a main sidewalk, slightly raised planting beds with trees and foundation plantings generally consistent with the public/private interface approved for other developments within the Hyde Park community;

vii)    provide privacy fencing along the west and south property boundaries;

viii)    provide enhanced landscaping, including buffering and screening from the development to the existing and future uses on adjacent properties and screening of parking visible from South Carriage Road; 

ix)    continue the public sidewalk along the South Carriage Road frontage between Hyde Park Road and Prince of Wales Gate to provide better pedestrian connections within the neighbourhood and to Cantebury Park, noting sidewalk construction will require the removal of nine existing trees located in the City boulevard;

x)    provide a centrally located outdoor common amenity space that is sufficiently sized for the number of units proposed;

xi)    provide trees and plantings every 15 parking spaces and within all parking islands.

xii)    locate the garbage facilities close to the building, away from neighbouring properties;

xiii)    provide mitigation measures to address potential on-site conflicts between sidewalks and the parking area, and individual ground floor units and their private amenity areas; and,

xiv)    locate and design snow storage areas to retain snow-melt on site;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication from S. Jones, by e-mail, with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    P. Terek, no address provided;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site immediately adjacent to the Built-Area Boundary in an area planned for the logical expansion of urban residential development.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) 1985 Gore Road (H-9467) (Relates to Bill No. 149)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Dancor Oxford Inc., relating to the property located at 1985 Gore Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 Light Industrial LI2 and General Industrial GI1 (h*LI2/GI1) Zone TO a Light Industrial LI2 and General Industrial GI1 (LI2/GI1) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.11   (3.4) 6756 James Street (Z-9401)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Domus Development London Inc., relating to the property located at 6756 James Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 7, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 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 Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-2(_)) 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)    boundary landscaping along the north, east and west property boundaries that meet the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law and have screening/privacy qualities; and,

ii)    board-on-board fencing along the north, east and west property boundaries where possible that meet the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law and do not negatively impact on-site stormwater management or any existing landscaping;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated March 2, 2022 from L. and R. Harden, by e-mail; and,

  •    a communication dated February 28, 2022 from J. Posthumus, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    Casey Kulchycki, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    J. D’Orsay, 6775 James Street;

  •    J. Posthumus, no address provided;

  •    J. McNabb, no address provided;

  •    K. Karpierz, 6742 James Street; and,

  •    L. Grieve, 6780 James Street;

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 Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation of the Lambeth Neighbourhood;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6   4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-03-01 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 8 (4.1) and 10 (4.3).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 27, 2022:

a)    the Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Accessibility Working Group members BE INVITED to attend a future meeting of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in order to discuss opportunities for future integrations and collaborations; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 5.1 and 6.1, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) Single Source Procurement SS-2022-071: Xalt Real-time Fire CAD to RMS Interface

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, related to Single Source Procurement SS-2022-071 for Xalt software from Hexagon (Intergraph Canada Ltd.) to allow an interface with ICO Solutions Records Management System from the Hexagon Fire Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD):

a)    the Firm Fixed Price Statement of Work, submitted by Intergraph Canada Ltd., doing business as Hexagon Safety & Infrastructure division, 10921-14 Street NE, Calgary, Alberta, T3K 2L5, for the installation of the Xalt – Integration Software, at the quoted purchase value of $65,420 (HST excluded), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is a single source contract as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 d), there is a need for compatibility with goods and/or services previously acquired or the required goods and/or services will be additional to similar goods and/or services being supplied under an existing contract (i.e. contract extension or renewal);

b)    the Quote number 2022-84528 submitted by Intergraph Canada Ltd., doing business as Hexagon Safety & Infrastructure division, 10921-14 Street NE, Calgary, Alberta, T3K 2L5 for the purchase and annual maintenance of the Xalt – Integration Software, at the quoted purchase value of $39,663 (HST excluded), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is a single source contract as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 d), there is a need for compatibility with goods and/or services previously acquired or the required goods and/or services will be additional to similar goods and/or services being supplied under an existing contract (i.e. contract extension or renewal); 

c)    subject to approval of a) and b) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; 

d)    the approval and authorization provided for in a) and b) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a Purchase Order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval;

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to the actions set out in a) to c) above; and,

f)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2022-C09)

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.4) 2022-2023 Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs; Including Housing First, Supportive Housing and Day Drop-in Programs

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, related to a Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs, Including Housing first, Supportive Housing and Day Drop-In programs:

a)    the Single Source, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d), BE ACCEPTED at a total estimated cost of $3,642,900 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, subject to confirmation of the Provincial and Federal funding, to administer Housing Stability Services, Housing First, Supportive Housing and Day Drop-In programs, to the following providers: 

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services – Street Level Women at Risk (SS-2022-060) 

  •    St. Leonard’s Society of London – Project Home (SS-2022-061)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services Housing First (SS-2022-062)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services – Housing Always (SS-2022-063)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services - No Fixed Address program (SS-2022-064)

  •    Mission Services - Roger Smith Wing Supportive Housing (SS-2022-065)

  •    Youth Opportunities Unlimited – Cornerstone Housing (SS-2022-066)

  •    Regional HIV/AIDS Connection - John Gordon Home (SS-2022-067)

  •    Youth Opportunities Unlimited Housing First Mobile Team (SS-2022-068)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services – My Sisters Place Day Drop-in (SS-2022-069); 

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

c)    the approval, given herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (2.5) Irregular Result RFP 21-71 Consultant for Employment Services Transformation Single Bid Award Recommendation

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and with the concurrence of the Director, Financial Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, related to an Irregular Result RFP 21-71 for a Consultant for Employment Services Transformation Single Bid Award Recommendation, as per the City of London Procurement Policy Section 19.4 “Only One Bid Received”:

a)    the Request for Proposal (RFP 21-71), submitted by StrategyCorp, BE ACCEPTED, at the cost of $79,500 (plus H.S.T.);

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

c)    the approvals, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (2.3) Licensing Agreement for the Creation of a Food Hub in Cavendish Park, 136 Cavendish Crescent (Relates to Bill No. 130)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to:

a)    authorize and approve the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Hutton House Association for Adults with Disabilities for the creation of a Food Hub at Cavendish Park 136 Cavendish Crescent; and,

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

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from L. Thorne, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S12)

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (2.6) Pet Limits for Approved Foster Organizations

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated March 1, 2022, with respect to Pet Limits for Approved Foster Organizations, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the current regulation of no pet limits for Approved Foster Organizations will be maintained. (2022-P14)

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (4.2) COVID-19 Response Update and Program Funding Wind-down

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, with respect to a COVID-19 Response Update and Program Funding Wind-down:

a)    the Mayor BE DIRECTED to write a letter to the applicable Ministries with respect to the need for the continuation of Provincial Social Services Relief Funding (SSRF) and Federal Reaching Home COVID response funding; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2022-S08)

Motion Passed

8.6.11   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at February 18, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.12   (5.2) 1st Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 1st Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 24, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (4.1) K. Pihlak, Executive Director, Oak Park Co-operative Children’s Centre

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the delegation from K. Pihlak, Oak Park Co-Operative Children’s Centre, related to the Bi-Lateral Child Care Agreement:

a)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to call on the Provincial Government to:

  •    sign the Bi-Lateral Child Care Agreement before March 31, 2022; and,

  •    emphasize the importance of growing the highly-trained workforce of early childhood educators in Ontario; 

b)    the Licensed Child Care Network BE THANKED for their advocacy and for their work as early childhood educators;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from K. Pihlak, Executive Director, Oak Park Co-Operative Children’s Centre, with respect to this matter, as well as the communications, appended to the agenda, were received. (2022-S01)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.6.10   (4.3) Draft By-laws: Program Regulating Distribution of Flyers By-law and Distribution of Graphic Flyers to Residential Properties By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 131 and 138)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, related to a Program Regulating Distribution of Flyers and Distribution of Graphic Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties: 

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report (Appendix C), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to regulate the distribution of graphic flyers in the City of London; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report (Appendix D), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to designate the Distribution of Graphic Flyers By-law;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Arthur, D. Ronson and S. Trosow, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-C09)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the draft by-laws related to a program regulating the distribution of flyers by-law and distribution of graphic flyers to residential properties by-law BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration, in order for staff to report back on the potential to include the following in any potential by-laws:

a)   the requirement for any literature being left at private residences to meet the same public requirements as outdoor displays, or the regulations at a public participation meeting;

b)   the inclusion of a requirement for materials to have an outer wrap/cover for any such materials; and,

c)   the inclusion of a graphic content warning on any outside wrap.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Council convene in closed session, in order to consider advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege with respect to potential by-laws to regulate the distribution of graphic flyers to residential properties, including requirements for covering such as an outer wrap.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The Council convenes, in closed session, from 6:35 PM to 6:57 PM

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That a recess BE APPROVED, at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:08 PM, and resumes at 7:34 PM.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

The motion to approve the referral IS PUT, as follows:

That the draft by-laws related to a program regulating the distribution of flyers by-law and distribution of graphic flyers to residential properties by-law BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration, in order for staff to report back on the potential to include the following in any potential by-laws:

a)   the requirement for any literature being left at private residences to meet the same public requirements as outdoor displays, or the regulations at a public participation meeting;

b)   the inclusion of a requirement for materials to have an outer wrap/cover for any such materials; and,

c)   the inclusion of a graphic content warning on any outside wrap.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the communications with respect to this matter, as noted on the Added Agenda, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Helmer

That introduction and first reading of Bill No.’s 124 to 152, excluding Bill No.’s 131, 136 and 138, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That second reading of Bill No.’s 124 to 152, excluding Bill No.’s 131, 136 and 138, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That third reading and enactment of Bill No.’s 124 to 152, excluding Bill No.’s 131, 136 and 138, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/4/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/4/CSC)

4.3    Confidential Trade Secret or Scientific, Technical, Commercial or Financial Information Belonging to the City

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or board; a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial or financial information that belongs to the municipality or local board and has monetary value or potential monetary value. (6.3/4/CSC)

4.4    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations. (6.1/5/SPPC)

4.5    Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters, including information regarding an identifiable individual, with respect to employment-related matters; advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.2/5/SPPC)

4.6    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding flyer deliveries to residential properties. (6.1/4/CPSC)

4.7    ADDED Solicitor-Client Privilege/Litigation-Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/5/SPPC)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 8:04 PM to 8:30 PM.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   5th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 8:36 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

YOUR COUNCIL IN CLOSED SESSION REPORTS:

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition - 190 Edinburgh Street - Cavendish Phase III Infrastructure Renewal Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 190 Edinburgh Street, further described as Part of Lots 36 to 41, Plan 56(W), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being Part of PIN 082500107 (LT), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of reconstructing the open channel as part of the Cavendish Phase 3 Infrastructure Renewal Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Michael Oreskovic (the “Vendor”) to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $200,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition - Hydro One Networks Inc. & Infrastructure Ontario - Southdale Road West Transportation Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Transportation and Mobility, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located immediately east of 457 Southdale Road West and further described as Part of Lot 37, Concession 2, in the City of London, Middlesex County, designated as Parts 5, 6 and 7, Plan 33R-20757, being Part of PIN 08209-0179 (LT) and shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvement to accommodate the Southdale Road West Improvements Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $3,712.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”;

b)    the License of Land for Temporary Use and Access for a further twelve (12) month term, for an additional sum of $1,250.00 BE ACCEPTED, wherein additional compensation and additional terms and conditions have been agreed to between the Parties and set out in the agreement attached in Appendix “D”;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a separate License of Land for Temporary Use and Access for a further term beyond April 30, 2023 and under substantially the same terms and conditions as found in the agreement attached in Appendix “D”; and,

