April 12, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 11, clause 4.2, of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with the 2022 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request, by indicating that his family puts on a five day festival.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 9, clause 3.1, of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with Short Term Accommodations, by indicating that one of the communications is from a donor to his municipal election campaign.

Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 5, clause 4.3, of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointees to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University.  Councillor J. Morgan further discloses a pecuniary interest in part d) of Item 2, clause 3.1, of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with an agreement with Western University, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 5, clause 4.3, of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with appointees to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University. Councillor J. Helmer further discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 9, clause 3.1, of the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with Short Term Accommodations, by indicating that he has rented out his home using Airbnb. Councillor J. Helmer also discloses a pecuniary interest in part d) of Item 2, clause 3.1, of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with an agreement with Western University, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

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

5.1   5th Meeting held on March 22, 2022

2022-03-22 Council Minutes - Complete

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Minutes of the 5th Meeting held on March 22, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

6.1   Climate Emergency Action Plan;

6.2   517, 521 and 525 Fanshawe Park Road East;

6.3   Proposed Outdoor Patio Capacity Limit Extension;

6.4   Short Term Accommodation; and,

6.5   Rock the Park - One-Time Policy Exemption Request

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

7.1   Fugitive Slave Chapel Relocation & Restoration

2022-04-12 Council Notice of Motion - Fugitive Slave Chapel - Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave be given for the introduction of a notice of motion to consider a time sensitive request for municipal funding assistance for the relocation and restoration of the heritage building known as the Fugitive Slave Chapel.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 4:29 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Morgan in the Chair.

At 4:33 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make all necessary arrangements to provide a $71,000 grant from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Fanshawe Pioneer Village Fugitive Slave Chapel campaign to assist with the cost of relocating and restoring this cultural heritage asset; it being noted that this, combined with community fundraising, will assist in leveraging additional federal funding.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   5th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-03-29 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 5th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2nd Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 22, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2021 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 29, 2022, with respect to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Wastewater Treatment Operations Energy Savings Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 29, 2022, with respect to the achievements of the Wastewater Treatment Operations Division in reducing energy consumption BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Disaster Mitigation and Adaption Fund - Contribution Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 161)

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 29, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to approve the Contribution Agreement for Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities 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. (2022-P03)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Appointment of Consulting Engineer - Detailed Design - Southdale Road West and Colonel Talbot Road Roundabout

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 29, 2022, related to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the Southdale Road West and Colonel Talbot Road Roundabout project:

a)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the detailed design and tendering services of the project as per the AECOM Canada Ltd. work plan, in the total amount of $488,375.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2(g) 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 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

8.1.7   (2.6) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services: 2022 Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 29, 2022, related to the appointment of consulting engineers for the 2022 Infrastructure Renewal Program:

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

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of 2022 Infrastructure Renewal Project Regent Street and William Street, in the total amount of $498,142.70, including contingency, excluding HST;

ii)    GM Blueplan Engineering Limited (GM Blueplan) BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of Pottersburg Phase 1 Contract 6: Dundas Street, Spruce Street, and Burdick Place reconstruction, in the total amount of $384,120.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

iii)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. (AGM) BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration of Contract 5: Glen Cairn Phase 1 reconstruction, in the total amount of $360,800.00, including contingency, excluding HST;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-A05)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.1) Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law - Dundas Street Vendor Pilot Program (Relates to Bill No. 164)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, on the advice of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to amend By-law No. A-57 being, “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” and to repeal By-law A-56, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” by adding fees related to the Dundas Place Street Vendor Pilot Program;

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

it being noted that the communication from B. Robinson, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-C01)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.1) 2022 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2021 Review

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 29, 2022, with respect to the 2022 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-T04)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.2) Contract Price Increase: 2021 Transportation Infrastructure Renewal Report

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 29, 2022, related to the three projects: 2020 Arterial Road Rehabilitation Project Contract 2, 2021 Fanshawe Park Road Boulevard Cycling Lanes Rehabilitation, and the 2021 Dundas Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) Active Transportation Connection:

a)    the 2020 Arterial Road Rehabilitation Project Contract 2 (Tender T20-100) contract value with Coco Paving Inc. (Coco) BE INCREASED by $470,000.00 to $3,038,000.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Fanshawe Park Road Boulevard Cycling lanes Rehabilitation Contract (Tender RFT21-83) contract value with Dufferin Construction Company, A division of CRH Canada Group Inc., BE INCREASED by $250,000.00 to $1,735,102.20, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the contract with IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc. for construction inspection and contract administration for the Dundas Street Thames Valley Parkway Active Transportation Connection Project BE INCREASED by $91,800.00 to $414,990.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the financing for these projects BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Reports as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

f)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.3) Contract Price Increase: 2021 Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Renewal Report

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 29, 2022, related to the English Street and Lorne Avenue Reconstruction project:

a)    the Lorne Avenue Reconstruction (Tender T21-16) contract value with 2376378 Ontario Corp (CH Excavating (2013)) BE INCREASED by $675,000.00 to $4,448,382.95, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 20.3(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E03/L04)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (4.4) Metamora Stormwater Outfall Replacement - Contract Award Increase (RFT21-91)

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 29, 2022, related to the award of contract for the Metamora Stormwater Outfall Replacement and Slope Rehabilitation:

a)    the contract award increase for BlueCon Construction for additional construction costs of $200,486.00, including 20% contingency, excluding HST, for the Metamora Stormwater Outfall Replacement and Slope Rehabilitation works, BE APPROVED, resulting in a total contract value of $1,200,386.00;

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

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

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E03/L04)

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (4.5) Contract Award: Tender RFT 21-97 Adelaide Street North CPR Underpass Project - Irregular Result

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 29, 2022, related to the Adelaide Street North CPR Underpass Project:

a)    the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited at its tendered price of $60,191,223.44, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with Section 8.10(a) and 13.2(b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that this is an irregular result because the cost exceeds the project budget;  it being further noted that the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited was the lowest of three bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements;

b)    WSP Canada Inc. Consulting Engineers BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction supervision required for this project as well as additional engineering activities, all in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $5,280,625.90, including contingencies, excluding HST, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work;

f)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 21-97); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including railway purchase orders, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T05)

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.6) Contract Award: Tender RFT-2022-001 Southdale Road West Improvements Phase 1

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 29, 2022, related to the Southdale Road West Improvements Phase 1 Project between Bostwick Road and Pine Valley Boulevard (Tender RFT-2022-001):

a)    the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd., at its tendered price of $10,177,967.69, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd. was the lowest of three bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $447,398.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work;

f)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2022-001); and,

g)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T05)

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (4.7) Report on Downtown Road Closures 

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to a report on Downtown road closures BE RECEIVED and NO ACTION BE TAKEN. (2022-C09)

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at March 21, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.17   (5.2) Kenmore Place Sidewalk Petition

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the petition from T. Jamieson, with respect to the Kenmore Place sidewalk construction, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that Civic Administration will engage in further consultation with the residents to determine the placement of the sidewalk on Kenmore Place on the east or west side of the street.

Motion Passed

8.2   7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-04-05 SPPC Report 7

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Items 1, 3, 4 and 6, of the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the following pecuniary interests were disclosed:

a)  Councillor J. Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest having to do with Item 4.3, related to City appointments to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that Western University is his employer.  Councillor J. Morgan further discloses a pecuniary interest having to do with Item 3.1 part d), having to do with the City’s Climate Emergency Action Plan’s Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Western Ontario, by indicating that the University is his employer;

b)  Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest having to do with Item 4.3, related to City appointments to Western University’s Board of Governors, by indicating that he is employed by Western University.  Councillor J. Helmer further discloses a pecuniary interest having to do with Item 3.1 part d), having to do with the City’s Climate Emergency Action Plan’s Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Western Ontario, by indicating that he is employed by the University.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (4.1) 2021 Council Compensation Review Task Force Final Report

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to Council compensation:

a)    consistent with current practice, and effective with the commencement of the next term of Council, the annual compensation for serving as a Ward Councillor BE SET at the 2020 median full-time employment income for Londoners as determined from the 2021 Census data, it being noted that while 2021 data will not be available until July 2022, it will be available well prior to the effective date of adjustment;

b)    the current formula for adjusting Council compensation on annual basis BE AMENDED to be based on the average annual variation in median full-time employment income determined from published Census data over the most recent census period (2021 Census data) as opposed to the Labour Index or CPI;

c)    the annual adjustment in Councillor compensation BE AUTOMATIC and administered by the Civic Administration;

d)    a review of Council Compensation BE UNDERTAKEN by an independent body, once per Council term, subject to the following: 

   

(i)    the review should be completed no later than six months in advance of the date that nominations are accepted for the next municipal election;

(ii)    any adjustments should be effective on the first day of the next Council term;

(iii)    the Task Force should, as much as possible, reflect the diversity of the community and ideally the participants should have knowledge in the areas of municipal government, research, statistics, public engagement and compensation; 

(iv)    the Task Force should be limited to no more than five individuals; 

(v)    the review should include a review of the major supports required for Council Members to efficiently and effectively carry out their role to the best of their ability as the availability of these supports helps to inform compensation;

(vi)    the review should consider if median full-time income remains an appropriate benchmark for Council Member compensation; 

(vii)    the review should consider if the current formula for interim adjustments remains appropriate; and 

(viii)    public engagement should continue to be a component of the review process and that engagement should be undertaken in a manner which recognizes community preferences and needs.

e)    the following activities related to public engagement and notice BE TAKEN:

(i)    opportunities BE EXPLORED to determine what online public spaces (webpages, social media, etc.) might be available in order to ensure that the system of remuneration for Council, including annual adjustment, is transparent, open, and easily accessible and understandable to the public; and

(ii)    annual adjustments to Council compensation BE REPORTED to Committee and Council and recorded in the minutes of Committee and Council; and

f)    that NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to the consideration of a system of performance-based compensation for Council Members;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal overview of the Final Report of the 2021 Council Compensation Task Force from D. Ross, Task Force Chair.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.2) Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle Business Improvement Association

Motion made by J. Morgan

That Deborah Haroun, Supervisor at Children’s Place, BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (5.1) 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 17, 2022:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to a ban on hate symbols:

i) the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee supports the attached Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ resolution entitled, “Strengthening Canada’s Hate Speech Laws”, a call to strengthen federal laws to address hate speech including symbols of hate; and,

ii) the verbal presentation from Deputy Mayor J. Morgan, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1. 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (3.1) Climate Emergency Action Plan (Relates to Bill No. 175)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Climate Emergency Action Plan:

a)    the staff report dated April 5, 2022, containing details of the engagement and feedback received on the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan received between February 8 and March 25, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Climate Emergency Action Plan, as appended to the staff report dated April 5, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED; it being noted that two substantive additions have been made to the draft plan:

i)    9.4      What are the Preliminary Benefits and Costs at the Household Level, and

ii)    11.6    Process to Receive and Review Ongoing Feedback;

c)    the Climate Emergency Action Plan Foundational Actions, as appended to the staff report dated April 5, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE APPROVED; and

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter;

a communication dated February 26, 2022 from M. Bancroft OC, Climate Action Plan;

a communication dated March 27, 2022 from C. Butler;

a communication from Climate Action London;

a communication dated March 9, 2022 from S. Franke, Executive Director, London Environmental Network;

a communication from J. Kogelheide;

a communication dated March 27, 2022 from C. Kuijpers;

a communication dated March 27, 2022 from M. Luce;

a communication from D. Mailer;

a communication dated March 28, 2022 from M. Miksa, Executive Director, London Cycle Link;

a communication from B. Morrison;

a communication dated March 24, 2022 from C. Murray;

a communication dated March 27, 2022 from S. Pereira;

a communication from G. Sass;

a communication dated March 28, 2022 from AM Valastro;

a communication dated March 16, 2022 from L. Wall;

a communication dated March 28, 2022 from R. K. Jain;

a communication dated March 30, 2022 from H. Elias;

a communication dated March 30, 2022 from A. Johnson;

a communication dated March 22, 2022 from the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee;

a communication dated April 1, 2022 from M. Jutte;

a communication dated March 31, 2022 from S. Harrott, Executive Committee Chairperson, Friends of Urban Agriculture London, Ontario;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from the following individuals with respect to this matter;