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

  1.    Dearness Home Temporary Retention Strategy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, that the following actions be taken with respect to the Dearness Home Temporary Retention Strategy:

a)    the Dearness Home Temporary Retention Strategy BE APPROVED as detailed in section 3.1 of the staff report and that it is to be implemented retroactive from January 1st, 2022 and will remain in place up to March 31, 2022;

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

c)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into and/or amending a Memorandum of Agreement with UNIFOR, and SEIU Local 1 Canada (“SEIU”) respectively;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal overview from the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

9.2   6th Special Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-03-22 Special SPPC Report 6

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

  1.    Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

                                                                                                                            

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

  1.    (4.1) Temporary Reintroduction of Mask By-law to Limit the Spread of COVID-19

                                                                                                                           

That the communication dated March 20, 2022, from Councillors J. Helmer, S. Turner and M. Cassidy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That second reading of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No.’s 153 and 154, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

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

Bill No. 124

By-law No. A.-8221-82 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 125

By-law No. A.-8222-83 - A by-law to accept the terms and conditions for funding under the Improving Monitoring and Public Reporting of Sewage Overflows and Bypasses Program between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and any future amending agreements. (2.5/4/CWC)

Bill No. 126

By-law No. A.-8223-84 - A by-law to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and any future amending agreements. (2.6/4/CWC)

Bill No. 127

By-law No. A.-8224-85 - A by-law to approve a limiting distance agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and Chantal Jacoba McQueen and Paul Matthew McQueen for the property at 34 Princeton Terrace and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner. (2.8b/5/PEC)

Bill No. 128

By-law No. A.-8225-86 - A by-law to accept the farmland lease bids for Request for Tender No. 2022-018, and approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreements with each successful proponent. (2.3/4/CSC)

Bill No. 129

By-law No. A.-8226-87 - A by-law to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Licence Renewal Agreement. (2.5/4/CSC)

Bill No. 130

By-law No. A.-8227-88 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Hutton House Association for Adults with Disabilities, to create a Food Hub at Cavendish Park, 136 Cavendish Crescent, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.3/4/CPSC)

Bill No. 132

By-law No. C.P.-1284(ws)-89 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 600 Oxford Street West. (3.2b/6/PEC)

Bill No. 133

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wt)-90 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 1420 Hyde Park Road. (3.3a/6/PEC)

Bill No. 134

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bc)-91 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 600 Oxford Street West. (3.2a/6/PEC)

Bill No. 135

By-law No. C.P.-1576-92 - A by-law to deem a portion of Registered Plan No. 33M-251 not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13. (2.7/5/PEC)

Bill No. 137

By-law No. L.S.P.-3500-93 - A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the Dingman Drive improvements project. (2.3/11/CSC- 2021)

Bill No. 139

By-law No. S.-6170-94 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Viscount Road east of Andover Drive) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Viscount Road)

Bill No. 140

By-law No. S.-6171-95 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Queens Ave, east of Richmond St; and as widening to Ridout St, north of King St) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, pursuant to the Bus Rapid Transit Downtown Loop project)

Bill No. 141

By-law No. S.-6172-96 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Southdale Rd W and Colonel Talbot Rd) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, pursuant to the Southdale Road West Widening Infrastructure project)

Bill No. 142

By-law No. S.-6173-97 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Main Street, east of Colonel Talbot Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes registered as ER1380847 pursuant to SPA20-041 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 143

By-law No. W.-5569(b)-98 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5569-376, as amended, entitled, “A by-law to authorize the Wharncliffe Road Widening (Project No. TS1355-1) (City Treasurer)

Bill No. 144

By-law No. W.-5682-99 - A by-law to authorize the Victoria Bridge Bike Lanes (Project TS1745) (2.6/3/CWC)

Bill No. 145

By-law No. W.-5683-100 - A by-law to authorize the East London Link – Construction Rapid Transit (Project RT1430-3A) (2.7/3/CWC)

Bill No. 146

By-law No. Z.-1-223007 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street, 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street and 124 Colborne Street. (2.5/5/PEC)

Bill No. 147

By-law No. Z.-1-223008 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road. (2.6/5/PEC)

Bill No. 148

By-law No. Z.-1-223009 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 655-685 Fanshawe Park Road West. (3.3/5/PEC)

Bill No. 149

By-law No. Z.-1-223010 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 1985 Gore Road. (2.4/6/PEC)

Bill No. 150

By-law No. Z.-1-223011 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 600 Oxford Street West. (3.2c/6/PEC)

Bill No. 151

By-law No. Z.-1-223012 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1420 Hyde Park Road. (3.3b/6/PEC)

Bill No. 152

By-law No. Z.-1-223013 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 6756 James Street. (3.4/6/PEC)

Bill No. 153

By-law No. A.-8228-101 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Michael Oreskovic, for the partial acquisition of property located at 190 Edinburgh Street, further described as Part of Lots 36 to 41 on Plan 56(W) in the City of London, County of Middlesex and being Part of PIN 082500107 (LT).  (6.1/4/CSC)

Bill No. 154

By-law No. A.-8229-102 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale 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 to purchase the lands legally described as Part of Lot 37, Concession 2, in the City of London, Middlesex County, Designated as Parts 5, 6 on Plan 33R-20757 being Part of PIN 08209-0179 (LT) & to authorize and approve the License of Land for Temporary Use and Access 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 lands legally described as Part of Lot 37, Concession 2, in the City of London, Middlesex County, Designated as Part 7 on Plan 33R-20757 being Part of PIN 08209-0179 (LT) and to secure the temporary. (6.2/4/CSC)

9.2.2   (4.1) Temporary Reintroduction of Mask By-law to Limit the Spread of COVID-19

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated March 20, 2022, from Councillors J. Helmer, S. Turner and M. Cassidy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:44 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 0 minutes)

Audio test from council chambers. I can hear ya. Thank you. Colleagues, can I have screens on for quorum check for coming back into session?

I have quorum. I will note for those joining the council meeting live stream, I was required to call the council meeting to order during the end of our SPPC meeting this afternoon. It went over time and into the regular start time of council. So the meeting has already been called to order and I am simply reconvening that.

That being said, I do want to read out a statement that says the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing for advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca four, five, one, nine, six, six, one, two, four, eight, nine, extension, two, four, two, five. Colleagues, I’ll now look for disclosures of pecuniary interest for council today. Okay, seeing none, if there are ones that you discover as we work our way through the agenda, you can certainly declare those at the time.

I’m now going to move into recognitions. There are a couple of recognitions that I’m going to make. I’m going to stand up for those. So before we begin, I want to acknowledge Saturday’s attack on the Dell, our Darau-To-Weed Islamic Center in Mississauga will also extending our thoughts and support to those impacted.

As we know, this event is likely to have triggered legitimate and understandable fear and anxiety for a number of Londoners as a result of the terrorist attack experienced by our community last June. In my role as acting mayor on the morning of the attack in Mississauga, I reached out to our local Muslim community leadership on behalf of council and on behalf of the city of London to reconfirm our continued and unwavering support. We will continue to stand with members of our Muslim community in both times a great joy, periods of deep sorrow, and all of the moments queen. I also want to use this opportunity today to make clear in no uncertain terms that we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and all people of Ukrainian descent.

Of Vladimir Putin’s unpertivoked and ruthless military invasion of Ukraine began one month ago this coming Thursday. During that time, we have watched in both horror and awe as Ukrainians, of all ages and backgrounds have risked everything to fight for their freedoms and defend their sovereignty. Under the worst circumstances, they have also managed to inspire millions around the world. We’re also reminding us how we sometimes take our own democracies for granted.

In the weeks since the invasion, Londoners have donated money, supplies, and goodwill in overwhelming numbers. As the conflict continues with no signs of ending soon, in the city of London, and if asked by the federal government, we stand ready to welcome those fleeing their homes, jobs, schools, and friends. It is not something that, it is not only something we are well positioned to do, but it is the right thing to do. London continues to be a home, temporary or permanent for those fleeing situations like is occurring in the Ukraine.

And given the strength of our local Ukrainian community, we are well positioned to stand in support of them as Ukrainians are expected to come here at some point in the future. So while we wait for that time, we certainly will all pray for peace and pray for the people of Ukraine. Those are the recognitions I have. I’ll turn it over to Councilor Palosa for another one.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. It is with sadness. I recognize two members of our community who recently passed.

The first being Eugene Morrison. Gene’s a resident in War 12 and a longstanding family and holding a farm set out in the south end. He had a long employment with the government of Canada. He was a proud engineer who worked in that aero airplane.

But my past with Gene and his commitment to the local community focused around environmentalism as he served for years on the public liaison committee of the W-12A Landfill. As a staunch environmentalist, his insights were treasured. And I have no doubt that his wife Sue will continue to be involved as they were a magnificent couple that I was lucky to know. In London has offered a loss with his passing.

My second one is to recognize former Councillor Ed Corrigan. Councillor Corrigan served on London City Council from 2000 to 2003. He was certified and had got his bachelor’s from Western University. His law degree from Western University.

And he specialized in citizenship and immigration law and immigration and refugee protection in London and throughout Southwestern Ontario. While on council, he also served on the Upper Thames Conservation Authority, the Lake Huron Water Board as well. Throughout our community, he served on the Board of the Cross Cultural Learning Center. And with neighborhood legal services, and he has served on the Board of the King Club of London, as will be greatly missed in our community for his longstanding contribution and involvement across many sectors, helping many Londoners.

I would ask at this time for a moment of silence to recognize both Mr. Ed Corrigan and Mr. Eugene Morrison. Colleagues, thank you for the recognition.

Councillor Closa, thank you for those comments. Item three is a review of confidential matters to our, sorry, a review of a confidential matters to be discussed in public. There are none. Item four, council in closed session.

This is where I require a change of order motion to move item four, council in closed session. And the third report of council in closed session to after stage 13 bylaws. I’ll look for a move in a second to do that. Councillor Palosa, Councillor Van Mirbergen, we’ll open that vote in the system.

Councillor Van Holst, close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Minutes. Item 5.1, I require a motion to approve the minutes held on the meeting of February 15th, 2022.

Councillor Van Mirbergen, Councillor Hillier. Any discussion? Four changes. We’ll open the approval of the minutes in the system as well.

Mr. Presiding Officer, I’m not sure if the vote is open yet, but my brain in East crime never stopped saying voting in progress after the last vote was closed. So I’m not sure if there’s something going on. So I can advise that the vote for the minutes did come up.

I would suggest perhaps refreshing, but if you wanted to cast your vote for this matter, we can do that manually. Councillor, this has happened to be before. Try clicking on the voting in progress at the top. It should reopen the vote that it was in progress.

Thank you. It did finally work, but I had done that a couple of times and wasn’t working, but now it’s all good. Thank you. Thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, for additions, we need to deal with item 6.1 and 6.2 separately. These are expropriations and initiations of expropriations. For colleagues who recall, this is a couple of steps in a process of competing as the expropriations committee and moving through the motions.

So we’re gonna proceed through that. In item 6.1, step one is as the approving authority, we are going to convene as the approving authority. So I need a mover and a seconder to do so for the purpose of the expropriation of those lands on Dingman Drive. Councillor Amu, seconded by Councillor Fife-Milar.

Any discussion or questions? That’ll open on the screen. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, great to ask the clerk question.

And now I’m gonna read it all because his answer was yes. As the expropriating authority, I should read out the entire motion. So I’m going to read the motion that I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, environment and infrastructure with concurrence of the director, transportation mobility on the advice of the director of realty services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the known project as Dingman Drive improvements.

A, the council and a city of, corporation of the city of Lenin as the approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act, RSO 1990, E26 as amended here by approves. The proposed expropriation of land as described in schedule A as appended to the staff report dated March 22nd, 2022 here too. In the city of Lenin County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making the decision are as follows. One, the subject lands are required by the corporation of the city of Lenin for the Dingman Drive improvements project.