  •    staff presentation from J. Stanford, Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management;

  •    C. Kuijpers

  •    D. Mailer

  •    S. Franke, London Environmental Network

  •    M. Miksa, London Cycle Link

  •    G. Sass

  •    B. Morrison

  •    M. Larsen

  •    D. Millar, London Electric Vehicle Association

  •    K. Easton

  •    J. B. Morton

  •    R. McNeil

  •    M. Hodge

  •    L. Wall

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute

  •    M. Bancroft

  •    A. Cantel

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Part d) of Item 2 (3.1)

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 5, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to:

i)    authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Western Ontario to advance joint climate change mitigation and adaptation research, technologies, analyses and knowledge, and

ii)   authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding authorized and approved in part d) i), above;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That reconsideration of the vote for part d) of clause 3.1 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 5, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to:

i)    authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Western Ontario to advance joint climate change mitigation and adaptation research, technologies, analyses and knowledge, and

ii)   authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding authorized and approved in part d) i), above;

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.2.5   (4.3) City Appointees to Western University’s Board of Governors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to Western University’s Board of Governors:

a)  the term of Harold Usher BE ADJUSTED to end as of June 30, 2022, and that he be thanked for his services on the board recognizing he completed his full term;

b)  all future appointments by the City of London to the University of Western Ontario BE MADE effective as of July 1, rather than December 1; and,

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise for two positions, whose terms shall begin July 1, 2022;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 25, 2022 from R. Konrad, Chair, Board of Governors, Western University with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3   7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-03-28 PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 4 (2.3), 7 (3.1), 10 (3.4) and 12 (3.6).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on March 2, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 585 Sovereign Road (H-9461) (Relates to Bill No. 170)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Southwest Sun Property Corporation, relating to the property located at 585 Sovereign Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 LI7 (hh-148LI2/LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial LI2 and LI7 (LI2/LI7) Zone to remove the “h” and “h-148” holding provisions.  (2022-)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) 3161 and 3138 Turner Crescent (P-9463)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Greengate Village Limited, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to exempt Block 48 and 49, Plan 33M-790 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.  (2022-)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) 1960 Evans Boulevard (Summerside Subdivision) (H-9439) (Relates to Bill No. 171)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by The Ironstone Building Company, relating to lands located at 1960 Evans Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 R6 Special Provision (h-1-R6-5(75)) Zone and a Holding Residential R6 (h-70-R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(75)) Zone and a Residential R6 (R6-5) Zone to remove the h-1 and h-70 holding provisions.  (2022-)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.2) 3700 Colonel Talbot Road - Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for the demolition of the buildings on the heritage listed property at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the buildings on this property;

b)    the property at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

c)    the property owner BE REQUESTED to commemorate the historic contributions of the Burch family in the future development of this property;

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

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.3) 910 Gainsborough Road (Z-9442) (Relates to Bill No. 173)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Crown Homes London, relating to the property located at 910 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 (R1-11) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

  1. Engineering

i)    ensure stormwater runoff and drainage is contained on site

  1.    Urban Design/Landscaping

i)    consider appropriate measures to further mitigate privacy impacts on abutting townhouse units to the east, including the provision of transom windows and additional plantings;

ii)    enhanced design of Unit 1 to establish a pedestrian-friendly streetscape

iii)    include a walkway that extends across the front of the units and connects to the public sidewalk on Gainsborough Road;

iv)    locate any surface parking area away from Gainsborough Road and provide additional screening and landscaping;

v)    include all requirements of the Site Plan Control By-Law in the site design, in particular as it relates to parking (landscape islands, parking setbacks) and garbage pick-up (location);

vi)    take into consideration any existing significant mature trees on the site and along property boundaries;

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

  •    A. Sloan, Stantec Consulting;

  •    P. Golab;

  •    T. McDonald, MCC #800 - 1571 Coronation Drive; and,

  •    T. Morton, 33 - 1571 Coronation Drive;

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

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 that encourage efficient development and land use patterns;

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

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

  •    the requested amendment conforms to the Residential Intensification policies of The London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan which direct intensification to ensure that character and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood is maintained;

  •    the subject lands represent an appropriate location for Residential Intensification, within the Built-Area Boundary, along a higher-order street at the periphery of an existing neighbourhood;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (3.5) Delegation - Sandy Levin, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee - 4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 17, 2022:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 1160 Wharncliffe Road South BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Working Group report relating to the Huron Watermain Environmental Impact Study BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application for a revised draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments dated March 2, 2022, relating to the property located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road:

i)    a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of S. Levin (lead), L. Banks and I. Whiteside; and,

ii)    the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide advisory committee members with information and clarity about process for the transition of the existing EEPAC and the incoming ECAC ;

e)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.2 and 4.3 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.1) 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage from its meeting held on March 9, 2022:

a)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) is not satisfied with the conclusions of the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated November 4, 2021, from MHBC Planning, related to the properties located at 175, 179, 183 and 197 Ann Street and 84 and 86 St. George Street and the LACH reiterates its previous comments, from the October 14, 2020 LACH report, related to retaining and designating the properties located at 197 and 183 Ann Street; it being noted that the LACH prefers part 4 of section 9.1.2 of the above-noted HIA, entitled “Reduce density and retain former Kent Brewery and adjacent 183 Ann Street”;

b)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) is satisfied with the research and conclusions of the Legacy Village Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated January 31, 2022, from Stantec Consulting Ltd., with respect to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North and supports the format of a more detailed HIA that conserves the Cultural Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (buildings and surroundings on the property);

c)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for the demolition of the buildings on the heritage listed property located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road:

i)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the buildings on this property; 

ii)    the property located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

iii)    the property owner BE REQUESTED to commemorate the historic contributions of the Burch family in the future development of this property; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1 and 5.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (4.2) Proposed Outdoor Patio Capacity Limit Extension - Councillors Fyfe-Millar and Lewis

Motion made by S. Lehman

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate options to amend the current capacity restrictions for outdoor patios associated with a restaurant or tavern to allow greater flexibility for restauranteurs in meeting their AGCO capacity limits and report back with options for Council’s consideration;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated March 25, 2022 from A.M. Valastro, by e-mail, with respect to this matter.  (2022-)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 3024, 3001, 2970 and 2954 Turner Crescent (P-9464) (Relates to Bill No. 165)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Greengate Village Limited, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to exempt Block 50, 51, 52 and 53, Plan 33M-790 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.   (2022-)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That clause 4 (2.3) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Greengate Village Limited, the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to exempt Block 50, 51, 52 and 53, Plan 33M-790 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.  (2022-D25)“

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.7   (3.1) 1200 Commissioners Road East (Z-9468) (Relates to Bill No. 172)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Pond Mills Square Realty Inc., relating to the property located at 1200 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 20220 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(2)) Zone TO a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(_)) Zone;

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

  •    S. Diaz, 17|21 Architects; and,

  •    E. Bryan;

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;

  •    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 Community Commercial Node designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site.  (2022-)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That clause 7 (3.1) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Pond Mills Square Realty Inc., relating to the property located at 1200 Commissioners Road East, the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(2)) Zone TO a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(_)) Zone;

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

  •    S. Diaz, 17l21 Architects; and,

  •    E. Bryan;

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;

  •    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 Community Commercial Node designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site.  (2022-D09)“

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.10   (3.4) 2520-2544 Advanced Avenue, 2475-2555 Bonder Road and Other Properties - Innovation Park Phase IV (Z-9454) (Relates to Bill No.’s 162 and 174)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 2520-2544 Advanced Avenue, 2475-255 Bonder Road and 2560-2580 Boyd Court:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), by ADDING new definitions to Section 2 (Definitions) and by AMENDING the Light Industrial Special Provision (LI2(23)) Zone; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to amend the Airport Road South Business Park Urban Design Guidelines by AMENDING Section 5.1.1 (Guidelines for Building Design), Subsection 3. to permit increased height limits;

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

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. It will contribute to the effective and efficient uses of land, and will promote economic development and competitiveness and community investment-readiness by allowing for an expanded range of permitted uses and increased heights for a more vertical form of development that will provide greater flexibility to support business attraction and retention within Innovation Park Phase IV and reduce potential obstacles for industrial development and the need for additional planning approvals;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, that contemplate a broad range of industrial uses that are unlikely to impose impacts as permitted uses on lands in the Light Industrial Place Type and in Innovation Parks. Permitted uses in Innovation Parks are to incorporate knowledge-based functions with industrial production. Industrial uses are encouraged to utilize land efficiently and limit the extent of their nuisance emissions; and the intensity of development is to be appropriate for individual sites;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, that contemplate a broad range of industrial uses that are unlikely to impose impacts as permitted uses on lands in the Light Industrial designation. Industrial uses are encouraged to utilize land efficiently and limit the extent of their nuisance emissions; and the intensity of development is to be appropriate for individual sites; and, 

  •    the expanded range of permitted uses proposed include industries that involve advance or emerging activities or products in Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics. The expanded range of permitted uses continue to direct more traditional industrial uses to other areas intended to accommodate a wider range of industrial uses. With respect to the specific policy area, the expanded range of permitted uses and increased height is compatible with the vision of a high-quality, well-designed prestige innovation park subject to enhanced yard depths and adherence to urban design guidelines. Together with the recommended amendment to the Airport Road South Business Park Urban Design Guidelines, the increased height proposed conforms to intensity of development contemplated The London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan.  (2022-)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That clause 10 (3.4) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 2520-2544 Advanced Avenue, 2475-2555 Bonder Road and 2560-2580 Boyd Court:

a)    the , revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), by ADDING new definitions to Section 2 (Definitions) and by AMENDING the Light Industrial Special Provision (LI2(23)) Zone; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to amend the Airport Road South Business Park Urban Design Guidelines by AMENDING Section 5.1.1 (Guidelines for Building Design), Subsection 3. to permit increased height limits;

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

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. It will contribute to the effective and efficient uses of land, and will promote economic development and competitiveness and community investment-readiness by allowing for an expanded range of permitted uses and increased heights for a more vertical form of development that will provide greater flexibility to support business attraction and retention within Innovation Park Phase IV and reduce potential obstacles for industrial development and the need for additional planning approvals;

-           the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, that contemplate a broad range of industrial uses that are unlikely to impose impacts as permitted uses on lands in the Light Industrial Place Type and in Innovation Parks. Permitted uses in Innovation Parks are to incorporate knowledge-based functions with industrial production. Industrial uses are encouraged to utilize land efficiently and limit the extent of their nuisance emissions; and the intensity of development is to be appropriate for individual sites;

-           the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, that contemplate a broad range of industrial uses that are unlikely to impose impacts as permitted uses on lands in the Light Industrial designation. Industrial uses are encouraged to utilize land efficiently and limit the extent of their nuisance emissions; and the intensity of development is to be appropriate for individual sites; and,

-           the expanded range of permitted uses proposed include industries that involve advance or emerging activities or products in Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics. The expanded range of permitted uses continue to direct more traditional industrial uses to other areas intended to accommodate a wider range of industrial uses. With respect to the specific policy area, the expanded range of permitted uses and increased height is compatible with the vision of a high-quality, well-designed prestige innovation park subject to enhanced yard depths and adherence to urban design guidelines. Together with the recommended amendment to the Airport Road South Business Park Urban Design Guidelines, the increased height proposed conforms to intensity of development contemplated The London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan.  (2022-D09)“

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Items 4 (2.3), 7(3.1) and 10 (3.4), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.12   (3.6) 517, 521 and 525 Fanshawe Park Road East (O-9426/Z-9427)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Royal Premier Homes relating to the property located at 517, 521 and 525 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 12, 2022 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit a residential apartment building with a maximum building height of 6-storeys (21 metres) and a maximum density of 175 units per hectare, through bonusing, within the Low Density Residential designation to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-4) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-7()*B-()) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    The requested base zone (R9-7) does not meet the intent of The London Plan within the Neighbourhoods Place Type, which permits a maximum of four storeys;

ii)    The requested base zone (R9-7) does not meet the policies of the 1989 Official Plan Low Density Residential designation, which permits a maximum density of 75 units per hectare;

c)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 12, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-4) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4()*B-()) Zone, to permit an apartment building at a maximum density of 75 units per hectare, with a special provision for a maximum height of four storeys or 14 metres, a reduced minimum front yard depth of 1.0 m, and a reduced minimum exterior side yard depth of 1.0 m;

The Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 6 storeys or 21 metres, and a maximum density of 175 units per hectare (99 units), a minimum rear yard depth of 8.1m, a minimum parking requirement of 118 spaces (1.19 spaces per unit), and a minimum accessible parking requirement of 4 spaces, which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views, attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following:

  1.    Exceptional Building and Site Design 

i)    A built form located along the Fanshawe Park Road and Geary Avenue that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street-oriented units and active uses along those frontages;

ii)    An architectural feature/massing/building articulation that addresses and emphasizes the intersection of Fanshawe Park Road and Geary Avenue; 

iii)    A step-back and terracing above the 5th storey for the building along Fanshawe Park Road frontage and at the intersection providing a human-scale along the street(s); 

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

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

vi)    A significant setback from the property to the east to provide a transition to the existing low-rise buildings;

vii)    Common outdoor amenity space at ground level and using rooftop terraces located at the intersection to protect the privacy of adjacent properties; 

viii)    Locates majority of the parking underground and away from the street;

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    A total of four (4) one-bedroom residential units will be provided for affordable housing;

ii)    Rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

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

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

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

d)    IT BEING NOTED that the following site plan and urban design matters were raised during the application review process: 

i)    A 5m buffer from the property to all structures (including buildings and below ground construction of the parking garage) to preserve the existing trees along the east and south property lines; 

ii)    Landscaped islands in the parking area must be a minimum of 3m in width; 

iii)    The barrier-free path of travel must be identified from the barrier-free parking spaces to the entrance of the building. Curb ramps must be shown on the site plan; 

iv)    The layby must be dimensioned to ensure it is at least 3.5m x 12.0m as required by the Site Plan Control By-law;

v)    Relocate the garbage pickup point to ensure bins are accessible by collection vehicles;

vi)    Provide individual or a common walkway that connects the east units to the City sidewalk, to encourage and allow residents and visitor to easily walk to transit and nearby commercial amenities to the east. Landscape buffering can be provided between the amenity spaces and the walkway to delineate public from private realm; and

vii)    Ground floor doors along Fanshawe Park Road should be lockable ‘front door’ or French door style, as opposed to sliding patio doors to contribute to the appearance of a front-facing residential streetscape and promote walkability and activation of the street, as well as for security.

e)     that the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that in addition to the matters described in clause d), above, that consideration be given to limiting vehicles exiting the site to a right turn only onto Geary Avenue;

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

  1.    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;

  2.    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; 

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

  4.    The recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and

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

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 17, 2022 from A. Ackland, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 18, 2022 from G. Ackland, by e-mail;

  •    a communication from D. Thompson and R. Kilgour, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 21, 2022 from P. Thomas, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 21, 2022 from B. and J. Arndt, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 21, 2022 from J. and J. Orchard, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 19, 2022 from S. Taylor, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 21, 2022 from S. Chalmers, by e-mail;

  •    a communication from J. and T. Roszel, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated March 15, 2022 from T. Morton, by e-mail; and,

  •    a communication dated March 22, 2022 from A. Ackland, by e-mail;

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

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

  •    M. Peeters, Ron Koudys Landscape Architect;

  •    T. Morton;

  •    G. Prentice, 521 Fanshawe Park Road East;

  •    J. Roszel, 1496 Geary Avenue;

  •    J. Orchard;

  •    K. Malone, 1515 Geary Avenue;

  •    E. Dickson;

  •    J. Arndt, 1495 Geary Avenue;

  •    S. Versloot;

  •    M. Tangredi;

  •    M. Koncan;

  •    E. Franke, 47 Hammond Crescent;

  •    D. Ronson, 1531 Stoneybrook Crescent;

  •    J. McKee;

  •    S. Wu, 1536 Geary Avenue;

  •    G. Ackland, 1532 Geary Avenue;

  •    A. Surantakos;

  •    S. Goodbrand;

  •    V. Brooks, 518 Fanshawe Park Road East; and,

  •    A. Ackland, 1532 Geary Avenue.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4   5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-03-29 CPSC Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 9 (3.1) and 11 (4.2).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Helmer

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Hillier disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 4.2 of this Report, having to do with the 2022 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request, by indicating that his family puts on a five day event.

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Helmer disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 3.1 of this Report, having to do with Short Term Accommodations, by indicating that he has used Airbnb to rent out his home in the past.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 24, 2022:

a)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorses the Accessible Election Plan 2022, as appended to the Agenda; and,

b)    clauses 1.1 and 3.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the 2nd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 9, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) RFP-2022-007 Contract Award Recommendation for Service Delivery Improvements Project on Behalf of the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, related to the Request for Proposal (RFP) 2022-007 – Developing a Model for Community Planning of Settlement Services  for the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, as per the City of London Procurement Policy Section 12.2 (b), requiring Committee and City Council approval for RFP awards greater than $100,000:

a)    the Request for Proposal 2022-007, in the amount of $429,419, (excluding HST), BE AWARDED to Mellor Murray Consulting; it being noted that the proposal submitted by the proponent meets the City’s requirements and complies with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the Consultant for the work; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or any other documents, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T10)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Oakridge Resident Engagement Results

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, related to the Oakridge Resident Engagement Results:

a)    the short-term project, upgrades to tennis courts in Oakridge Optimist Park, identified through resident engagement near the Oakridge Assessment Centre BE ENDORSED; 

b)    the budget for the above-noted short-term project, upgrades to tennis courts in Oakridge Optimist Park, BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementation of the upgrades to tennis courts in Oakridge Optimist Park; it being noted that this work will be undertaken in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy. (2022-D19)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) Roles and Responsibilities of Local School Boards and Collaboration with the City of London

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, Social and Health Development, Environment and Infrastructure, and Planning and Economic Development, the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, with respect to Roles and Responsibilities of Local School Boards and Collaboration with the City of London BE RECEIVED. (2022-S13)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.6) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, with respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report BE RECEIVED. (2022-R04/R05)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.7) Multi-Program Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement - Homelessness Prevention Program Approval (Relates to Bill No. 163) 

Motion made by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to:

a)    authorize and approve the Multi-Program Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement (Homelessness Prevention Program), as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Corporation of the City of London

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Homelessness Prevention Program (HPP) Transfer Payment Agreement;

c)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development or written designate, to approve and execute any further amendments to the HPP Transfer Payment Agreement if the Amendments are substantially in the form of the above-noted HPP Transfer Payment Agreement;

d)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts (including signing authority) associated with the above-noted HPP Transfer Payment Agreement and any amendments, including but not limited to investment plans and amendments to investments plans, application forms for funding budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting, including financial claims and directions, consents and other authorizations, as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Ontario’s contribution specified in the HPP Transfer Payment Agreement that are necessary in connection with the above-noted HPP Transfer Payment Agreement; and,

e)    confirm that the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, has the powers as set out in section 2 of By-law A-7924-5, being the authority to execute the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreements with Service Providers, employing the standard form Agreement authorized and approved in that by-law that do not require additional funding or are provide for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, with no further approval required from Municipal Council, with respect to Operating Services Categories only. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.1) A. Valastro - Light Pollution By-law

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the request for delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to a light pollution by-law BE APPROVED for a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; it being noted that the communications, dated December 7, 2021 and March 18, 2022, from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-C01/2022-E05)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.3) 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), from the meeting held on March 3, 2022:

a)    clause 4.2 of the above-noted AWAC Report BE DEFERRED to the April 20, 2022 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) for consideration;

b)    the requests for delegation from the individuals listed below BE APPROVED to be heard at the April 20, 2022 meeting of the CPSC:

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck

  •    W. Brown, Chair, AWAC

  •    V. Van Linden

  •    M. Lerner

  •    J. Van-Daele

  •    F. Morrison

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to prepare a report, including any necessary legal advice, for the April 20, 2022 CPSC meeting; and,

d)    the remainder of the above-noted 2nd Report of the AWAC BE RECEIVED

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from R. Laidlaw, W. Brown, V. Van Linden, M. Lerner, J. Van-Daele, F. Morrison and M. Hamer, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at March 21, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.1) Short Term Accommodations

Motion made by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-laws, as appended to the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, related to Short Term Accommodations, BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    T. George

  •    D. Ferreira, providing the attached submission

  •    A. Wayland

  •    Nick

  •    D. Wood

  •    D. Denomme

  •    J. and K. Romnes

  •    J. Fernandez

  •    D. Yimmesghen

  •    P. Chandawani

  •    C. Thomas

  •    M. Razak

  •    A. Fernandez

  •    D. Wang

  •    L. Murphy

  •    A. Wojtak

  •    V. King

  •    H. Belanger

  •    K. Toy

  •    C. Afanador

  •    R. Metron

  •    A. Lindsay

  •    S. Bollert

  •    S. Kukadia

  •    P. McFarlane

  •    T Choy. (2022-C01)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.4.11   (4.2) 2022 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request (Relates to Bill No. 167)

At 5:26 PM, the Mayor places Councillor J. Helmer in the Chair.

At 5:30 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair.

Motion made by J. Helmer

That the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated March 29, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, to amend By-law No. CPOL-142-394 being a by-law for a Council policy entitled Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual, to provide for the “Rock the Park 17-July 2022” event use of Harris Park for five (5) consecutive days; it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda, from B. Jones, President, Jones Entertainment Group and G. Jones, Vice-President, Jones Entertainment Group, and the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-P11)

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.5   5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-03-28 CSC Report 5

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding Items 4 (2.3) and 7 (2.6).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Corporate Asset Management Plan Development (RFP 2022-049)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to RFP 2022-049, Corporate Asset Management Plan Development:

a)    the proposal submitted by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, Royal Centre, 650 Woodlawn Road W., Guelph, Ontario N1K 1B8, for the provision of professional services with respect to the development of the updated Corporate Asset Management Plan at their proposed fees of $217,195.00 excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with section 12.0 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”;

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

d)    the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the City of London entering into a formal agreement or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2022 Debenture Issuance

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Debenture Issuance:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with the issuance of debentures in the capital markets upon favourable market conditions to provide permanent financing for capital works in an amount not to exceed $21,000,000; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to schedule and convene an appropriately timed special Corporate Services Committee meeting upon successful placement of the City’s debt in the capital markets to ensure adequate time for Council approval while adhering to the necessary financial settlement requirements.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Year 2022 Education Tax Rates (Relates to Bill No. 158)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022 to levy education tax rates for 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) 2021 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2021 Compliance Report in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

a)    as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 8.11 (c), an annual report of total payments where a supplier has invoiced the City a cumulative total value of $100,000 or more in a calendar year, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”;

b)    the administrative contract awards for Professional Consulting Services with an aggregate total greater than $100,000, as per Section 15.1 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, decentralized from Purchasing and Supply that have been reported to the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and have been reviewed for compliance to the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “B”;

c)    the list of administrative contract awards for Tenders with a value up to $3,000,000 that do not have an irregular result, as per Section 13.2 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “C”;

d)    the City Treasurer, or delegate, BE DELEGATED authority to, at any time, refer questions concerning compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to the City’s internal auditor; and,

e)    the City Treasurer, or delegate, BE AUTHORIZED to ratify and confirm completed awards or purchases between $15,000 and $50,000 where the City Treasurer or delegate is of the opinion that the awards or purchases were in the best interests of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.7) Procurement in Emergencies Update 4 - COVID -19

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, as per section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, a report of Emergency non-competitive individual purchases which exceed $50,000 (pre-taxes), that the City has made from the date of February 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022 due to COVID-19, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (2.8) KPMG Clara File Sharing Tool (Relates to Bill No. 159)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 12, 2022, for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the KPMG Clara Exhibit to member Firm Engagement Letter / Terms.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (2.9) Respectful Workplace Policy and Workplace Violence Prevention Procedure Annual Report - January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (2.10) Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated February 28, 2022 from Councillor A. Hopkins regarding the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.12   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Awareness Month

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 1, 2022, from GBS-CIDP Foundation of Canada, the month of May, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Awareness Month.