Two, the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor. Three, the design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for the Dingman Drive improvements project approved by municipal council at the meeting held May 21st, 2019. And B, subject to the approval of A, a certificate of approval be issued by the city of clerk on behalf of the approving authority prescribed in form. It being noted that a single request for a hearing of a necessity was received but withdrawn in February of 2022.

Mover and a seconder for that please. Dingman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any discussion on this as the approval authority? Okay, then I’m gonna call the vote.

Councillor Cassidy. Sorry, I vote yes, my system is messed up. I got kicked out of Zoom and now I’m not in East scribe either. So, manually yes.

Very good, closing the vote. Motion carries. Okay, now I need a motion that the meeting may be adjourned and that municipal council reconvene in regular session. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Mirberg and any discussion?

No, oh, it’s adjourned. We’ll put that in the system. Councillor Turner, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Good news ‘cause council is the expropriation authority. I don’t have to read out the next motion. It’s in your package. It’s item 6.2.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Palosa, any discussion on this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Okay, I’m going to look for a motion of 0.3 and 6.4 to have those items put in the appropriate sections in the agenda. Those are communications related to a couple of items we’re dealing with today. I need a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Cassidy.

Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that in the system. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, there are no motions which notice is given.

We’re on to reports. And the first report we’ll start with is the fourth report of the Corporate Services Committee. And I will turn it over to Chair, Councillor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

I have item seven on our agenda. That was 4.1, the election signed by a lot of updates that I have a request to pull from Councillor Cassidy. She has a proposal to make on that. Everything else was supported unanimously by committee.

There were no divided votes. So I will put items one through six and item eight on the floor. Okay, any discussion on those items that are on the floor? Councillor Vanuels.

Thank you. And through you and the committee chair, with regard to number four, which is the crest for tender for their revenue from lease and city owned farmland. I think these are three year contracts. And I wondered what would happen if Council decided to use that land or perhaps break that lease if there’s a way to get out of it if we had some other municipal purpose for one of those properties.

Good to our staff for the answer to that one. I’m unsure on who’s gonna stick handle that one, but look to our staff to comment on the Councillor’s question. Through you, Deputy Mayor, it’s Bill Warner, Director of Realty Services. I can answer that question.

Thanks, go ahead, Mr. Warner. Yes, so when negotiating the lease agreements, standard policy is we do provide for termination provisions if there is a reason to just continue with the lease. However, there would be compensation for things like crop loss and other damages if necessary.

So there is a provision that does protect the municipality in those instances, thank you. All right, thanks, Councillor. Any other questions on the items that are on the floor before us? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those items for voting.

Please, in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will now put item six on the floor. This is the election sign by-law update. There were a couple of divided votes at committee on particulars of this, although the committee did end up passing what was ultimately agreed upon, but I believe Councillor Cassidy has an amendment she would like to propose. Thanks, Councillor.

I believe it’s item seven. Oh, sorry, item seven, yes. And Councillor Cassidy, I got your hand up, so I’ll go to you. Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor. So I had proposed a couple of amendments at committee. One failed on a tie and one failed on a vote of two to four, but I have spoken to Councillor Lewis and we talked about amending or making a slight change to my amendment. So the clerk has the wording, I believe, and I unfortunately don’t have my email back up again.

Let me pull it off quickly because I was having system issues. No, it doesn’t want me to get into my email. So what I had proposed as a, the first amendment was that no person shall permit or shall place a permit to be placed on an election sign for municipal election, except an election sign which is placed on a campaign office or on the property on which the campaign office sits, provided consent of the owner of the property and obtained and furnished to an enforcement officer upon demand no earlier than nomination day. So I would like to reintroduce that amendment, but with a slight change and an exception to that being not only a campaign office, but also private property.

So it would allow, say, Mrs. Morgan to put her son’s election sign on her lawn when she felt it was appropriate to do so, as long as your nomination papers were filed. So I know that Councillor Lewis and I had worked on some wording and it has been sent to the clerks. Unfortunately, I can’t see it in front of me because of my email issues going on right now.

I’m gonna have the clerk read it out and then he’s gonna take him just a second to put it up in the system so others can see. Once people have seen it, I can ask for a seconder on that. The unedited draft wording that we were provided was that section 3.2 be amended to no person shall place or permit to be placed an election sign for a municipal election, accept an election sign, which is placed on a campaign office or private property, a earlier than nomination day in the year of a regular election. Okay, we’re gonna get that up in the system momentarily for you.

Councillor Casty would like to move that amendment and Councillor Lewis is willing to second it. Okay, so discussion on that amendment colleagues. Go to Councillor Van Holst. Thank you.

So just hoping to get an understanding of this, the time in which someone can file their papers, I believe is sometime in May perhaps. Do you have that date? Councillor, I’m just gonna have you hold for one second. I just have to confer with the clerk on an item.

colleagues, I’ll let you know what we’re conferring on. Given there’s a bylaw attached to this too, we have the wording for the motion, but the clerk is just assessing the extent that the bylaw would need to be changed to have that ready for municipal council tonight. So I just wanna understand that so we can decide if this is a proceed today or refer back and have that all taken care of and approved at a future meeting, just so people know what we’re voting on. Certainly if our intent is to make this change, it would be ideal to know whether we’re making it tonight or at a future meeting, given there’s a bylaw portion to this item as well.

Colleagues, I’m just gonna explain what the clerk is identifying to me. There’s certainly a regular election and a by-election. Some of these changes in the bylaw may require a slightly different language to be able to cover all of the situations. It may be if we want to make some changes that we need to send this back through a committee cycle to make sure that we have the proper bylaw attached to it, given the bylaw will come into force.

So if you give me just a minute, the clerk is just conferring with the other staff who supported the development of the bylaw to see the scope of the changes and whether it’s their recommendation that we, if we’re supportive of this, that we send it back through committee cycle to make sure that the bylaw is all clean and crisp and very functional given it will be used this year in the municipal election, obviously. Councillor Castean, Councillor Lewis says, the mover and seconder, I’m just gonna give you a little information. The clerk said it’s ideal for us to make sure that we get the bylaw right. There is a CSC meeting next week.

One of the options, if you’re looking to make a number of changes, the bylaws that came through committee is to refer it to that committee meeting next week to have staff bring forward a draft with the proposed changes that you’re looking to have incorporated into that. That way we can do the double check at committee, make sure the bylaws all right, run it through the committee and bring it back to council in time before the election cycle starts and the bylaw would come into need and effect. So that would be the recommendation that we would make. So I would ask if you could withdraw the amendment and move that towards a referral motion to next week.

And I think it would be advantageous to have some direction on what you would like to see in the renewed draft in that motion so that that can be all prepared and committee can debate it. Councillor Castean, you’re the mover, I’ll go to you. Okay, thank you. As long as that’s not going to, I know the meeting is next week if the clerks are and the staff are good, that we will still have the bylaw finished in time and they’re good with that.

I got a thumbs up from the clerk who is liaising with all the other members. I’m not sure if all their thumbs are up too. There might be a little ways up, but the clerk says yes, so I’m confident in them then. So Mr.

Presiding Officer, then I will change my motion to refer back to staff to prepare an amended draft bylaw that would amend section 3.2 as we earlier discussed and also to amend section 3.4 to change that from 96 hours to 72 hours. And that’s the amount of time that signs would need to be collected. Councillor Lewis, you’re okay to second that. Okay, we’re going to get that wording, right?

Well, we have the debate and discussion on this. So this is now a referral back to have a draft bylaw at CSC next week with those two changes incorporated into it. Councillor Van Holst, do you have your hand up? And I’m sorry, I was conferring with the clerk when you spoke earlier.

I apologize for cutting you off, but now I just wanted to make sure we got the right process so that we can get this done. Go ahead. Thank you. And no problem, we’re proceeding with the right process.

My question and concern was that we could have, because of the amendment, counselors could have signs out as early as May, say, May 2nd or May 3rd, while the provincial election is going on and doesn’t conclude, I think until June 2nd. So that might be some confusion out there. Is that what would happen as a result of this, as a result of the change? Yes, I see Councillor Lewis has his hand up.

So I’ll let him comment on that as he’s discussed it with the mover. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to Councillor Van Holst and to all colleagues, really the intent of what Councillor Cassidy and I are suggesting here is that the large majority of the complaints we get about sign placement, site line obstructions, those are coming from public property.

And there’s a great appetite to reduce sign pollution on public property. Where we don’t get the complaints is people putting a sign on their lawn for the person that they’ve chosen to support. Whether that’s the chair’s mother who happens to be a resident of his ward, or whether that’s my brother or Councillor Hamou’s sister or whomever that might be. In terms of placing them out, Councillor Van Holst through the chair, certainly there could be some overlap.

We, however, don’t control the timing of provincial elections. And so we wouldn’t be able to craft a by-law that would prohibit, at least in my opinion, that would prohibit an overlap. We have a federal minority. Theoretically, an election call could come next week.

Hope it doesn’t, but that’s not something that we can really craft a by-law around. So the intent here is to allow personal freedom, at least that’s my opinion, in terms of the private homeowner. There may be people, certainly I would say for myself, I would want to wait ‘til the provincial election is over before putting my signs out, but I think that would be up to the individual candidates to choose. So I hope that helps Councillor Van Holst in terms of responding to your question there.

Councillor Van Holst, I’ll go back to you. Okay, thank you. So at the meeting, I believe we changed the rules a little bit so that on public property, signs could be put out a couple of weeks before nomination day. Is that still in effect?

Is that part of the by-law with these amendments? I’ll go to the chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and no Councillor Van Holst, this would, the language in the subsection A would restore the public signs to nomination day before they can go out.

Right, thank you. Well, I understand what’s on there and happy to discuss it or think about it further at the til the meeting at corporate services next week. Other discussion? I’m gonna get the language up before I call the votes.

If the mover and seconder could just read the language as they see it, if you refresh your screen, so make sure you’re okay with that. If you are, and there’s no further questions, I see a thumbs up from one, but let me know when you are Councillor Cassidy and then I’ll just ask if there’s any further questions by colleagues, and then if there aren’t, I’ll open the vote. Any further discussion? Councillor Cassidy, go ahead.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I just noticed at the last second, it’s actually changing from 96 to 72, not the other way around. It’s already at 96, so the amendment is to change it to 72, the B part. Clerk says he’s making that change.

Thank you. That’s exactly why you wanna get these things right through committee because that would have been a significant difference. So thanks for catching that, Councillor Cassidy. We’ll also have another chance if this passes to take another run at it through committee.

We’ll say what we’re waiting. My mom would be completely embarrassed that we were talking about her lawn or her political leanings, which I hope is for me, but it’s a secret ballot, so who knows? Okay, it should be proper now if everybody refreshes their screen. Looks like it says on mine from 96 to 72, okay?

Everybody’s good with that, no further questions. All right, let’s open this referral for voting. Councillor Halmer. I’m in favor.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. That concludes the fourth report of the Corporate Services Committee. Thank you, 8.2, fourth report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll turn it over to the chair, Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to present the fourth report of the Civic Works Committee. I have not been given notice to pull anything for committee’s information.

Everything was unanimous vote from committee with no amendments having been made to anything. Chair is putting everything on the floor. Anybody have any questions or discussion? Mr.

Chair, if no one’s putting anything, can I actually introduce the— Absolutely. Oh, Councillor Hopkins, are you looking to pull something? No, just make a comment. Okay, I’ll go to the chair first to make some comments and I’ll come to you next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The key items in this were the mobility master plan appointing a consultant’s recognizing this will be a big plan and undertaking for the city in an important part in this work. Item 4.1 was the act of transportation funds.

This is a time sensitive one to go in to get agreement with the other levels of government for it to $4.5 million and the projects have been identified within this report. Some debate around this one at committee and through the community wanting to know more information about these projects being the Stony Creek TVP, South Branch Extension for the TVP, so Meadow Lily Woods area, the Hyde Park Rotary Trail Extension and Mugg Creek Trail. Earlier last night’s information package did come from staff to your inboxes for all the council with maps attached where you can actually see the areas that they’re looking at realizing no detailed plans have been done yet and it’s still up for community feedback. And I believe Councilor Hillyer has posted those, that information as well to the Meadow Lily Woods Facebook group for the community can start getting a handle on this and provide their Councilor with feedback.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. And I just want to speak to the number eight, 4.1 on the Active Transportation Fund. And my thanks to staff for getting the maps to us. I know there was a request there and really appreciate seeing the maps and where these projects may go.

And I know the timelines were very short, so thanks to staff to get all this together. I also want to advise the community too that there will be public participation process through especially the two large projects, the Stony Creek and the South Branch TVP as well, which is really important. There’s a lot of questions in the community and it’s really important to have that public participation process throughout the project. So my thanks again.

Thanks, Councilor. I’ll go to Councilor Cassidy next. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to say thanks to staff for the Active Transportation Project report. And thank you to the other levels of government for this funding as well. It’s so important and allows us to do these kinds of active transportation projects that might be seen as nice to have. When we’re wrestling with our multi-year budget every four years and we’re trying to keep property taxes low for the residents of London.

So being able to do these kinds of projects, it adds so much value to the lives of the citizens of London. So that Northern connection of Stony Creek, the Stony Creek TVP just last year, or just during the pandemic was when, last year was during the pandemic, when two connections were made across Stony Creek to allow the path to connect between Richmond and Adelaide Street. So two bridges were actually put in place so that land that the city already had access to could be connected without our having to acquire additional land. So that’s the reason for the bridges and also made the most sense in that particular connection.

That path is so, so well used. And especially when lockdown first happened, people couldn’t wait for those bridges to be installed. And now to see this connection providing a connection from Windermere directly to this, the same network of the TVP that exists. It’s, it is so well used and it is so loved by the community.

It is, it’s very valuable and I know the ultimate goal is to have complete connectivity throughout the city, all four corners of the Thames Valley Parkway. When that happens, that will be a really great day for London, but seeing staff chip away at these gaps bit by bit and their tenacity and relentlessness and ensuring that this connectivity actually finally happens one day is heartening. And I’m really glad for the people that live in the area to see these kinds of connections. They really do love them.

So thank you so much. Thanks, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m going to very briefly comment on the active transportation fund as well. I want to thank Ms. Sharon or team for, for getting us those maps yesterday so that we could take a look at them. It was a great opportunity for me to respond to a few folks in my ward who were concerned about trails going through medullally woods and potential paving of those.

And of course, on the maps, the preferred route shows that it’s going to actually come up medullally road south. And then there are two potential eastward connections into the city wide sports park. And I think both of those are viable options that stay outside the ESA. These connections are important, but so too are our ESA’s.

And I’m really glad that the options that are being put forward here in the maps right now is the preferred, knowing that the detailed design still has to be done won’t compromise any further the integrity of the medullally woods ESA. And I want to take this opportunity to underscore what Councilor Cassidy just said too. I know that people struggle with why is money being spent on this at a time when there’s so many other pressing needs. But when funds come from a senior level of government that allow us to take an infrastructure project like this off of our own capital costs and have Canada fund it rather than the city fund it fully, that’s actually a win for property taxpayers.

And people should make no mistake. If we say no to these funds, another community will happily take what we don’t take. So it’s not a matter of take this money and spend it on something else. That’s not allowed.

And it’s not a question of don’t do it and somehow the nation is going to save tax dollars because those funds will just roll out to another community. It’s important to me that London gets its fair share. I know this was a very short turnaround time for our staff. And there wasn’t a lot of opportunity for a huge amount of consultation, but these were all projects that were on the books anyway for future development.

And so the fact that we can move them ahead a little bit early is good news. And thanks to our federal partners for helping out with some of this funding. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Chair.

I just want to speak to the one item on here, the Mud Creek Trail connection. About a year into my term at office, I had a wonderful visit with a lady who lives near this pathway. And we went for a walk along. It goes along the creek.

It was very overgrown, uncapped. I don’t think many people even knew this pathway existed. It’s a very important connection because it actually cuts across the southwest corner of Oxford and Wonderland, connecting Oxford farther down the Wonderland with allowing pedestrians and cyclists to not have to go through that very busy corner. Also on our walk, this is really a pretty creek.

So I did work with staff to advise them of the benefits of enhancing this pathway. Challenge was to find funding and of course COVID delayed things. So I’m very happy to see this making use of the funding available. It’s a connection for my ward down to the TVP, which even though a lot of my ward borders on the river, TVP is on the other side of the river.

So inaccessibility to that pathway for cyclists and pedestrians can be a challenge. So this goes towards that accessibility. So I want to thank staff for working hard to get this included in this round of funding. Any further comments?

Okay, that’s been, well, it’s the entire community report, although there were comments on numerous items, is on the floor by the chair. I will open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Next on our list is the fifth report of the PPC committee meeting.

This was one that I chaired back earlier in March. I’ll have Councillor Lewis present this report given I’m chairing this meeting. Thank you, Chair. And through you, we did have two divided votes at this SPPC item six, the 4.1 on the committee agenda, the development charge area, rating policy review.

And we do have an added DC study from our staff on there. So that one is going to be pulled to be dealt with separately. And item 10, the Palace Theater Arts Commons Loan Forgiveness Business case was also a divided vote on section B of that vote. So I’ll pull that one as well.

As I know, Councillor Van Mierberg and voted differently and provide that opportunity to him again tonight to do so. I’ll put the rest of the items on the floor. Would anybody like anything else pulled out of that particular package of items aside from the two that the Councillor noted? Comments and questions on the package of items that has been moved by Councillor Lewis?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins. It’s not coming up, I will vote yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Councillor Lewis. Item six, 4.1 from the committee agenda. That’s the development charge area, rating policy review. This was a referral back to our staff.

Since then, we’ve had an added communication from our staff and I would suggest perhaps if Mr. Yeoman or another member of our staff wish to speak to this, that it might be an opportunity to highlight the added communication on our agenda. Ms. Barbara.

Thank you through the chairs. So I’m happy to start and if Mr. Yeoman would like to go through. So we’ve provided, we had heard from a number of Councillors that additional clarity would certainly be helpful to provide a little bit more background on development charges in general and specific to the area ratings.

So we believe that the slide deck that we’ve provided in your package this evening provides a little bit more context and understanding of the broader development charge framework that might be useful as you consider this report. Certainly from our perspective, really just, I’m not gonna walk through the report, but I think certainly it does give a little bit of information specific to area rating and what works well in terms of trying to put an area rating in place. Certainly it is one of those things that area rating is most defensible when there is clear identifiable areas where servicing is not required and therefore it’s unreasonable to charge a levy. So that is certainly one of the things that we took into account.

When the consultants did their study and looking for opportunities that levies may differ and would allow us to charge a different area rate based on the infrastructure that is there. The purpose of development charges is specifically to recover funding to support growth infrastructure investments that are driven by a growing and expanding city. It’s not typically used as a planning tool to promote desired forms of development. So there’s very clear things within the development charges act that we can do and need to be mindful of so that we can properly support any changes that are or rates that may differ.

So hopefully that is helpful and provides a little bit of additional community to the council. For questions and comments on this. Councilor Turner. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. It’s for you to staff, perhaps to Mr. Yeoman. And thanks for preparing this for us since the last SPPC to helpful information.

One of the components that this talks about is an area rating. And Ms. Brebonne talked about this a second ago too. It’s helpful for areas that are discreet in their use of servicing or it can be clearly identified where those servicing costs can be attributed directly to that area.

Are there areas of development within the city that are current or proposed that might fit those characteristics and thinking things like the old Victoria development area, things that are on the periphery that tend to be generally isolated from the rest of the network that could be identified as discreet from the remainder of the municipality servicing and the impacts that it might have collected. Mr. Yeoman. Through you, Mr.

Presiding Officer, during our review, we did investigate whether there were actual areas that we could hive off and determined that we could develop a discreet charge for them. Unfortunately, we have determined that there aren’t those areas that do exist anymore. Some of the servicing for the old Victoria hospital lands you mentioned has already been identified and booked and committed for. But one area that probably would have been a candidate at the time could have been the Southwest area of the city given the large amount of investment that was required in that area.

That was somewhat discreet from the rest of the city. But as it’s been evolving and the infrastructure is being installed, it’s part of the network broader now and we don’t think that we can actually hive off certain areas to develop any grades. Councillor. It’s true, Mr.

Saudi and Officer, thank you. It wasn’t the old Victoria hospital lands. It was the old Victoria, what’s it called to the road kind of meta-lily and that area out to the east on commissioners. That’s being expanded upon there.

It tends to be fairly discreet from everything else as it grows because it doesn’t seem to be as connected to. It’s got the river that intersects it. It’s got commissioners. There’s no growth to the south at the present but there will be over time as those lands start to expand out to the east and fill out that area to those count as well.

Mr. Galway. Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

It’s a very good question and it sort of goes to the nature to about the long-term nature of DC recovery as well. So for a lot of the servicing that’s provided for that area is actually installed back in the 1990s. I think many will recall the tunnel that was installed under the Thames and the infrastructure that was provided there as well. So over time we’re recovering for debt for our previous investments and we’re also making sure that we’re sort of having a long-term recovery for it so that people are making a contribution to growth costs.

Even though development does take sometimes a longer period to occur in an area than a five year window, for example. Thank you, I appreciate the responses. I appreciate the amount of work that’s gone into getting this background information for us and the amount of work to do the report in general. Development financing is complex.

It has a significant impact on the way we finance our growth within the city. I will disagree with Ms. Perpone a little bit. It is quite a valid potential policy tool to be able to use to help direct growth a little bit.

It’s not used as that, but it can be. And especially as we’re taking a look at things through our climate lens, this is an opportunity for us to do this. So I completely recognize the entanglements that are associated with how the servicing happens. I can’t support the recommendation.

I’m gonna vote against it, but I do understand that the basis for the recommendation. And I don’t disagree with the basis for it, but this is two kicks at the can for us so far that I’ve been on council for us to start moving towards some area ratings. And in my feeling, we just haven’t gotten far enough on that. Councilor Lewis, thank you, Chair.

And I just, this can potentially be a little complicated. I just wanna make sure that folks are clear on what they will be voting on. So at committee, what was passed was a referral back to civic administration. That is still the motion that’s on the floor is a referral back for further study and development.

Since committee, we’ve had an additional report come from staff, which was appended to our agenda tonight, which was what Ms. Barbone went over very briefly. With us here, everybody has had a chance to read it. So I just wanna be clear, if you vote no, you’re voting against referring it to staff for further work.

And then we wouldn’t have a recommendation from committee and a new motion would have to be put on the floor, which might be to support staff’s original recommendation. It might be something completely different. If you vote yes, then we’re referring this back to staff for additional work before they bring it back to us. So I just wanna be clear that right now what’s on the floor is a referral as recommended by committee.

That’s correct, Councillor, I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Councillor Lewis for clarifying that ‘cause it does get a little complicated. If you are supporting the referral back, I have question through you, Mr. Presiding Officer to I assume Mr.

Yeoman, with the heart of this referral, would we be also taking the opportunity to review other planning tools that could be used to encourage intensification and infill opportunities? Mr. Yeoman. Thank you through you.

So the nature of the referral back was scoped exclusively to the DC recommendation that was before you. So I think that perhaps Mr. Mathers might be able to speak to some of the other work that’s ongoing related to other tools, but it’s outside the scope of what’s before our committee right now, our council right now, sir. Hey, thank you.