Motion Passed

8.5.13   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Falun Dafa Week 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 15, 2022 from Falun Dafa Association Canada, May 13, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Falun Dafa Week 2022.

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (4.3) Appeal of Flags at City Hall Policy - Section 4.3(b)(ii)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the correspondence from P. Zhang with respect to a request to raise a flag to celebrate Falun Dafa day, BE RECEIVED and NO ACTION BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed

8.5.15   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Press Freedom Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated March 22, 2022 from ink-stainedwretches.org, May 3, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED World Press Freedom Day.

Motion Passed

8.5.16   (5.2) Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 160)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 12, 2022 to:

a)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“Agreement”) appended as Schedule “1” to the staff report;

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

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve any future amending agreements between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”);

d)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any future amending agreements between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”) approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; and,

e)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or designate) to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.5.17   (5.3) Election Sign By-law Update (Relates to Bill No. 168)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 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 Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Year 2022 Tax Policy (Relates to Bill No.’s 156 and 157)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2022:

a)         the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28 2022 as Appendix “A”, being a by-law to set tax ratios in the various property classes, in accordance with Sub-sections 308(4) and 308.1(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022, it being noted that the 2022 Municipal Tax Ratio By-Law has been prepared reflecting no change to tax ratios; and,

b)         the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 28, 2022 as Appendix “B”, being a by-law to set municipal tax rates for the various property classes, in accordance with Sections 307 and 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 12, 2022.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.5.7   (2.6) Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2022 Remuneration

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated March 28, 2022, entitled “Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2022 Remuneration” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Turner enquires with respect to construction noise prior to 7:00 AM and whether there is a provincial order still in affect; DCM Mathers responds, noting that enforcement needs to be notified.  Councillor S. Turner further enquires as to whether this can be communicated to the industry.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by M. Hamou

That introduction and first reading of Bill No.’s 155, 157 to 166 and 168 to 174, including the revised Bill No.’s 165, 172 and 174, and the Added Bill No.’s 176 and 177, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That second reading of Bill No.’s 155, 157 to 166 and 168 to 174, including the revised Bill No.’s 165, 172 and 174, and the Added Bill No.’s 176 and 177, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That third reading and enactment of Bill No.’s 155, 157  to 166 and 168 to 174, including the revised Bill No.’s 165, 172 and 174, and the Added Bill No.’s 176 and 177, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That introduction and first reading of Bill No. 156, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That second reading of Bill No. 156, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

That third reading and enactment of Bill No. 156, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That introduction and first reading of Bill No. 167, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That second reading of Bill No. 167, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That third reading and enactment of Bill No. 167, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That introduction and first reading of Bill No. 175, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Lewis

That second reading of Bill No. 175, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That third reading and enactment of Bill No. 175, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

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

4.1       Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.1/7/PEC)

4.2       Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. (6.1/5/CPSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/5/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of building and assets 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. (6.2/5/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of building and assets by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/5/CSC)

4.6       Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.4/5/CSC)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The Council convenes in closed session from 6:02 PM to 6:45 PM.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   6th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Lewis

  1.    Property Acquisition – 136 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 136 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 25, Broken Front Concession, Geographic Township of Westminster, designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-2911, being all of PIN 08358-0004 (LT), containing an area of approximately 4,811 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Valdas Joseph Ordas and Estate of Louise Myrto Ordas (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $509,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by A. Hopkins

  1.    Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets from London Hydro – Former Substation #36 – 1131 Kilally Road (Meander Creek Park)

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Parks and Forestry, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets from London Hydro located at 1131 Kilally Road, as shown on the location map attached in Appendix “B”, for the purpose of renovating the building into a fieldhouse along the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP), the following actions be taken:

a)    the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets, attached as Appendix “D”, submitted by London Hydro (the “Vendor”), to sell the building and assets to the City, for the sum of $5,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement;

b)     the Bill of Sale, attached as Appendix “E”, submitted by London Hydro (the “Vendor), in connection with the sale of the building and assets referenced in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets, attached as Appendix “D” BE APPROVED; and,

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

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. van Holst

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No. 178 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by J. Morgan

That second reading of Added Bill No. 178 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No. 178 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

Motion made by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by M. Hamou

That introduction and first reading of Added Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. van Holst

That second reading of Added Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. van Holst

That third reading and enactment of Added Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

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

Bill No. 155

By-law No. A.-8230-103 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 156

By-law No. A.-8231-104 – A by-law setting tax ratios for property classes in 2022 (2.3a/5/CSC)

Bill No. 157

By-law No. A.-8232-105 – A by-law levying tax rates for property classes in 2022. (2.3b/5/CSC)

Bill No. 158

By-law No. A.-8233-106 – A by-law levying rates for 2022 for school purposes in the City of London. (2.4/5/CSC)

Bill No. 159

By-law No. A.-8234-107 – A by-law to approve the KPMG Clara Exhibit to Member Firm Engagement Letter/ Terms; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.8/5/CSC)

Bill No. 160

By-law No. A.-8235-108 – A by-law to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding under the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (5.2/5/CSC)

Bill No. 161

By-law No. A.-8236-109 – A by-law to approve the Contribution Agreement for Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities 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. (2.4/5/CWC)

Bill No. 162

By-law No. A.-8237-110 – A by-law to amend the Airport Road South Business Park Urban Design Guidelines. (3.4b/7/PEC)

Bill No. 163

By-law No. A.-8238-111 – A by-law to approve The Multi-Program Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement (Homelessness Prevention Program) with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and to delegate authority to execute the Agreement. (2.7/5/CPSC)

Bill No. 164

By-law No. A-57-22001 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A-57 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-56, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges by adding fees related to the Dundas Place Street Vendor Pilot Program. (3.1/5/CWC)

Bill No. 165

By-law No. C.P.-1577-112 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 3024, 3001 2970 and 2954 Turner Crescent, legally described as Blocks 50, 51, 52 and 53 in Registered Plan 33M-790. (2.3/7/PEC)

Bill No. 166

By-law No. C.P.-1578-113 – A by-law to exempt from Part-Lot Control, lands located at 3161 and 3138 Turner Crescent, legally described as Blocks 48 and 49 in Registered Plan 33M-790. (2.4/7/PEC)

Bill No. 167

By-law No. CPOL.-142(c)-114 – A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL-142-394 being a by-law for a Council policy entitled Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual, to provide for the “Rock the Park 17 – July 2022” event use of Harris Park for 5 consecutive days.  (4.2/5/CPSC)

Bill No. 168

By-law No. E.-190-115 – A by-law to repeal By-law No. E.- 185-537 being the “Election Sign By-law”, and to enact a new “Election Sign By-law”. (5.3/5/CSC)

Bill No. 169

By-law No. S.-6174-116 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Dundas Street, west of Hale Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes on Dundas St, registered as ER1445124 (Part 2) and ER1445128 (Part 4) pursuant to B.020/21 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 170

By-law No. Z.-1-223014 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provision from the zoning for lands located at 585 Sovereign Road. (2.2/7/PEC)

Bill No. 171

By-law No. Z.-1-223015 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove holding provisions from the zoning for lands located at 1960 Evans Boulevard. (2.5/7/PEC)

Bill No. 172

By-law No. Z.-1-223016 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1200 Commissioners Road East (3.1/7/PEC)

Bill No. 173

By-law No. Z.-1-223017 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 910 Gainsborough Road. (3.3/7/PEC)

Bill No. 174

By-law No. Z.-1-223018 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 2520-2544 Advanced Avenue, 2475-2555 Bonder Road and 2560-2580 Boyd Court. (3.4a/7/PEC)

Bill No. 175

By-law No. A.-8239-117 – A by-law to authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding between University of Western Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (3.1/7/SPPC)

Bill No. 176

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wu)-118 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to 517, 521,525 Fanshawe Park Road East. (3.6a/7/PEC)

Bill No. 177

By-law No. Z.-1-223019 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 517, 521 and 525 Fanshawe Park Road East. (3.6c/7/PEC)

Bill No. 178

By-law No. A.-8240-119 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Valdas Joseph Ordas and Estate of Louise Myrto Ordas, for the acquisition of the property located at 136 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/5/CSC)

Bill No. 179

By-law No. A.-8241-120 – A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets and Bill of Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and London Hydro, being the acquisition of building, equipment and assets located at 1131 Kilally Road and referred to as former Substation #36, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreements. (6.2/5/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:59 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 22 minutes)

I ask for screens on, please colleagues, ask the clerk to confirm quorum. We have quorum. I also understand that Councillor Cassidy is ill and able to attend tonight’s meeting. I’m not aware of any other absences, are you clerk?

I am not. Thanks very much. So for the public, I’d like to welcome you to the sixth meeting of city council. We’d invite you to check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts.

These meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information on request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. And with that, colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures of beginner interest.

I see Councillor Hill here. I’ll recognize your first, please. Yes, I need to recuse myself from 8.4, number 11 to 4.2 parking part. Then we does put on a five day festival.

So noted, thank you very much. Councillor Turner, I saw your hand up. Thank you, Your Worship. With respect to number nine or 3.1 in the community protective services agenda, we have correspondence from a campaign worker in order to my campaign.

So I’m going to recuse myself from that and the receipt of that correspondence as well. So noted, thank you very much. Any other comments? I see Deputy Mayor Morgan, please.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. On the seventh report of SPPC, item 4.3, which is appointments to the University of Western Ontario’s Board of Governors, I’ll declare a conflict on that as Western University is my employer. And in the same report, item 3.1 part D of the Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has to do with the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Western Ontario, I will declare a conflict on that for the same reason Western University is my employer. Thank you very much.

And as I recall during SPPC, we split that vote to accommodate some conflict to interest issues. Any other conflict, any other community interest conflicts? Councillor Helmer, please. Thank you on the same items that Deputy Mayor Morgan just mentioned.

I’ll also declare a community interest as Western University is also my employer. And in addition to that, on the item 6.4, on the community and protective services committee agenda, which is about regulating short-term rentals, as I have rented out my own home on Airbnb in the past, and I likely would do so again in the future if I was away, I’m gonna recuse on that and have a community interest on that front. So noted, and I’m sure that all committee chairs have noted those conflicts. Any other conflicts or declarations of community interest?

Mr. Mayor, one thing I’ll say is, I think I’m presenting the report from that committee, so I’ll need someone else to present that item. We will, I’ll look for you to direct that accordingly, and then we will go from there. Thank you very much.