Councillor Homer. Thank you, speaking to the recommendation, I find the report from staff, the sort of update to the council meeting is basically communicating the information that I wanted to see from the referral in the first place, which is what is the magnitude of what could be adjusted if we were to pursue storm in particular and seeing the numbers, you know, need $200 to $300 per unit. I don’t think that that’s worth pursuing myself. I think that that would be a lot of work to undertake could be subject to appeal and then the grand scheme of things is not enough of a change to probably impact the decision making of people who are planning out development projects, nor is it really solving any kind of huge inequity in the existing system, you know, moving 1% from this side to that side.

It’s just not a very big change in the overall scheme of things. So I think the issues that exist in the current DC bylaw and how we intensify within the built area boundary and encourage that are better dealt with outside of the area rating process. I think it’s important that we looked at it. I think, you know, I’m very concerned about the idea still of planning out what would area rating look like for servicing outside the urban growth boundary.

And so I’m not going to support that part of the recommendation that came from staff. But the other part, which is to go ahead with the area rating inside outside the urban growth boundary, which we’ve had in place for a while, I think based on the numbers that I was seeing here from the update, I’m happy to support that for the time being. I think that’s the right thing to do now, given the magnitude of what we’re talking about, even if we were to pursue storm, you know, all the way to the limit, I just don’t think it’s significant enough to warrant extra work in the potential appeals to the overall DC bylaw, which could come good about. So I never say I didn’t change my mind.

I don’t think we’re referrals necessary anymore. And I really appreciate the work of staff to turn this around and just give us a rough cut of what the potential shift might be. So I’m going to vote against the referral and I’m happy to support the first two parts of that recommendation, but not the third part of the staff recommendation. So we could call that separately if we get to that.

Yeah, so all that colleagues know, if it gets to that, our staff are prepared to bring the information on the original recommendation forward for council’s consideration and we can certainly go over the three components that were contained within that and divide it separately if colleagues would like that. That is, of course, if the referral is defeated and I will continue to debate on that referral. And I don’t see anymore. So this is the motion on the referral which was the committee’s recommendation that I will open for voting.

Councillor Hopkins, closing the vote. Motion fails, one to 12. Well, at this time, look for someone to put an alternate on the floor, Councillor Lewis. I’ll put the original staff recommendation on the floor, Mr.

Chair, and understanding that I know Councillor Helmer is going to want these called separately. I have a seconder and Councillor layman’s put up is two for a second. I’m going to give me one second. colleagues, just because this happened, I think it was, was it March 8th or something?

I’m just going to have the clerk read three components. We will deal with them separately, but I want colleagues to be well aware of what the motion is on the floor now, just to make sure that you’ve got that before you. So if the clerk could just read what the components of the original staff recommendation are that are now on the floor moved by Councillor Lewis and seconded by Councillor Layman, that would, I think, help us be very clear on what it is. We’re not going to put all three of those up together because they’re going to be voted on separately.

So this will just save us a step. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion reads that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance support, the following actions be taken.

Part A, the attached memorandum from Hemson Consulting, which was Appendix A, on a recommended area rating approach for the 2025 development charges background study, B, received for information. Part B, the civic administration be directed to continue to implement an area rating approach of levying development charges within the urban growth boundary and outside the urban growth boundary for the 2025 development charges background study. And part C, the civic administration be directed to continue a review and analysis of area rating where services need to be extended in order to accommodate anticipated development. Should the urban growth boundary be expanded?

And I will be able to put up each section of that as you require, but the entire motion is loaded into each scribe for members to see. Excellent, thank you. And I believe the request I have right now is to call A and B separate from C. So if everybody’s okay with that, we can proceed with A and B and then C.

Any objections to that? No, I see no one suggesting that’s a problem. So same move or same seconder and we’ll ask you to put A and B up. Any discussion on A and B?

Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open A and B for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. We will now put part C on the floor. Also moved by Councillor Lewis and seconded by Councillor Lehman.

Discussion on part C? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries A. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. The last item on the fifth report of SPPC is item 10. This is the Palace Theatre Commons loan forgiveness. There was a two part motion that was a divided vote on this.

So I’ve pulled this so that Councillor Van Mirberg and should he wish to can vote nay on part B again. But I will put both on the floor and Councillor Van Mirberg and is nodding that he’d like them called separately. So if we can deal with A and B separate. Tell me what 21 to put on the floor for.

I’ll put A on the floor for us. All right, Councillor Lewis is putting A on the floor. In item 10, 5.1, the Palace Theatre Commons loan forgiveness business case, that’s, it’s just a mover ‘cause it’s like a report presentation. Is there any discussion on this?

Okay, we’ll open A for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor. And I will now.

Okay, part P is on the floor. It is moved by the presenting officer there and any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open B for voting. In the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

That concludes the fifth report of SPP. Thank you. Next up we have the fifth report of planning and environment committee. I will turn it over to Chair, Councillor Hopkins to present that report.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. And we have had two planning and environment committee meetings since the last council meeting. The first one I would like to put on the floor is the fifth report with the planning and environment committee.

I’ve heard from no one to pull anything. Hello. Councillor Van Wals, do you want to something dealt with separately? Perhaps number five, hopefully.

Sorry, I think I’m looking at the report number six, one number on the fifth report right now, is that correct? Yeah, we’re on the fifth, Councillor Van Wals. Are you okay with the entire fifth report then? I am.

Okay, does anybody want anything from the fifth report dealt with separately? Okay, then I’ll turn it back over to you, Councillor Hopkins, with the entire fifth report on the floor. Yes, thank you. And we had on the agenda a number of holding provisions to be lifted, as well as a number of heritage alteration permits and no building agreement as well.

And there were a number of three, in fact, public participation meetings, as well as the EPAC report. Right, any comments or questions on the fifth report or items contained contained within? Okay, seeing none, we will open the fifth report of PDC for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Thank you. I’d like to know the planning and environment committee. I have had a request to pull number five, which is 2.4, 1985, Agor Road from Councillor Van Walst. And I would like to also pull number 11, which is James Street.

I’ll be pulling that myself as we’ve received quite a few letters since our meeting. Would anybody else like anything other than those two items dealt with separately? Those are a move. I just wanted to let everybody know that I would have had a conflict with item 3.1, which is what number is that, the regular report?

Right. Yeah, number eight. But I had a, I had contacted legal council and they told me that I was no longer in conflict. My mother moved, so now it’s, we’re clear.

So I can vote on these things. Okay, thank you for that information. Anyone else want anything other than the two items, which is five and 11, dealt with separately? No?

Okay, Councillor Hopkins, the rest are on the floor. I’ll turn it back to you for any comments. And when you’re ready, I can open the vote. Yeah, thank you.

So the sixth report, there were a number of holding provisions. Again, lifted a t-pack report. We did receive the draft Victoria Park Secondary Plan and it is going out for circulation, as well as the update for the LDD MOTH proposed management plan for 2022. We also had a number of public participation meetings.

And with that, I’ll put the rest on the floor. Great, I have one speaker so far in Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say I’m happy to see the Victoria Park Secondary Plan moving along. This is something that’s been in a few years in the making and that’s a good thing because it means a lot of public engagement is taking place as usually happens with these secondary plans that there are areas of great interest to the surrounding community. And then in the case of Victoria Park, it is an area of great interest for the entire city. So I think it’s overdue that we’ve brought this forward as an initiative, I’m happy to see it continuing.

And I’m happy with some of the changes that I’ve noticed in this latest iteration of the draft. So thank you to staff and thank you to everyone in the community who continues to be engaged in this and brings their comments forward, attends meetings and makes sure that their point of view is heard and considered, thank you. Any further comments? Okay, then for all of the items except the two that were excluded, we will open this for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. I do note in the wording to 6, 2.5, I believe that should be 5, 2.4. So you’re saying that change was fine, okay. So we’ll put 5, 2.4 on the floor now by Councillor Hopkins.

I assume you’re good to put that on the floor, Councillor. Okay, and Councillor Van Holst, you wanted to make some comments. Yes, thank you, actually asked a couple of questions through staff and I apologize, I suppose I could give them prior notice for this, but this has been, I’ve had some questions from property owners near this and I was hoping that staff could provide us some information on what’s happening in the future. The concern is how we service River Road because I believe there was a plan previously to extend Scallen Road from River Road to where this property is, 1885 is a storm and perhaps sanitary as well.

So and the property owners were under the impression that that was how they were gonna be serviced. The big issue is storm water and there just seems to be confusion about how will they be dealt with. And so I wonder if staff at this time can provide any insight into what’s gonna happen in the future for the servicing of the River Road properties. Councillors.

The presiding officer, a couple of comments there. So we have worked with the applicant, actually have a site meeting that we’re planning to have with the applicant and their consulting engineer and planning representatives in the near future is just in the next. They’re actually just coordinating that meeting right now. It’s gonna include both staff from the planning and development area, but also staff from the environmental and infrastructure area as well.

So when we’ve taken a preliminary look at this site, it would be extremely difficult to service the lands to the south via the Scanlon Road extension, even if that was something that was gonna be going through. So when we look at it from a storm water perspective, it appears that there is another opportunity to drain some of these lands in the area and we’ll be working directly with the property owners in the area to be able to come up with a solution. Good Councillor. Okay, I think that’s very encouraging to hear.

Thank you very much to staff for that response. Okay, thank you. Any further comments on this particular item? If not, we will open item five, which is 2.4, 1985 core road for voting.

Councillor Halmer. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. A few Councillor Hopkins.

Next up, I’d like to put number 11, which is 3.4. It is a zoning application to facilitate a two-story, 22 unit townhouse complex on 6756 James Street. I think I’m able to speak to it. It was supported by everyone at the planning committee, but I do have a couple of questions.

Sure, so if you’re willing to put it on the floor, I’ll let you go ahead with your questions. Yes, thank you. Colleagues, you could see the amount of letters that we’ve received since the planning committee meeting and there’s still a number of unanswered questions that remains within the community. And I want to take this opportunity to give some clarification.

So through you, Mr. Presiding Officer to staff, my first question is we’ve received a number of letters about the planning and the drawings and the misses of the width amounts and the requirements that basically falsely depicts that this development could proceed. And I would like to ask staff, do we need new concepts or new drawings given? I’m not sure how correct these figures are, but the figures that we have is my first question through you.

This is the, is it gonna be Mr. Barrett perhaps? Yes, Mr. Barrett, if you see her, if not.

Yes, thank you, do you Mr. Presiding Officer? We’ve gone back and we’ve confirmed the dimensions with respect to the widths and I apologize, I’m just trying to pull up the correct diagram right now, but I did actually go back myself and look at it. Just one moment please, I’ve got the, part of the issue was the width across the front and whether or not in fact the units, the driveway and the yard setbacks could all be accommodated.

I actually appear to now have just run into the same problem that Councillor Cassidy had earlier, if you allow me a moment, I’m just gonna try to refresh the screen. The total lot frontage provides an opportunity for a three meter side yard on the first unit adjacent to the property located at 6770 James Street. Then those three units can be accommodated. Then there’s the opportunity for a 1.5 meter sidewalk, 6.7 meter wide driveway, another 1.5 meter sidewalk, and then a 5.7 meter side yard adjacent to the property at 6742.

All of those dimensions are in conformity with zoning. The driveway width meets the site plan requirements for the two way access into the interior of the site and the remainder of the units. I can also confirm with respect to the dimensions that the proposed front yard setbacks align the frontage of the three units that would front on James Street to be consistent with the frontage of the street of the houses on the north side of James Street. They do vary in their frontage, but the frontage of these units would be very close to the setback of the existing property at 6770 James Street, which is the property immediately adjacent to the west.