Any other closures? I see none. So with that colleagues, we have two recognitions. And the first I’m going to call on Councillor Palosa for the first recognition, Councillor Palosa, if we could please.

Thank you, Your Worship. It’s my pleasure to recognize Lloyd Grove tonight at council. I had the pleasure of joining him at Canadian Blood Services on Warren Cliff Road while he donated his 1,400th blood product donation. He’s done platelets, plasma, whole blood.

He is absolutely phenomenal and a proud Londoner, and he just encourages everyone to get out and give, if you’re able to, as less than one eligible donor in 80 actually goes out. So it only takes a few minutes to save a life. Be like Lloyd. He is wonderful and such a pleasure to speak to.

Thank you. Well, thank you, and I’ll note your encouragement in that regard, Councillor Palosa, because you certainly encouraged me, amongst others, to do the right thing, and thank you for that recognition of Lloyd. Colleagues, there’s one second recognition. I’m going to stand for this if I can.

Many of you may recognize the name Marvin, Martin Rucker, but some may not. Marvin served as an aldermen in London City Council between 1967 and 1973. Through that time, Colleagues, he served with Mayor Stroneck, McClure Gosnell, and Bigelow. And we found out that on April 1st, Marvin passed away in his 85th year.

Just a little background, because I think it’s appropriate as we recognize former council members, those who have made great commitments to this community. But Marvin would be remembered for his many years of devoted service to our community. He served as City, as aldermen, as indicated from 66 to 72, was the Liberal candidate for Middlesex County in the 1972 federal election. He spent a number of years representing the people of London as a trustee and board member of Victoria Hospital, the Deerness Hall Family and Children’s Services, the Humane Society, Eldenhouse Museum and the Liberal Credit Union.

He was also an adjudicator from the Ontario Assessment Review Board. I give you this by way of background as someone who dedicated his life to service. And to his widow Marissette, to his children, Lorraine, Mark, Andre, Christian, and their spouses, and to his grandchildren. Please, on behalf of London City Council, please accept our deepest and most sincere condolences.

And so with that, I will ask colleagues, if we can just take please out of respect to Marvin Wrecker, a few moments of silence. Thank you very much. I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public, but we would like to change the confidential session order. So with that, what I’ll be looking for is a motion to move item four, council closed session, and third report of council to after stage 13 bylaws with that.

I see councilor Hill here moving. Councilor Hopkins, seconding, thank you. Typically, no questions or comments. So let’s call the question if we can, please.

Councilor Van Mirbergen, close in the vote, motion carries. 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Item five are the minutes from the meeting held on March 22, 2022, and to put those on the floor, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

Please move by councilor Van Mirbergen, seconded by councilor Fife Miller. Any discussion? I see none. So with that, we will call the question.

Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. Under item six, communications and petitions, we have a number of those within your package tonight. We have a couple of items in 6.1, the climate emergency action plan.

We have several items relating to under 6.25, 17, 521 and 525, Fanshawe Park Road East. We have under 6.3, the proposed outdoor patio capacity limit extension, we have one communication there. We have a number of communications relating under 6.4 short-term accommodation. We have several items relating to 6.5, rock the park one-time policy exemption request.

So what I’m looking for is to do with us on one motion where we take these various communications and we ensure that they are put into the appropriate sections for which they are related. With that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Lehman. Thank you.

Any comments, questions? Seeing none, let’s call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14, is there all?

Thanks very much. Call the motion to which notice has been given under 7.1 relating to the fugitive slave chapel relocation and restoration. I’m at the pleasure. So, for leave, a leave would be required prior to any discussion, which would require a majority.

So I’ll look to see if anyone wishes to take any action with regard to this issue. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I will be asking to seek leave to bring this motion forward and look for support on that.

Thanks very much. You have a seconder for that. I see Councilor Palosa, seconding. For this to proceed, it will require a simple majority.

So with that, I’ll ask if there are any comments or questions with respect to the item on the floor. Councilor Lewis, is this, pardon me, Councilor Vanholst, is this to do with the leave or is this to do with the actual item? I think it’s to do with the leave, but it’s up to you. I see that— Actually, it’s up to you.

So you go ahead. Because of a deadline and I think that makes it reasonable for us to leave for the item. So I’ll support it. Thank you very much.

Any other comments or questions with respect to leave? Just a point of order. Yes, Councilor Turner. I think seeking leave is just to be put.

It’s not for debate, but I look to the clerk to clarify. Well, you know what? Councilor Turner, from time to time, in fact, most times you’re 100% correct and you are again. So with that, no more discussion.

We’ll call the question. And if there are any comments or questions, we will save those for the actual item itself. This is to seek leave. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much. And Councilor Turner is just having a little support with you, correct as is the case. So this is the floor and I wonder for this purpose.

I think it might be helpful in terms of informative discussion to hear from civic administration and some background on the chapel, just some brief comments that would be useful for that. Can we turn this over to staff to get some background and then we’ll see what course of action Council would like to take? Ms. Livingston, please go ahead.

Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure what information you’re specifically looking for to be helpful. What I can say is that generally these kinds of requests go through the community grants process, which operates annually and on a multi-year basis. So that’s the usual process that we follow and the grant process is currently open.

However, I understand that Councilors are very aware of that. So I won’t belabor it. I’m not sure what additional information you might be seeking right now. I think just to put that on the table that the community grants process is open.

This is the intent behind where I believe this is going to be going. And maybe I would look to Council to shape this discussion with a motion. And I think that will help us as well. But I think what you’ve said, Ms.

Livingston thus far is helpful. So I’ll look to see if a Council colleague would like to put this on the floor in a formal fashion. Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’ll put the motion as circulated in the communication on the floor. And do you have a second here? Councilor Palosa. Okay, comments, discussion.

Councilor Lewis, let’s start with you. Thank you, Your Worship. I appreciate since I’m putting this on the floor. You’re giving me the opportunity to go first.

Colleagues, I’ll try and I know some other signatories of the letter have some other points that they want to make. So I’ll try not to belabor them all. This is a time sensitive matter. And this is exactly the reason the Community Investment Reserve Fund exists to provide a timely pressure relief valve on things that don’t fit within the normal budget process or within other granting application processes that we have before us.

Yes, this could come as a business case in the next budget cycle. And we would deal with that in December or January. This could go through the London Community Grants process, which guarantees nothing because that’s not a Council decision. In fact, the adjudicators on that panel are not even publicly listed.

They may have a very strong case, but there’s no guarantee that this funding is approved. And even if it were approved through the London Community Grants process, we are talking about an end of July sort of decision period and then funds potentially being made available to the successful applicants in August. The Fugitive Slave Chapel, as it’s come to be known, really can’t underscore this enough, needs to be addressed this summer in terms of relocation. It needs to get on a permanent foundation pad and have its envelope sealed prior to the winter months arriving.

It’s lost on no one around this horseshoe that the building is in a sad, sad state of repairs. And I think it’s also impossible to overstate the importance of this building in terms of the history and heritage in our community. It’s a cornerstone to the black community’s early days in the early days of our city. I don’t think any one questions the heritage value of it.

What’s that question? I hope for colleagues tonight is the source of funding. And I believe I’ve made the case already on that. I just wanna say with my tourism board had on a little bit, though, locating this at Fanshawe Pioneer Village, which is a regional attraction and where we have staff members with expertise in heritage preservation and restoration makes a whole lot of sense.

Frankly, I think this is where it should have been relocated right from day one. They will also be able to use the funding if we commit to this tonight to help leverage through Cultural Spaces Canada, additional federal funding for the restoration. They’ve obtained $85,000 in fundraising through the community. So they’re not even asking us to fully match the community’s efforts.

But they will be able to leverage those community dollars and our dollars into federal funding to complete the approximately $300,000 project. I really hope that you will support this. I think that integrating this into Fanshawe Pioneer Village tells a more complete history of our community to the generations of students and guests to our city who will visit that location every single year. It’s an investment long-term in our tourism assets within the city.

But I think it’s also important to underscore that it’s not an appropriate ask that would fit under the MAT considerations because it would be incredibly difficult for the village to illustrate how this would relate directly to increased hotel stays. As I said, it’s a regional attraction, but many of the visitors are day visitors. So it’s not going to necessarily result in increased hotel stays. But it will improve our city’s overall tourism infrastructure for the long run for generations to come.

So I will wrap up there, and I’m sure others have some things to add to this, but I really encourage colleagues to support this. This is not an ideal situation. In other circumstances, there would be better ways to secure this funding. But the reality in having met with folks from Fanshawe Pioneer Village and the Community Steering Committee, which, by the way, has members from the Coordinating Committee for Black History Month, from Black Lives Matters, from the Congress of Black Women, all involved in it, this is the time to do this.

If we wait, we may potentially lose it forever. Thank you, any other comments? That’s a five-minute. Thank you, Your Worship.

And through you, colleagues, I’m not going to, I’m not going to speak to a lot of the comments that Council Lewis has made, but I’d like to speak to a couple of additional pieces here. And I think first and foremost, I have the opportunity to walk past the building currently at least once a week, and I’ve probably done that for the past three years. Building is continuing to deteriorate at a fairly rapid rate, but I also think that there are vandalism concerns where the building is at right now. And I think because of those, the urgency on those two items alone make this ask that much more important.

I also think bringing the slave chapel back into the light of conversation, one of the things that has opened is an ability for the community to work towards a final plan for this. We have to remember that it was almost seven years ago that this building was moved to its current location. But I think the most important thing here is, I’ve noted through the correspondence that I’ve received over the past week on this, since this has come out, the negative correspondence to me has reaffirmed our commitment to need to do this. There is a lack of understanding of not just what the slave chapel represents to our black community, but what it represents to our community as the Londoners as a whole.

And I think this is imperative. I think as the letter says from Fancha Pioneer Village, the time is now, and I think the time is now to do this. I think the funding source allows us this opportunity, and I think as council, I really urge my colleagues to support this tonight, to get the chapel into a secure, safe location where it can be restored, and the history of that be shared for decades to come. So thank you.

Thank you, any other comments? That’s a pleasure. Thank you, Your Worship. And ever so briefly, not to touch my other colleagues’ points.

Recognizing my background as a museum conservator by trade, I realized the importance of moving the structure as soon as possible, that it’s sitting in an uncared for its state. And if they can’t get approval to move this into the fall, it will not have an opportunity in 2022 to have the opportunity to be moved and stabilized before restoration work can even begin. I just wanted to highlight the point as well amongst the wonderful committee that does such great work with the organizing committee is also former city councilor, held Usher, has been involved in this in reaching out, asking for assistance. And I appreciate the timing as the budget chair of everything coming through at the ideal time at the ideal spot.

And just for me, this one, realizing their urgency of taking late today to discuss this is the opportunity to commit some municipal funds to help this group further use that to raise private funds amongst the community and to leverage it for what they’re hoping for the cultural spaces for restoration work for Canada for a grant and throughout the letters as well, just highlighting that this will integrate in what Black settlers have done to help build our urban and rural communities for more than 200 years and would have a place at Fanshawes. They come up on celebrating 60 years to make this part of public programming and having a conversation that’s well-informed and celebrating this humble building and what it actually has meant to learn in the surrounding area. So I am asking colleagues for support on this tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Casropkins. Yes, thank you. You’re worshiping before I make my comments. I would like to ask a question for you to staff about the community reserve fund and the availability of money.

If this is supported tonight, are there funds available and will they be imminent? I wonder if Ms. Barbone would answer that. Yes, thank you.

Through your worship, the balance in that reserve fund is over a million dollars. So there’s absolutely funds that are available. Should Council wish to fund this request? Thank you for confirming that.