Also, the dimensions where those units at the north end of the property or the interior of the property, in fact, the first units, the units, both on the west side adjacent to McEckerin School and the units on the east side adjacent to the existing vacant land, actually do not start until they are past the rear yard limits of the adjacent properties. So in summary, the frontage units are consistent with the front yard setbacks along James Street. They’re sufficient with to accommodate both the side yard setback on the west to the unit and there’s sufficient setback to accommodate sidewalks on both sides of the entrance driveway, as well as landscape open space on the east side. And then with respect to the rear yard setbacks, as I said, the units, in fact, don’t start until beyond the rear yards of the adjacent properties to both the east and the west.

So the dimensions of the site do work to accommodate the proposed development. Thank you for that, Mr. Barrett. I think the community needs that clarification because it’s important to know that we as a council need to understand that we’re trying to meet all the conforming requirements to meet the zoning.

And I’m glad to hear that. I know there may be a little bit of confusion. I think one of the changes in the application was to move the front of the buildings at the front to conform to the rest of the front setbacks to the other houses that remain. And that was a slight change, but I think depending on what plans you’re looking at, we need to understand that was the change and it meets the requirements.

My second question is around the drainage and the water issues that still tend to be a concern in the community. And those of you know, one time, I think, was underwater. And I know when we develop, there’s always that question around how we’re gonna deal with the water. And I wanna make sure that we are with this zoning application and needing the drainage and the surface water to hopefully improve the water in this area.

It’s a question just to make sure that we are taking a look at the concerns. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion on this item? If I may, just to sum it up as well.

Sure, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I know we heard from the community about their concerns with the amount of parking that’s going on on James Street with the access from the Lambeth Public School. It’s good to know that we are getting a school in the Lambeth area coming soon.

I hope in the Boswick and Pack Road area. But in the meantime, the community, the neighborhood is going to experience the added construction. And I would like to make a comment about if we can come up with a construction plan that could at least look at having the access come off another road, not just James Street to sort of alleviate the pressure. I know as we move forward with the zoning application there’ll be a site plan application and the community is welcome to reach out to staff or to me to get updates on the site plan process.

And I just want to say on behalf of the community, looking forward to that crossover on Campbell that I know is needed as hopefully the students and teachers could use the baseball parking lot that exists and sort of park there to sort of help balance the concerns in the neighborhood. ‘Cause there’s so much development going on in this neighborhood could see all the subdivisions to the north, we’ve got this townhouse info, but it was supported at planning. It is a low density form of development. And with that, I’ll put the zoning application on the floor.

Okay, thank you. With that, I don’t see anyone else looking to speak on this. So we will open it for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Okay, and I think that wraps up, right? Perfect. Thank you. - Great, thank you.

We’re on to the fourth report of Community and Protective Services Committee. I will turn it over to the chair, Councillor Cassidy to present the report. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I’ve been asked by Councillor Van Holst to pull item 10, which is 4.3 on the committee report. They draft bylaws regarding the distribution of graphic flyers for residential properties. I haven’t been asked to pull anything else, but I see Councillor Van Mirberg and his hand up. Thank you, Councillor Van Mirberg.

Thank you. I do have, I’d like to declare a conflict on 4.1 as my wife operates her own daycare. So I will declare that. Great, we can deal with that separate.

Anyone else looking for something? Don’t separate me. Okay, I’ll turn it back to you, Councillor Cassidy. I will put the remainder of the report.

So that’s everything except for clause eight and clause 10. I will just note that clause seven was a bit of a split vote, but it was the mayor who voted separately from the rest of committee and he’s not here. So we shouldn’t have to pull that separately. It was approved by the committee that we would maintain what is currently in our bylaw for approved foster organizations.

And these are groups that foster animals that don’t currently have a home, whether they are strays or abandoned animals or whatever. On the advice of our staff, veterinarian and our advisory committee on the welfare of animals, welfare advisory committee, animal welfare advisory committee, sorry. Both had asked council not to put a limit because that would limit the number of organizations that are doing these fostering. And also the animals tend to come into a home for a short period of time and then go out to individuals who will take these individual animals either as a long-term companion animal or again as a longer-term foster situation.

So we listened to the experts on this and decided to continue with the current bylaw, which has no limits for the number of animals in these foster situations. So I will put the report on the floor. Okay, is there any comments on everything excluding? Nope, okay, then we’re gonna open that for voting.

Does the vote motion carries 13 to zero? Okay, so I will put clause eight on the floor. And with that, we had a delegation from Ms. Pilac, who’s the executive director of the Oak Park Cooperative Children’s Center and also represents a consortium of childcare operators in the city.

And she came to us and asked that we support their efforts to have the province sign on to the National Daycare Strategy. So the recommendation coming from committee is that the mayor be requested to call in the provincial government to sign the bilateral childcare agreement before March 31st. And what happens after March 31st is that the province would lose a billion dollars in federal funding if that deadline is passed without signing the agreement. The mayor’s also asked in his letter to emphasize the importance of growing the highly trained workforce of early childhood educators in Ontario.

And Councillor Helmer added that the mayor in his letter thank the licensed childcare network for their advocacy. So that was unanimous motion passed by the committee. And I’m happy to put that on the floor. Great, any comments further from colleagues on this?

Seeing none, we’ll open this one item eight, which is 4.1 from the committee report for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero with one recuse. Just gonna note that there’s a number of people who I don’t think are aware that their microphones are unmuted.

So we get some muffling noises as you shuffle things there. So just give a double check and make sure your microphone’s muted if you’re not speaking. Councillor Cassidy, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. That leaves us with item 10 or 4.3 from the committee report. The committee unanimously is recommending to council that city staff that the proposed by-law be introduced as it’s shown in the report. I will put that on the floor.

Councillor Vanholst has asked that to be pulled. Councillor Vanholst. And then I will go to you next, Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair. So looking at this issue, it’s similar to a previous one we spoke about today in that it involves some government overreach, which is something I always hope we can avoid. Looking at the objective arguments against this by-law, it’s not a municipal issue. A remedy already exists.

The remedies being honored. Our by-law will be challenged. The LTC has lost a similar lawsuit. No other municipalities taken this course presumably ‘cause they think they would be defeated if challenged.

The, this puts our tax dollars on the line in terms of the challenge. And we’re gonna be accused of violating the constitution of overstepping our authority, of not acting impartially. And there can be other unintended consequences as well. So I hope that the remaining voters would vote against this.

There was a number of arguments for it that are more subjective. There was the idea that people shouldn’t have to use the trespass to property act in order to protect their rights. And it’s my feeling that people should do that because if you don’t take actions to protect your rights, somebody’s gonna come along and try and take them away, which is exactly what we’re gonna be accused of doing if we pass this. I would also say that if we don’t respect the limits of our office, then people may have a harder time respecting the by-laws to come forth from it.

The, maybe the last thing is that we can try to look at this in the small version of the issue. And that’s just in the graphic nature of these flyers. But when it goes to court, it’s gonna be attached to a much bigger issue, which is of course the pro-life and pro-choice debate. And there’s a number of worldviews that just can’t be homogenized about this.

There’s the people who believe that life begins at birth, people believe that life begins at conception. And then many people believe it begins before that. And I’m referring to the religions that hold the doctor reincarnation. So those kinds of ideas aren’t gonna change just because we implement administrative monetary penalty.

So I don’t think it helps resolve what’s really a dysfunctional debate. I think in our society, so we really need to find ways to come together on this, not push each other further apart. So I prefer that we, as counselors, promote the remedy that’s already existing. And I know that’s something that other communities do as well.

It’s the trespass to property act and do that rather than make London the battleground for a court case and a larger debate that we are likely to lose. So those are my comments. And counselor Hillier on the list, then I have counselor Lewis, Hamou and Turner. Thank you very much.

We’ve all received a lot of communications on this. And I have no problem with people wanting their freedoms expression, but I think there’s a miscommunication that you cannot just display anything you want in public. We have rules, there are rules in place. You can’t put whatever you want on a billboard or add a public participation meeting.

And one of the reasons is some of the material is not suitable for children. They can’t see it because they don’t have the maturity to grasp what’s being presented to them. I’m looking at this issue, the same way pornography was dealt with in variety stories years ago. They were forced to cover graphic nudity and only show the title.

I feel this issue could be treated the same way. This allows anyone who wants to read it simply unwrap it or not. Having an open visible literature on the doorstep eliminates the choice for parents to protect their children from this. And it’s allowing a stranger a right to put whatever they want in front of their kids on the front step.

I don’t believe this is what the freedom of expression is meant. I would like to propose a referral back to staff to explore the possibility of requiring any literature that is being left of the door to require the same public requirements as outdoor displays and even our public participation meetings. Councilor, you’re moving a referral? Is that what you’re asking to do?

Yes. Okay, Councilor Hiller would like to refer this back to staff for the reasons he mentioned. Is there a seconder to do that? Councilor Van Mierbergen.

Councilor, be helpful with your referral motion. You said refer back for these purposes. Can you repeat that again so that we can attach that to the motion so that the referral has some context to it? I’ll refer back to explore the possibility that any literature being left at the door be required to meet the same public requirements as outdoor displays or even our public participation meetings.

I’m not sure I’d like the wording within one of those would probably be appropriate. What governs our outdoor displays and what you can put up and even our public. If we can’t put it in a public— That’s good enough. How can someone put it in the front door?

I got, we got just enough to craft something up. We’ll make sure that you and the second are okay with it but the seconder, do you have a comment? Go ahead, Councilor Van Mierbergen. Yes, thank you Acting Mayor.

I heard the mover Councilor Hiller mention about exploring the possibility of requiring some type of wrap. If we could have that and if it’s agreeable to the mover, also explore when it goes back to staff that they look at the feasibility of having these types of communication, graphic communications in some form of wrap. Okay, just give us a moment to convert that into your referral motion. And then, well, what we do that, I’m gonna have debate on the referral but I will have the referral motion confirmed by both the mover and the seconder before we vote on it.

So Councilor, I have an original speaker’s list. I’m gonna start a new one given we’re on the referral now. So if you were on the original one, I’m gonna hold that for, in case the referral is defeated, I’ll go back to that. But for now I’m gonna start a new list on the referral and I have Councilor Cassidy, I have Councilor Lewis and Councilor Layman so far.

So Councilor Cassidy on the referral. Thank you, Mr. Providing, Presiding Officer. And thank you to you to Councilor Hillier for making this suggestion.

I actually like it. And I wonder if the mover and seconder might add to their referral motion that there be a graphic warning on the outside cover or the envelope or whatever it’s in so that people know before they open it what to expect. Great, okay. I’ll go to the next speaker on the list, which is Councilor Lewis via Councilor Layman, you’re next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I’m, well, I appreciate what Councilor Hillier is suggesting. I quite honestly, having considered this before, don’t think it’s something that we can encapsulate in a by-law and I’m not gonna support the referral.

I think we’ve had a lot of discussion on this. If the referral fails and we get back to the main motion, I’m gonna suggest a slight amendment to what was passed at committee. But this debate has been going on a long time and it’s not going to end today, whether we refer it or whether we pass a by-law, it’s going to continue. But what we’ve heard time and time again is from residents the impact that this is having on their feelings of safety and wellbeing in their own homes.

So I’m gonna encourage people to get to a decision point tonight, let’s not refer this back any further and look for other ways. If in the future we need to look at an alternate solution, let’s look at an alternate solution, but let’s not delay taking some action any further. This has been well, think over a year now in the process and I hope that we’re at a point where we can make a decision. That’s my layman.

Thank you. I think we’re all in agreement here. The images that are seen in this material are disturbing and disgusting. I see that in signs carried and demonstrations outside of the hospitals.

That for me, that’s not the issue. The issue is would such a by-law hold up in court and from what I’ve read from our legal counsel, I have deep concerns about that. So I was looking for a way to proceed here and I think Councilor Hillier might have touched on something. So I have some questions for the city solicitor, probably on advice of the chair, if we should go in and camera.