I think it’s important that we know that we have the money and that it is available to us right now. I am going to encourage my colleagues to support this and one of the important reasons why this should be supported, this expense is just to move the chapel up to Pioneer, Central Pioneer Village. That’s the cost that it’s gonna take to move the chapel. I wanna thank Central Pioneer Village for having space and having a home for this chapel.

We have a place for it to be moved to. I think once it’s moved, funding can be available to start to restore it and it’s open to the public. It’s really important to understand and support not only the black history in our community, but it’s also about London’s history. And I agree, Councillor Lewis.

I wish we would have done this right at the beginning, but we haven’t. But the community has tried over and over again, understands the importance of this chapel and the need to restore it. And I would encourage everyone on council to support this request. Thank you.

Thank you, any other comments? Councillor Sallie. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there’s not much left to be said, but I wanted to add a couple of points. Really, I guess they’re just thanks. So I wanted to thank the collaborative approach. My colleagues on council when bringing this forward, as well as I want to thank members of the community in particular from Black Lives Matter, Black Women’s Congress and many other people involved in this process.

It’s been very much a team effort. And I think it shows by the support and letters that you see before you today. And I’m really looking forward to seeing council’s support here tonight and welcoming it into, I guess, my part of the city and more, three. So I think it’s very fitting and ensuring that continue to have access for an important historical site while I’m ensuring that access is available to everyone.

And I know I’ve had conversations and I’ll concentrate on about to ensure that these can remain accessible. I know they’re always open to more discussions, but we know that it’s still that sometimes of a challenge to get to that part of the city. But I just wanted to point that part out and to not make it seem as if we’re not aware of those challenges. But I think the conversations will continue to happen and I look forward to council’s support tonight.

Thank you. So Councilor Sleeh, a slight adjustment to your comments. And then I think it’s the great Ward 3’s. I think what you wanted to say.

I’ll turn any other comments. There you go. Any other comments or questions? Turn this over then to Council Deputy Mayor, please.

Thanks. I’ll go to the mayor. Thanks very much colleagues. Fanshawe Pioneer Village is the right place for the Fugitive Slave Chapel.

I’m not confident this is the right funding mechanism because we have a funding mechanism has been pointed out. It turns our community grants process. If for any reason that was turned down and I don’t think it’s quite as obfuscated a process as we would imagine, then we would always have the ability to do what we do as council colleagues, which would be to support through the fund as has been suggested through this amendment. Look, I know Fanshawe Pioneer Village and work that’s been involved there.

I’ve was involved in the Denfield General’s store and moving and I have a sense of that. I spoke with the executive director, yesterday at Fanshawe Pioneer Village. And I said, what will the cost to move the slave chapel from where it is to the village? Her comment, $80,000.

I said, well, that’s great because you’ve already raised 85 through community efforts. That’s a great start. She said, but we also have to lay a foundation. I said, what’s the cost of that?

She said, no, about $20,000. But I also know that, and we all know that there’s a fair amount of work that needs to go into the actual restoration and maintenance of the property. So I’m not challenging their overall $300,000 budget. I also understand the importance of leveraging the federal government’s creative spaces component, which has been generally, I’m sorry, Councillor Lewis, generally, about the need to do that.

Here’s my concern. I do not believe, and I want to be proven wrong, that by supporting this tonight, that this will have absolute priority from Fanshawe Pioneer Village to move it from its current location to where it needs to be. Here’s my concern. A great discussion with the executive director who I hold in great and high regard.

And said, one thing to order a pad to be done fine. Another for the tender process to move from where it is today in a parking lot to where it needs to be at Fanshawe Pioneer Village. So when we sometimes talk about the greater urgency of now, I fear that we’re not going to be talking until fall. So I’m saying to Fanshawe Pioneer Village, assuming this gets approved tonight, and I do believe there’s strong enough support, then prove me wrong, get this done now.

The point that’s been made by several colleagues has said this should have been done well before this time. And the fact that it’s rotting the way that it is, which means that London’s history is rotting, I think that’s shameful. But now that Fanshawe Pioneer Village has gotten the go ahead and you’ll see in your communications, we’ve been given a birthday gift from the, quote, owner of the building. Well, you know what?

Sometimes birthday gifts can come with price tags, but we’re prepared to pay a price for this. All I’m saying is I respectfully challenge Fanshawe Pioneer Village to move it as a priority, get it where it needs to be, and start to establish the process that needs to be done. If we’re talking about 71,000 from our funds, the 85 that’s been raised, more than enough to get it up there, at least to put it into the right spot. So what’s the next piece?

Then all the internal work that needs to be done and some of the ongoing commitments to it as well. I get it, but they need to now, that they have assumed responsibility for this. Please, please play their part. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thanks, and I will turn the chair to the mayor. I have no further individuals on my speakers list. And I don’t have any other speakers on this list. So with that, let’s call the question.

Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. With that, thank you very much. And Councillor Lewis, thank you for bringing that forward. Colleagues, we now have committee reports and we will start with civic works, and I’d like to call on Councillor Close.

Thank you, worship, it’s the fifth report, the civic works committee before us, before I do a high-level overview of the agenda. There was no split votes at committee, and I have not been given notice to separate anything out. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to have any item dealt with separately?

Dean Nunn, I’ll turn it back to you, Councillor Close. Thank you, worship. I will put all the 17 items on the floor then, just recognizing that the number 13, the LA Street North CPR under past projects had an irregular result. It came in over what we’re expecting.

Staff did give an overview of the project at committee and said inflationary costs, issues with tendering, some supply issues, labor costs was mainly the result, but they had scaled back and said how the project can still move forward with some extra funding. And as per item 17, the Kenmore Place sidewalk petition, staff clarified that this is the appropriate time to have that consultation and had no concerns with any of that. So as I said, there was no split votes and that’s all I have for you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from colleagues? Councillor Venner, bring it. Thank you, Mayor.

But we have commentary number 14, 4.6 from the committee agenda together with six, 2.5, dealing with the widening of Southdale Road, basically just passed Wonderland West to just west of Westwood and Farnham. Very much a good news story for Southwest London. Drivers throughout the area indeed from all over London that have to take that route, which is extraordinarily busy, must be jumping for joy with this news. The fact that this is going to be happening in this construction season is very positive indeed and will be very helpful for the Southwest.

So noted. Thank you very much, Councillor, any other comments? I see none, it’s been properly put on the floor. So with that, we will call the question.

Councillor Helmer. Councillor Helmer. Good call, Councillor Helmer. If not, we’ll mark you absent.

Presenter vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thanks very much and thank you, Councillor Ploza. Anything else for you? Thank you, thanks.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, I’ll turn your attention out to the strategic priorities and policy committee report. Turn this over to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Colleagues.

I’m going to present the seventh report of SPPC in the following way, given the unanimous votes and the conflicts contained within the report. I’d like to put items one, two, three, and six, which are the items in the report that no one had any conflicts on that were all passed unanimously on the floor first. And then I will proceed with the part of the Climate Emergency Action Plan that I can vote on. And then I’ll have Councillor Lewis take over the rest of the presentation of the report to present the final item on the Climate Emergency Action Plan, which I declared on, as well as the appointments to Western University.

So, unless colleagues have something they’d like, dealt with separately, I’d like to put one, three, four, and six on the floor for consideration. Does anyone wish to have any other items dealt with separately? I see none, back to you, Deputy Mayor. I have no comments on this at all, passing unanimously at committee, so look forward to the vote tonight.

So on items one, two, three, and six, any comments before we call the question? I lied, one, three, four, and six, apologize for misrepresenting that. One, three, four, and six. I see no comments, we’ll call the question.

Is this like power, could you check the consent vote on that? Through the chair, although the lead-in does not reflect items, what’s flagged in the system is one, three, four, and six. Thank you. Councillor Helmer.

Councillor Helmer is just entering. Councillor Helmer, are you able to vote that you’re muted? Sorry. If you could just tell me where we are in the agenda, I’ve been out of the meeting for the last minute and a half, two minutes.

We are at the seventh report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, voting on one, three, four, and six. Not including the items I declared and interest on. Okay, I’m in favor. Thank you.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yes, on item 3.1. In our agenda, there were four components to that, A, B, C, and D.

Two Councillors, including myself, declared a peculiar interest on D. So I’m happy to put parts A, B, and C from our report on the floor. So that’s everything related to the Climate Emergency Action Plan with exception of the memorandum with the University of Western Ontario. So noted, any comments on the first three sections of the Climate Emergency Action Plan?

I know colleagues, this was discussed quite extensively at SPPC Committee of the Whole. Any other comments that would be helpful for tonight? You see none, so with that, we will call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor, please. Great, and what remains on the agenda is 3.1 D, and then there’s also after that item five, which is the point east to Western’s Board of Governors. I have a conflict on both of those, so perhaps I can hand it over to Councillor Lewis to lead us through the rest of the SPPC agenda. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, worship. Colleagues, I will put item 3.1 section D, which is the memorandum of understanding with Western University on the Climate Emergency Action Plan on the floor. Thanks very much, comments or questions? Let’s call the question.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Thanks very much, colleagues. In a moment, I will turn it over, well, I’ll actually turn it right now back to Councillor Lewis, I have a comment. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’ll put item five, that’s 4.3 from the Committee Agenda, the City of Point East of the Western Universities Board of Governors on the floor now. Thanks very much, comments or questions? I do have one question I would like to make a comment if I can. So colleagues, what you’ll see here is a slight change of appointment date relating to the terms of our own civic appointments.

Mr. Learner and Councillor Harold Usher. And I have to tell you, both have served with distinction. And as we accept this and then look for public appointments for this process, I do want to pay particular tribute to both of these individuals who I think have done a tremendous job and very grateful for their service.

Councillor Lewis. We have no other speakers to worship, so I think we can call the vote. All right, then let’s call the question, please. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with two recuse.

Thanks very much, and I think that’s it for you, Councillor Lewis, thank you. You have anything else for you? No, that’s all I had from that report. Thanks very much.

So, Councillor Halmer, if I might, I’m not here to put you on the spot, but ‘cause we can vote in terms of whatever things we deemed to be conflicts. But I think that you and in the committee of the whole had declared a conflict on the climate emergency action plan, which was the specific item, Clerk. And I just want to make sure, Councillor Halmer, that you’re good with all this so that we can proceed. But if the clerk can just confirm back, please, and then we’ll see if we need to take any further action.

Thanks. Your worship, I believe it was item two, 3.1, item D. Yes, thank you, everyone. I did miss vote on that one.

I should have abstained and I voted in favor. The motion’s actually about introducing the by-law later this meeting. So I wasn’t going to make a big deal about it and ask for reconsideration. But since it’s now taken up a big chunk of time, we might as well reconsider, then I can abstain and clean it up right now.

Yeah, let’s do that. I’m just abstaining on the by-law. Councillor Turner, I’ll move that. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, thanks very much.

So with that for reconsideration, we will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And now I will look to the floor, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and I will put this back on the floor.

As I particularly said, as you always can, thank you very much. Any comments or questions? With that, we’ll call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with two recues.

We just wanted to do this right, and thank you all for your attention to that. Colleagues, and now anything else for you? Deputy Mayor, you are done. No, I’m good, thank you.

Thanks very much. So with that plan environment committee, I am actually going to call on Councillor Lehman as he was chair for that committee and over to you, Councillor Lehman, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll be presenting the seventh report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

We will, I will be pulling number 12, 517, 521, and 525 Fanshawe Park Road East. I will also be pulling items 5, 7, and 10. We have to go through a little housekeeping exercise on those, isn’t it? Second, please, Your Worship.

Thank you. Correction, pulling 4, 7, and 10. We have to do a little housekeeping, do some, do some minor errors that we have to get corrected. So what I’d like to do, I’ve heard of no other items from my colleagues to be pulled.