Well, I guess my question is before we do that, your questions pursuant to you voting for the referral or is that the type of questions that you would have when this comes back? I just wanna be clear that it’s relevant for today and not for the future. My question to the solicitor will be the same lines of information he provided on the original motion. I wanted to follow that up with the solicitor in regards to the referral.

So if you need advice on this, certainly you can request a motion to move into camera to get advice on this. You’ll need a seconder. So I’ll look for that. Councilor Lewis is willing to second.

I see actually all sorts of hands up. Sounds like something that, well, is there any debate on the move to go into camera for legal advice on this? Do you have, I’m just gonna hold to make sure that we have the proper reason and we’re gonna read a reason out. Since this reason isn’t listed on our public agenda before I call any sort of vote on moving into camera.

This’ll just take one second to call colleagues. Mr. Hopkins, are you, your hands up? Yeah, I have a quick question.

I’m trying to get the words for the referral. I’d like to know what we’re talking about here. I know the question is if we go in camera for legal advice, but I just would like to get some substance here to the referral. Just give me one second.

Thank you. Councilor Hopkins and for the rest of colleagues, the wording of the motion is now available in eScribe and that’s a very stewed comment. Councilor Hopkins, given we’re asking legal advice, I’m sure that those given the legal advice will wanna know what the wording of the motion is. So it is up in eScribe and if any colleagues don’t have access to that, we will ensure that you have a copy, but just you’ll have to let us know.

But if you refresh your eScribe screen, you should see the motion as it’s currently constituted. So the clerk is gonna read the reason for going into camera and after that, I will open the vote on going into camera. Thank you and through the acting mayor, the council convene in closed session in order to consider advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege with respect to potential bylaws to regulate the distribution of graphic flyers to residential properties, including requirements for covering, sorry? Councilor Vamereberg and you’re not muted.

Including requirements for covering such as an outer wrap. Okay, that is the reason we’re going into camera. That is what we will talk about in camera, so if everybody needs to be okay with that scope. Okay, then I will call the question on moving into camera to perceive that advice.

Councilor Layman, Councilor Van Holst closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. A few minutes to transition into in-camera colleagues. Colleagues, there’s just a technical issue with bringing the stream back online, it’ll take one more minute to fix, but we want to ensure our debate is live streamed, so we’ll wait. Colleagues, I’m going to check for quorum.

Okay, colleagues, I’m going to explain, the YouTube stream is not back up. We would like to get that back up, given the interest in the meeting today. So let me propose a solution. If we have, I was intending on asking for a recess after this debate concluded.

If we had our recess now, even though we’re in the middle of a debate, I have a speakers list, this issue is not done. I’m sure we can figure out the YouTube by the time we come back, but we can ensure that the remainder of our debate is live streamed on YouTube and not just e-scribe. If it can’t be fixed in that amount of time, we’ll just have to make the call to proceed with just e-scribe. But given it’s my intent to ask for a short break, given how much of the agenda is left still after this, I think that this is probably the best way to proceed to make the best use of everyone’s time, rather than sitting here waiting to see if it can be fixed in the next five minutes.

So despite the fact that we’re in debate, I would like to see if there’s a desire to have a 20 to 25 minute break that we would normally have at this point in the meeting. I see Councillor Lewis, how long, make the call? Let’s call 25 minutes, Mr. Chair.

So moved for 25 minutes, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Any discussion? Do a hand vote on this. So all those in favor of a 25 minute break?

Motion carries. Okay, thank you, colleagues. 25 minutes from now. What time are we reconvening?

One minute, Councillor. Okay, colleagues, it’s been 25 minutes, so I’m just gonna check for form if you could turn on your screen so our signal that you’re here. I appreciate that I didn’t need the people in the room to signal that they were here, but thanks for waving, regardless. Okay, we’ve got quorum.

We’re in the middle of the current debate and just to bring up to speed and perhaps as a refresher, because I don’t think the public has been able to see the draft motion yet. There is a referral motion on the floor and we are in the middle of debate for that referral. We just returned from in-camera session before our break. And the referral reads as follows, that the draft by-laws related to a program relating the distribution of flyers, by-law, and the distribution of graphic flyers to residential properties be referred to specific administration in order for staff to report back on the potential to include the following in any potential by-law.

A, the requirement for any literature being left at private residence to meet the same public requirements as outdoor displays or the regulations at a public participation meeting. B, the inclusion of a requirement for materials to have an outer wrap or cover for any such materials and C, the inclusion of a graphic content warning on the outside of the wrap. So that is what is currently contained within the referral and what we are discussing. And I have Councillor Layman on the speakers list and look for others who want to be added to that.

Oh, and before we do that, Councillor Layman report out on the in-camera session, which I forgot to you before the break. Thank you. I’d like to report progress made in the matter for which we went to in-camera. Thank you.

I think that’s why you were on the list for me, actually. So I don’t have anybody on the list. So who would like to speak next to the referral? Oh, Councillor Layman, you do.

Go ahead, Ben. Thank you, and thank you for colleagues for going into in-camera as I requested. I needed to hear advice on this matter. I think we’re all after the same aim here.

It’s how to get there. And my concern, as I mentioned earlier, with the original motion from advice given, is I don’t think that that would stand up in court, which would defeat the purpose of our actions here tonight. However, the referral and the concepts in that based on advice given, I think, would have a chance. And I would like to give our legal team the opportunity to craft something along those guidelines that would perhaps produce something that would stand up to court challenges, which would get us to where we want to go, with the original aim of the original motion.

I still don’t, it’s not 100%, but I believe there is enough light there indicated by advice given that it’s worth the referral. I will, I cannot support the original motion because I don’t think it would survive a court challenge. However, I believe this is something I could support and willing to go down this road and encourage my counselors to support the referral. Other speakers, Councillor Hamer.

Just through the acting merit to the staff, if a referral with this kind of scope were to go through, when would we have a new bylaw or series of bylaws to choose from back to committee for consideration? How much time do you need? Mr. Carr.

Mr. Presenting, officer, it would depend on the priority given by council, but the council’s priority is our priority. So if it’s 30 days, 60 days, 90 days of your choice, we’ll just move other matters to the side while we deal with this. Mr.

Hamer. Okay, on the, thank you. On the referral then, I move two lines on the referral. On the one hand, I feel like we’ve really taken a long time to get to this point.

We’ve looked at a bunch of different ways of trying to tackle the harm that’s being caused by the distribution of these flyers and graphic images. And I’m not sure the way we’re gonna get to a perfect solution or even relay a very good solution. And I do wanna make a decision and try something that’s gonna stop and cut down on the harm’s cause by the distribution. On the other hand, I do think there’s some promise in the idea of the wrapping of the graphic images, you know, having essentially an exemption for material that is wrapped.

That’s the approach that’s been taken by the viewer discretion coalition at the provincial level, a number of London area MPPs that introduced that legislation of private members bill along those lines. And I do think there’s some potential in that kind of approach. So I think if it’s gonna come back, you know, in one cycle, you know, in a month or something like that, I would be willing to support the referral, even though for myself, I’m ready to go ahead with the bylaw that’s in front of us with the slight amendment that Councillor Lewis mentioned earlier to narrow down the definition a little bit. So I think I’ll support the referral for now if it’s gonna be that quick in terms of turnaround, but if it was gonna be longer, like 60 days, 90 days, I think that’s getting too long.

And I’d like to see it come back as soon as it can. Thanks very much. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr.

Acting Mayor. With this one was certainly supportive of it from committee still supportive of it today. I appreciate the work that staff has done as directed to get the great draft bylaw in front of us. I know throughout this conversation, people from who distribute these things, their communications were along the lines of that they rely on the shock photography to get people’s attention, draw them in and get them talking, which is part of their desires.

So with this referral back that’s in front of us, the key things that I would be looking for for staff is if we did have a bylaw governing it, that’s something with graphic images would need a wrapper and a warning on it of just if that was violated, who would be responsible for that literature? If it’s a child delivering it, what would we do if the organization has a central address outside of Ontario, are we still able to make sure that our bylaws are infected? So that is my key questions. And as with Councillor Helmer, I’m willing to hit pause and look at the information staff can bring back and to make a fully informed decision that would look like, but I’m also supportive of the bylaw that’s in front of us this evening.

Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Presiding Chair.

And I too am very supportive of this bylaw. I know it comes with risks and challenges, but we do need to do something. And I was pleased to hear that there could have been an amendment to it, and I would hope it would be the amendment that I would like to make around the definition of graphic image. But I don’t want it to fail.

I want to echo Councillor Helmer’s comments about having this come back to us sooner than later. This has been back and forth a number of times. And I think it’s very important that we do something, not just kick the can down the road here. It’s really important that we show leadership here when it comes to protecting the Londoners.

We call ourselves a safe city for women and girls. Saying it is one thing, doing something is a completely different thing. And we need to do something. And we know when women and girls are safe, everyone is safe.

I’m kind of disappointed in fact that we’re not there yet, but I don’t want the motion to fail. And a referral back for now is something that I think I can live with. I think it’s also important that we understand, and I know it gets murky sometimes when we look at abortion, pro or for life religion, kind of gets in the way of what we’re doing here when it comes to graphic flyers and protecting residents. It’s got nothing to do with those issues.

It’s got everything to do with protecting Londoners. So I’m looking forward to having this come back as soon as possible. Okay, other speakers, Councillor Herr. Through the chair, I would just like to echo my colleagues, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Hillier, that this isn’t about freedom of speech, sorry, this isn’t about freedom of speech.

It’s not about pro-life, pro-choice. This doesn’t have to do with abortion. This is about listening to the community, who’s asked us to protect them from these horrific images. I know that in my own neighborhood, some children collect the male daily, and I have a 10-year-old child, and I would not want my 10-year-old daughter reading the word abortion while looking at grotesque images of dead fetuses, because it’s not a discussion that I believe I should be having with her.

So forcing that discussion onto parents does nothing to help anybody’s cause. These graphic images are not just not for children, but they’re not for adults either. Loud and clear, I’ve heard my constituents say, to make these flyers stop. So I’m here to vote for enforcing a by-law to stop these images from happening, but I will support a referral as long as it’s really short, because again, this has gone on too long.

We wanna finish this up, and we wanna have a resolution here. So I’ll vote for a referral, but on the condition that it’s a short time period. Thank you. Councilor Vanholst.

Thank you. So perhaps Mr. Chair, I spoke a little too soon earlier. I said this was a dysfunctional debate, and my reason for saying that was because we never really see a compromise, and yet a compromise seems to be appearing here today.

So I’m pleased and will be supported above it. We have counselors saying what this is and what this isn’t about. Of course, that depends on one’s worldview, and there’s very different worldviews at play here, and will be at play if this were to go to court, and we’re concerned about doing something quickly, but were they with a recommended by-law to go through from the committee. I think we would be facing a very long, protracted and expensive port challenge on our hand, where as this much, much less so, it would be nice if the warnings and the labels that we were asking for could have been in place already, but I’m pleased that we’re gonna move in a direction that will not interfere with a claim to freedom of speech, and yet also address the concerns that are there in the community.

So somebody one side will get to put their message forward in the way that they think is important, and the other side won’t feel that they or their children are somehow ambushed by the images, and I should say seeing them without a warning. Because those are big concerns, especially with the children, I know just recently in my only family, trying to come up with, to speak to a child about the death of a great grandfather. Those are difficult things for a child to grasp, and these are other issues that a parent may not would like to be able to do on their own time if possible. So thank you for the counselors for bringing this forward and seconding it, I’m happy to support, and I hope that we’re able to come up with a solution that’s workable and satisfactory to all scientists.

Thank you, Councilor Turner. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor. Quick questions for you to staff in the draft bylaw, not what’s being referred here.

There’s mention of the administrative monetary penalty. Is that penalty associated with each violation or for each instance of the grand violations? That’s Mr. Card.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think the intention was to issue what amount to charges through the administrative monetary penalty process as opposed to doing charges through the provincial offenses court as we do with most bylaws. So every charge that would be applicable under the bylaw would follow the amps process.