What I’d like to do is put the remainder on the floor, excluding items 4, 7, 10, and 12. Does anyone wish to have any other item dealt with separately, other than 4, 7, 10, and 12, which will be dealt with separately? I’ve seen them, so with that, with those four exceptions, we will call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Your Worship upon advice of the clerk, here’s how I would like to proceed. I would like to put amendments one at a time to be voted on separately, first to four, then to seven, and then to 10. So I’d like to start with four.

The rationale for this amendment is that the proposed by-law had a typographical error, and incorrectly listed 2954 Turner Crescent as 3954 Turner Crescent. So I would like to put that amendment on the floor. And I’m looking for a seconder. Do I have a seconder?

I see Councillor Turner’s namesake for the street, and I think it’s quite appropriate to any comments or questions in public. Why does it have a conflict? No, conflict, I’m sure not. Thanks very much.

But by the way, I’ll tell you, but hold her way sometime by the airport, no conflict there others, so. I see now we’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you.

Thank you. Next I would like to put an amendment on the floor to number seven, 1,200. Commissioners wrote east. The rationale is that the CSA5 zone variation is section 224E, and not 224D, as stated in the original by-law.

And to the intent was to include the new permitted use of some regulations to CSA5 bracket two. Thank you. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you very much. Comments or questions called it? Councillor Amholz, please. Thank you, Your Worship.

So my gratitude to the committee for supporting this. It’s a great new story for the community. Thank you very much. Any other comments?

Dean Numb will call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you. Thank you.

Number 10, regarding 2520 to 2544 Advanced Avenue, 2475 to 2555 Bonder Road, and 2560 to 2580 Boyd Court. The rationale behind the amendment is the proposed recommendation in by-law at a typographical error in a listing listed 2555 Bonder Road as 255 Bonder Road. I’d like to put that on the floor. Thank you.

Do you have a seconder? I see Councillor Hill here. Thank you. Any comments or questions?

Councillor Van Halst. Thank you. Just saying it’s pretty exciting to see that the film production facilities could be in this location as well. Thank you.

And thank you. Any other comments or questions? I see none will call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0.

Councillor Lehman. What I’d like to do now is put all three, number four, number seven, and number 10 on the floor as amended. So noted for that, I see Councillor Hopkins seconding comments or questions. I see none.

So with that, as amended, we will call the question. Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Lehman.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put number 12 regarding 517, 521 and 525, Fanshawe Park Road East on the floor. It came to council with no recommendation from the standing committee. It was moved, but a seconder was not to be had.

And so that is where it lies with council. I do believe that an amendment has been put forward. Recommendation, Councillor Hopkins, please. Yes, thank you, Worship.

And there was no decision made at the Planning and Environment Committee. I would like to bring forward the recommendation that staff provided at planning as well as an amendment. I have circulated the amendment. I can read it, but I am looking for a seconder if you’d like me to proceed with the amendment to the staff recommendation.

I can do so. Or do you use it to avoid a seconder? We have received that. So I don’t think we need that reread out, but I will say, do you have a seconder for that?

But I’m looking for. Yeah, that’s what I heard. I see Councillor Lewis, comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, I may. Thank you for the seconder. And I know the word Councillor is not with us tonight. So I would like to ask council support for the staff’s recommendation, but also to include the E portion of it, which is to that the approval authority be advised that in addition to the matters that are described in Clause D, which there are a number of issues still to be determined, that consideration be given to limiting vehicles exiting the site to a right turn only onto Gary Avenue.

And I would like to ask staff for you, if there’s concerns with this added amendment to the recommendation, as well as if we have had and supported other applications for traffic coming out of developments in determining the movement of traffic. I wonder if this might go to Mr. Barrett. Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, through your worship. I’ll speak perhaps to the second first.

Certainly looking at alternate means to deal with access and egress from a development site as part of the site plan approval process is something that actually is part of that process. So the ability to look at other considerations to how we could address traffic flow from developments is not something that is unusual or unexpected. With respect to the first part, certainly with respect to the motion that’s on the floor, we have no issues with the motion. I just want to advise that as we go through this process, this is a technical process.

So understanding that this is counseled desire and that this is something that we know is a significant issue in the neighborhood. It is something that we will take and we will take back to ensure that we’re able to address this direction to the greatest to be possible. But I can’t answer you specifically on the technical aspects of that, but certainly that’s something we’ll look at. And it is something that is, as I said, in the first part, it’s not untoward for us to be directed to look at, to address neighborhood concerns.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Barrett, for that answer. We heard from the community loud and clear that safety and their neighborhood is a concern.

I know from the Ward Councillor that a lot of work has gone into this neighborhood in creating a safe space. There’s a school down the road. This development is going to add intensification and traffic into the neighborhood. And if we can mitigate it in any way, I think we need to do that.

To me, it’s part of thoughtful development. And we do have to be thoughtful when it comes to the concerns of the neighborhood that this development will have. And I am hoping that we can have support for this amendment moving forward. I think it’s really important that we create a safe space in our neighborhoods when we do intensifications.

And I know with infills in my ward, that is always a concern. And it is important that we take into consideration the concerns from the community and do what we can to assist the safety of the neighborhood. So with that, I’m hoping you will support the staff recommendation as well as the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’ll start by saying my apologies to Councillor Turner that I had to leave PEC early or he would have had a seconder at the committee level. For me, this is one that I’m happy to support.

I too have had an opportunity to have a conversation with the Ward Councillor. And I appreciate that Councillor Hopkins has brought forward on her behalf an amendment to address some of the traffic concerns. I have seen in other developments where the colloquial pork chop on the laneway access does prevent left hand turns out of a development and requires it to be a right hand only turn. I think that that will assist in terms of diverting any sort of cut through traffic away from the school, people who are trying to avoid the heavier traffic on Fanshawe Park Road.

And we did hear from the community. And I recognize that they’re not in love with this proposal, but Fanshawe Park Road is one of the major arteries in our city is an appropriate place for intensification. This is going to provide new residential units for people. And I think that at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, is there a legitimate planning reason to reject an application that the neighbourhood doesn’t like?

And from what I’ve seen from our staff report, there is not a legitimate reason to do that, that this meets the requirements of our own planning as well as the Provincial Planning Act intense. So I think that it comes down to, does this meet planning requirements? It does, is there a reason to reject it under planning requirements? No, the Ward Councillor has brought forward an amendment to address one of the community’s concerns.

And when the Ward Councillor does that, I tend to listen to them. They’re the ones whose neighbourhoods are most impacted. So I’m happy to support this and we’ll look forward to further debate on this. Thank you.

I’ll look to the Deputy Mayor, please. Yes, I wanted to comment on this too. And thanks to Councillor Hopkins for bringing forward the staff recommendation as well as Councillor Cassidy’s suggested amendment. And I appreciate that Councillor Cassidy had the time to circulate some of her rationale for proposing this.

I was specifically interested in this one because this is very, very similar to a development that occurred in my ward a few years back. A large seven story building across from Masonville Mall, the backs onto single family homes with a school along the access street. And one of the solutions that we were drawn to through that discussion with the community was the same sort of solution that Councillor Cassidy is suggesting that the approval authority consider here. And that is right in right out.

In my ward, it’s along Hill Street and the school is Masonville Public School. And I could tell you that now being in operation for some time, it seems to be working quite well in providing a solution that the community has been very comfortable with. I mean, there were other things we did with that development related to setbacks and site plan issues too in consultation with the community. But I want to echo what Councillor Lewis said.

You know, it’s the ward Councillors who know not just the issues that the development creates for the immediate neighbors, but their work through school travel plans and school communities on the impacts that these developments can have with flow through into the neighborhood. And so I know that the amendment is a suggestion to the approval authority to consider this. Certainly I would express my strong support for such a resolution if it fits our staff’s technical requirements because I know it has worked well in other very similar situations. So my kudos to Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Cassidy for bringing forward what hopefully is a solution that will alleviate some of the community’s concerns.

Thank you. I’m showing no other speakers on the list. I am. Councillor Turner, please go ahead.

Thanks Your Worship. Thanks to my colleagues. I’m glad to hear some support generated for this. I didn’t support Councillor Cassidy’s request at the time when I moved the motion, mostly because I didn’t see it as much of an issue as was being presented.

I know that there are concerns often in almost in every development application about the traffic impacts that will ultimately arrive within a neighborhood. The traffic analysis on this is low. The majority, the vast majority of people exiting that building are already going to Fanshawe Park Road, a small number of them may go left instead into the neighborhood to avoid the intersection if they were looking to turn left. I’m not completely opposed to that either.

The traffic impacts as we saw with a previous application in that neighborhood are primarily driven by the school traffic, not by the residential traffic. And the number of residents in this neighborhood at any given time that are going to be added to in terms of traffic by this building is, I don’t consider it to be material. I do understand the concerns. I listen closely to every speaker.

I understand that the development is different than what is predominantly found deeper into the neighborhood with terms of single family homes. The location of this building is appropriate. It’s a low rise building, low to mid rise building on Fanshawe Park Road, which is one of our busiest arteries. If there’s a place for us to be placing density, this is one of those places.

And the impacts into the neighborhoods are going to be generally low. The difference between four and six stories, I can appreciate the concerns with those. But six stories is supported by our official plan, both one in plan and the official plan. There are no special area policies that speak against this proposal.

So all our policy statements, provincial policy statement planning acts, the London plan, the OP88, all of those are speak and are permissive of an application such as this. So I know that those concerns were raised by the community as I said, listen very closely to those. Our jobs as counselors are to take a look at our policy framework. Those policies were built by Londoners and their inputs.

And we have to be really consistent with those and where we don’t have compelling arguments against our own policies, then we need to find in favor of them. So in this circumstance, I think it was appropriate. There was some concern about the amount of bonusing involved. The reduction, it’s an 80% reduction for 50 years on the units that are there, which ends up being in the multiple millions of dollars in terms of the economic impact associated with those.

And I know we often have concerns about what affordable housing means, but in this circumstance, it probably ends up being 50% what the market rent in that building will be for those units. It’s 80% of the average market rent. It’ll be almost half of what the actual rent will be for the other units within that building. So that’s a deep discount.

It’s not a huge number of units, but the trade off was for the lift amount extra that they can build, which was the extra two stories. And that’s what we have to keep in mind. Obviously, we want to see as much affordable housing as we can. We’ll continue to strive for that in every development.

And I’m glad to see these coming forward every time we see an application. I think it’s a great application of policy. And it’s one small way that we can help to increase the stock within our city. So very supportive of the application.

And I hope my colleagues will be as well. Thank you very much. I have no other speakers on our list. So with that, we will call the question.

Worship all, verbally vote yes. Thank you. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Layton.

Thank you. Worship that exhaust the number of items on the seventh report. Non-exhaust of it all, thank you very much. So with that, now we will turn to the fifth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

I’ll note Councillor Casty has indicated her regrets. Councillor Hummer, might I call on you as vice chair to present the committee report? Thank you. I’d be happy to.

I will put all of the items from the committee report on the floor. I’m not aware that they want us to pull anything. The exception of a number nine, 3.1, which I have declared a pecanary interest on. And I’ll need someone else to move that afterwards.

I see Councillor Turner, did I miss one? No, you didn’t. But I’d like to rehearse for you. Worship, if I could request a 4.2 from the committee report to be pulled as well.

So we’re talking 3.1, 4.2. Does anyone wish anyone else any other item that was separately? I see none, so Councillor Hummer, we’re putting all that 3.1 and 4.2 on the floor. Thank you.

Any comments or questions with respect to the balance of those items? Councillor Lehman, please go ahead. Thank you. I’d just like to briefly make a comment at committee.

I’d like to thank committee and staff for the process regarding the Oak Ridge resident engagement results. This is a result of council approving a process by which we could get upgrades to the Oak Ridge Optimus Park. And thanks for their donation to the park and the neighborhood, essentially, for their service for two years during COVID as it’s initially starting out as the first assessment center in the area. It was a terrific process that was unique.