So it would be each and every, I think that was the question. If I might clarify, yeah. Would it apply for each leaflet that arrived on a doorstep? So for each doorstep that one of these applied to would that apply or is it for each instance, that piece of literature was circulated through the community?

Mr. Presiding Officer, that would be at the discretion of the person laying the charges, but generally speaking, we wouldn’t charge on that basis. It would be the offense of distributing the material and the particulars would include the addresses to which that material was delivered. Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, I think that’s an important distinction. I don’t see the identified AMP as much of a deterrent that’s easily fundraised and incorporated as to part of the cost of the campaign. I think if it was for each instance, for every door, if it was a thousand doors, that starts to get pretty expensive pretty quickly. And it does become a bit of a deterrent.

I think that would be an important consideration as council would go forward with the bylaw. But I’m going to shift gears a little bit. I’m going to reiterate my concerns with this. And I’m going to emphatically reemphasize my disgust for the tactics of this organization.

And I’m not even going to mention their name. They’re going to find no champion in their position for me, none at all. Anyone who cloaks themselves is fighting for freedom of expression to defend their own actions. It’s not really fighting for these freedoms at all.

They’re doing it solely in self-interest. And if someone were to deliver images of their dead relatives, the bodies of their dead relatives shortly after they died, to their doorsteps, I’m sure they’d be the first to ask somebody to make it stop. It’s crass, it’s abhorrent, I’m completely against it. But my objection to this course, and I’m happy to see a bit of a massaging on the language here.

And perhaps this helps to address some of my concerns, but I don’t think it does completely. My objections are twofold. One, we earlier discussed public health measures in our SPPC meeting and the municipalities’ abilities to make rules and absence of other contrary government legislation. The charter, however, limits to freedom of expression have really been well tested and are pretty well defined.

And the municipality can’t define those limits. And this to me, it ends up being pretty contrary to that. And we’ve got to tread very carefully with that. And if there were reasonable limits in this circumstance, it would have been litigated and explored, but it hasn’t.

Nobody’s come down and said that this is a reasonable limit to the freedom of expression. The second one, this one’s important, and it really requires you to play the board a bit here. Such a by-law serves only to platform these bad actors each time, and they get to use it for fundraising. They already have.

And you take a look at the slew of emails we get every time this comes up for debate here. They’re fundraising on our backs, and they’re playing us. Every time it gets debated at council and at other councils. And when it goes to court, they’ll fundraise some more.

And when they appeal that, they’ll fundraise yet again. And worse, they might find that their rights are affirmed in court. And now you’ve further legitimized them, just by doing the path that we’re taking right now. Think this out.

Be really careful. Right now, they can only afford to leaflet a neighborhood at a time. Continue on this path, and they can do entire cities. And that’s what I’m really worried about.

I get it. The council wants to be seen as doing something. It’s important that residents who have raised these concerns see that government is looking out for their well-being. And I think we should.

But we’re limited on our powers, especially unconstitutional charter matters. And it’s important for us to acknowledge that to the community. But it’s also important for us to find appropriate ways to champion their interests. I don’t think this is it.

I’m happy to see us take a look at some other options. The by-law that was presented forward from committee certainly would not have my support. This, I’ll listen to see what comes back. But I think we’re on very, very shaky grounds.

But let me reiterate again, I find this group abhorrent completely against their tactics. I am not championing their cause. I’m just cautioning, because I think we’re furthering their agenda, other than hindering it. OK, that exhausts my speaker’s list on the referral.

Councillor van Mirbergen. Thank you, Acting Mayor. I just wanted to make the point that, I mean, the reality is the 800-pound gorilla in the room is having our by-law trample on charter rights, perhaps inadvertently. And so I think that’s the kind of business that we as a municipality do not want to be in, to get involved in core cases that involve charter rights.

So for that reason, I think it makes sense for this referral back, and to take a look at possible areas where we look at perhaps covering and so on, I think that makes sense. Because the last thing we want is to be involved in charter rights issues as a municipality. OK, that now exhausts my speaker’s list. And if there are no others, what we have on the floor is the referral duly moved and seconded.

I’ve read it out for colleagues. It’s in a ascribe. If there are no further comments, then I see none. I’m going to open this for voting now.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 11, 2. And colleagues, just to clean this up, we did refer a number of pieces of correspondence to this area. Yet we omitted to note to receive those as a part B.

So we’re just going to have that done now. Do you want me to remove those? [INAUDIBLE] I would love for you to do that. And I will do that.

Councillor for the second. Councillor— hello, Councillor Lehman, Councillor Palosa. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0.

OK, I think that’s it. Right, Councillor Cassie? That’s my report, thanks. Thank you very much.

Next, we are on to— OK, we’re on deferred matters. There are none inquiries. Are there any inquiries? None.

Emergent motions. There are none. So bylaws, we have bylaws before us. I don’t recall any conflicts that were related to bylaws.

But I’ll just have the clerk confirm that if there aren’t any, I think there was only one declared today. Then I’ll look for— we can do bills 124 to 152 inclusive unless someone wants something dealt with separately. Yeah, so we’re bylaws that were referred. So let me just get the numbers of those.

And then I’ll tell you the ones that we’re doing, we just referred a matter that was related to a couple of bylaws. OK, so we’re going to deal with bills 124 to 152 with the exception of 131 and 138, which were part of the referral. Mr. Chair, 36.

It’s signed by law, too. That’s 136. OK, so 131, 136, and 138 were all referred based on previous motions. So to the exclusion of those, everything else that remains between bills 124 and 152, a mover.

Mr. Hamou, seconder, Councillor Halmer, we’ll open that for voting. Mr. Halmer is waiving, Mr.

presiding officer. Sorry, go ahead. The vote’s not. Councillor Halmer.

Are we skipping over the added reports? We’re going to do that after. Because there is an added report, but we’ll do that after. OK, so please vote.

Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. OK, a mover and a seconder for second reading. Moved by Councillor 5-0, seconded by Councillor Van Mirberg and reading on any of these bills. OK, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting.

Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. Ordering for that slate of bills. A mover and a seconder, Councillor Hopkins moved, seconded by Councillor Lehman. We will open that for voting at third reading.

Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to 0. OK, colleagues, for the remainder that we’re going to go into closed session, and then we’ll have the report from closed session, and then we’ll have the added reports, and then we’ll have any added bylaws that would be relevant. So at this point, I’m going to look for a motion to move into closed session for the items that were on the regular agenda. OK, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Palosa.

OK, we’re going to open that for voting in the system. I’d like to indicate that the items are indicated on the public agenda. There are six matters, including one additional reason. There are two items related to the proposal or pending acquisition of land, along with solicitor client privilege and related advice, a matter related to the security, the property, the municipality, and confidential, technical, commercial, or financial information, a matter related to labor relations, a matter pertaining to an identifiable individual, solicitor client, privileged advice, regarding flyer deliveries to residential properties, and an additional reason from the specialized BPC meeting related to litigation or potential litigation, and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege.

Councillor van holst. You have to vote, yay. Thank you, close in the vote. Motion carries 13-0.

OK, just give us a few minutes. OK, we are back in public session. I’m going to ask Councillor Fife Miller to report out. The recording stopped.

To report out on the items from our closed session. Thank you. So from the fifth report of the council and closed session, your council and closed session reports number one, partial property acquisition of 190 Edinburgh Street in the Cavendish Phase III infrastructure renewal project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager, environment, and infrastructure on the advice of the director of Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 190 Edinburgh Street, further described as parts of lots 36 to 41, plan 56W in the city of London, in the city of London, county of Middlesex, being part of PIN082500107LT, as shown on the location map as Appendix B for the purpose of reconstructing the open channel as part of the Cavendish Phase III infrastructure renewal project.

The following actions will be taken. A, the offer submitted by Michael Orescov, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $200,000 be accepted. Subject to the terms and conditions is set out in the agreement as Appendix C and B, the financing for the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report, here to as Appendix A through partial property acquisition, Hydro I networks, Inc, and infrastructure Ontario, Southdale Road West Transportation project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports, with the concurrence of the director, transportation and mobility, on the advice of the director realty services, with respect to the property located immediately east of 457 Southdale Road West, and further described as part of lot 37, concession two, in the city of London, Middlesex, county, designated as parts five, six, and seven.

Plan 33R-20757, being part of PIN08209-0179LT, and shown on the location map as Appendix B, for the purpose of the future road improvement to accommodate the Southdale Road improvements project following the act, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by Her Majesty, the Queen, in right of Ontario, as represented by the minister, government and consumer services, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $3,712, be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement as Appendix C. B, the license of the land for temporary use and access for a further 12-month term, for an additional sum of $1,250 be accepted, wherein additional compensation and additional terms and conditions have been agreed to between the parties and set out in the agreement in Appendix D, that civic administration be authorized to enter into a separate license of land for temporary use and access for a further term beyond April 30th, 2023, and under substantially, the same terms and conditions as found in the agreement in Appendix D and D, financing for the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as Appendix A, three, during his home temporary retention strategy. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, social and health development and concurrence with the deputy city manager, enterprise supports, that the following actions be taken with respect to the Dearness Home Temporary Retention Strategy A, the Dearness Home Temporary Retention Strategy be approved as detailed in section 3.1 of the staff report and that it is to be implemented retroactive to January 1st, 2022 and will remain in place up to March 31st, 2022.

Be that civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative acts, which are necessary in relation to this matter and see the approval given here and be conditional upon the corporation of the city of London entering into end or amending a memorandum of agreement with Unifor and SEIU Local One Canada SEIU respectively. It being noted that the strategic priorities and policy committee received a verbal overview from the deputy city manager, social and health development and the deputy city manager enterprise supports and progress on all other matters in the closed session. Thank you, I’m assuming you’re willing to move those items, Councillor. So I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Hamou.

Any comments or discussion on the matters that have been reported out of a closed session there? Okay, then we’re gonna open this for voting. Councillor Van Halst closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero.

Okay, now we will do the added report from earlier today. We had a special SPPC meeting that is reporting into this meeting from earlier this afternoon. So that added report has been made available to us and I’ll have Councillor Lewis present that added SPPC report. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Colleagues, we had no pecuniary interest disclosed on this report. It’s a single item for direction 4.1, although there were two votes on it, one to receive and an additional vote on the attached by-law, draft by-law that was included with the communication. So I’m at your pleasure to put them both forward or call them separately. Whatever, anybody like the report dealt with this in its entirety or broken up into what is essentially the received part of the correspondence?

It seems like we can deal with it altogether. So that’s on the floor, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

Okay, colleagues, because of our report out from in-camera, we have added by-laws to approve as well. So I have two added bills, number 153 and 154. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those items. Councillor Lewis and seconded by Councillor Fife Miller will open first reading for voting.

Mr. Halmer, close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay, I need to move by Councillor Hopkins.

Any discussion at second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Okay, I need to move on to a seconder for third reading.

I see Councillor Hillier and Councillor Palosa. I’ll open third reading for voting now that it’s moved in seconded. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. I’ll just add a note to thank all of our staff who helped support the double meetings today.

I know that that didn’t come with a lot of notice and there’s certainly some things that had to fall off some people’s plates to accommodate the work that we did today. So I certainly appreciate staff being able to act quickly and accommodate what was an important debate for Council to have. So thank you to all the staff who had to move some things aside to contribute to us being able to have that discussion and debate that we had earlier today. And of course, for your support for the Council meeting, as always.

I’ll look for a move and a seconder to adjourn. Moved by Hillier, seconded by Lehman. All those in favor of adjournment. Did we do this in the system?

I’m gonna do it by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. That motion carries. We are adjourned.

Thank you for your time today, everyone.