That staff undertook getting multiple responses through email, social media, direct mail, resulting in winnowing down to 30 great suggestions for what could be done. And those were put to a vote by those in the area resulting in the winning vote, which is an upgrades to the tennis court facilities there. As well, there was a long-term portion of that process which indicated the desire of the community to have us look at potential upgrades to the actual arena. That’s arena is a one-pad, single-pad rank that has the ability, was built to look at a second story which would be most welcome at some point down the road as we don’t have a community center as such for my ward to use for various purposes as are in other words.

So I will be pursuing that with staff as we go down the road. I’d like to say thanks to my colleague, Councillor Halmer. He has a Carling Heights in his ward, a similar situation where they’re still acting as a testing center, I believe, and at some point we’ll be going through this process as well. Councillor Halmer was his actually idea that he came up with ‘cause I know we were both looking independently of ways that our various communities could be recognized, and I want to thank him for coming forward with an idea including Wardley and the Oak Ridge area as well with his initiative on that.

So I appreciate the collaborative spirit with the Councillor. So thank you to Council on behalf of Oak Ridge for recognition of their service during this COVID talk. Thank you, any other comments, colleagues with the exception of the two items having been pulled? Councillor Turner.

A quick question if I might with respect to 2.6 and Parks and Rec Master Plan. My apologies for not making this in career earlier. I’m just wondering with respect to the progress on a FARCUS and arena that was originally within the Parks and Rec Master Plan, I understand that its repurposing has been postponed. It seems somewhat indefinitely as a result of COVID and our progress on the master plan.

I don’t see it reflected in the report, however, that’s through your worship. Thank you. I’m not sure if that might be Mr. McConaugall.

Mr. Stafford, Ms. Smith. There we are.

Thank you and through your worship. Thank you for the question, Councillor Turner. We will be coming to council in the coming months with an extension to the current FARCUS in agreement. We are just in the process of undergoing that with the Thames Valley District School Board until such time as we build our two-part arena and at the Southeast Community Center location.

We still require the ISEP FARCUS and arena. Councillor Turner. Thank you, I appreciate that. Just had an increase from the community.

So I’m glad I had the opportunity to ask, thank you. Thank you, any other comments or questions? I see none. So with the exception of items 3.1 and 4.2, we will call the question.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. So on Councillor Hummer, it would appear that we require someone else to deal with that. Put that item on the floor. Is there anyone from your committee?

I’m looking to use your Councillor Hummer, put that on the floor. She’s so noted that she will. Comments or questions on short-term accommodations? Councillor Unpost.

Thank you, Your Worship. And of course, we have just received the draft for the purposes of the community engagement and the public participation, meaning I acknowledge the people that have written in, some on both sides of this issue. But I think there’s some important clarifications that have been made about this. I was taking a little course on the Constitution online and it mentioned that a lot of times, rights issues are simply never discussed when there’s a discussion of administrative convenience.

And we’re looking at a way to better deal with nuisance parties. And I want to make sure that we did mention that, at least in my opinion, that people do have a right to purchase a property and fix it up and offer that as a short-term rental. And this is something that many people have done. And I think in most cases, their renters are not nuisance.

And we can see from the communications that it’s certainly easy for them to put a stop to a party and simply remove the offenders if there is a problem with the neighborhood. Neighbors are able to contact the Airbnb organization itself. So it’s very self-regulating. And I think we need to keep this in place.

So I’m very low to say that people are not allowed to do this thing. But I do want to make sure that we’re able to deal more effectively with the problems as they come up and the nuisance is. And I see there’s a number of ways to do that. We could, for instance, write in our nuisance by-law simply define parties that at short-term rentals that violate the policies that are written as nuisance.

So there would be one thing and that would allow us to recoup the funds that we invest in order to send by-law officers and police out there. And when those fines become more significant, then they’ll act as a better deterrent. So I’m looking at some or hoping for some better deterrents. And I just wanted to ask through you to our staff because just to confirm that they’re, in fact, looking at some items like this and are gonna return to us with a report on that.

So if I may, to you to perhaps Mr. Catola. I see that Mr. May, this is all lit up.

So why don’t we start with him? Through your work. Yeah, absolutely. We heard from over 44 presenters at the meeting and they had a lot of good points.

So we’re gonna be taking all that information back and providing some analysis and options for council. Yes, we will be looking at a variety of different issues moving forward, our ways of addressing this moving forward. Thank you, Councillor van Bost. Okay, thanks, I’m encouraged to hear that.

And I do believe that this is a valuable service that’s provided here in London. I think there’s many reasons people look at short-term accommodations and many of them not that short-term. So people will rent these for months in order to do some important work here. And so it really does provide an important alternative.

And so I hope that we can deal with that, the real problem, which was how to cope with nuisance parties in a way that doesn’t require us a lot of extra administration or bureaucracy and certainly depriving people of a chance to make an income. And for some people, this is their sole income. 30 seconds, Councillor, please. Might have been the end.

I’m sorry, okay, thank you very much. So with that, I will now turn to Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Well, I don’t want to engage in cross debate through you with a fellow member of council.

I can’t let it go on responded to that somehow people have a constitutional right to ignore zoning, business permit, licensing and other regulations that a municipality can impose. It is absolutely within our right as a municipal government to put zoning restrictions on pieces of land as part of our official plan. It is absolutely our right as we do with every other class of business in this city to require business licensing and permits moving forward. So that is what is going on here.

This is not just about nuisance parties, by the way, as Councillor Vanholz indicated. There are a myriad of issues that have arisen from this, from the character of the neighborhood and nuisance parties, certainly housing, the appropriateness of a fair playing field for the hotels that operate in their city, the accommodation or the collection of the municipal accommodation tax safety issues in terms of ensuring that units are properly inspected for fire, egress, building code requirements, et cetera. So to bring it down to people can just do whatever they want with their properties, with all due respect, is not what we’re discussing here. We have a draft by-law that staff are going to incorporate some potential changes based on what we heard from operators and come back to us with a future report.

But I think it’s really important to make no mistake here. We absolutely have the right and the jurisdiction to impose limits on how property is used. Remember, these are zoned residential properties. These are not commercial properties, and yet they’re operating as commercial enterprises.

And that is at the heart of the issue here. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you. Anyone else wish to make a contribution to this discussion?

I see none. This is to receive the report. I will call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to zero with two recues. Councillor Humu, I appreciate that. I’m going to turn this now back over to Councillor Halmer, please. I believe you still need to deal with 4.2, so I’ll put that on the floor.

This is the Rock the Park one time policy exemption request. Thank you very much. Comments or questions? Councillor Turner.

Thanks Your Worship. I just wanted to explain my dissenting vote on this one. We’ve had several requests for one day exemptions and one time exemptions, so it doesn’t seem so one time anymore. I believe there’s also consideration at some point of making this a little bit more permanent too.

We hear continuously from residents within the neighborhood about understanding that events are going to happen in the park. The extensions continue to just kind of push the envelope on how much should be permitted there. Often this is kind of veiled as a charity enterprise. The reality is the charities are kind of that foot in the door to an alcohol license to be able to put a beer tent in place from my understanding.

And so that ends up being a little more problematic. I think if we’re going to talk about it, let’s talk about it on its merits as an event within the city. I think it’s great that we have events like this. The question is to a degree.

So I’m not opposed to Rock the Park in general. The question for me is whether we grant another one time exemption and continue to see these come forward. So for that reason, I’m going to vote no at this time. Any other comments or questions?

I know the mayor has his hand up if he’s recognized, but let’s see if there’s anyone else that wishes to speak. I don’t think I can, I don’t think I can recognize myself. So perhaps I’ll look to the chair if he’ll recognize the mayor if I ask nicely. Go ahead, Mayor Holder.

Thanks very much. Thank you to the community for their input with respect to the Rock the Park colleagues. I moved this at the last committee meeting. And a couple of things I want to go over and just clarify for the benefit of those who were to committee.

Firstly, this is a promoter that twice, this would be three times now in the last several years if it’s approved tonight, where we have given a five day concert allowance. Concert training is quite right. These one off type situations, frankly, probably aren’t helpful, but I think at some stage we may well have to deal with that too. But that is not the question tonight.

The question tonight is, are we prepared to offer to Jones Entertainment, who in my view is a first class, first rate promoter who’s extremely responsible in the work they do, the ability to run for five days straight. One thing I’d like to clarify, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this as a charity concert per se as much as charities are involved often with sweat equity. They get certain financial supports from the promoter and there may be some other and celery benefits as well to the charity, but let me tell, and to the promoter, but I will tell you they certainly work for their money as charities. The second thing I would add is that when we were dealing with the early stages of COVID, one of the things we had to deal with was the reality that we needed promoters to self-regulate, to say, you know what, maybe these are events we won’t do right now because there were so many unknowns with regard to the impacts of COVID.

Can I tell you this? And I spoke with all of them. Jones Entertainment was the first to voluntarily withdraw the Rock the Park event as an acknowledgement of what we were trying to do because they believe as we on council have all tried to do and that is to keep Londoners safe. So, I think, kudos to them.

Final thing I’d like to add, London’s the city of music. I think we’re still yet to define what all of that means and I think there’s some exciting opportunities. And when I look at the entertainment district, can I imagine, as I see entertainment today, I was joined by Councillor Fyfe Miller and the Deputy Mayor as we acknowledge the London Clean and Green. And guess where we were?

Folks, we were at Labat Memorial Park. Oldest, natural baseball stadium and grass in the world. And is that entertainment? You betcha.

All we had to see was the IBL champions and some of the slavish behavior by Councillor Squire at the time and probably Councillor Lewis. It was almost embarrassing in their strong support for these teams, but deservedly so. Harris Park’s part of that as well. So it’s my hope colleagues that we all come in behind this and support this and if there’s going to be other considerations in the future, we’ll deal with that in terms of any by-law that might be required.

But tonight, I say let the music play. Thank you, Chair. Anyone else who wishes? I hope you’re the meeting back already.

Thanks very much. That was a little weird, but thank you. Any other comments or questions with respect to this? Dean Nunn, let’s call the question, please.

Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to one with one recuse. Thank you very much, Councillor Halmer, anything else for you? I’m sorry, I turned away. I think you shook your head no.

Nope, that’s it. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, kindly. All right, and for the fifth report, there’s been colleagues of the corporate services committee calling Councillor Lewis, please.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve not been made aware of any items individuals want specifically pulled to vote on separately, although I suspect that Councillor Hopkins may wish to speak to us about the AMO items. She gave a great overview at committee and she may want to share that with all of Council, but we did have some good debate on some of these items. We did, however, pass them all unanimously, so we didn’t have any divided votes.

I will say if I can, Chair, that we have established the practice that we do not need to pull the item we’ve voted on separately if a colleague wishes to discuss it, which is why we’ll always come back through. Does anyone wish an item to be dealt with separately for voting purposes? Councillor Hummer. Item three or four, 2.3, the 2020 tax policy, please.

Thank you. Any other items, colleagues? Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Mayor.

If we could pull 2.6, I’d like to vote on that separately. So noted, any other items, colleagues? So appreciating, and we’re assuming that Councillor Hopkins wishes to speak to him, I hope she will, but I will tell you we are going to be voting in a few moments on items with the exclusion of 2.3, 2.6, before we vote on those items, any comments or questions? Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, I’d like to make a comment on number five, which is the 2022 education tax rates. I just want to comment about the report. So as we recall as a council back in the end of 2020, the provincial government changed the business education tax rates after a long series of lobbying from the city of London, which concluded in us pulling together a number of partners. And I know Mayor Holder, myself and Councillor Halmer did quite a lot of work on that to the point where that change was made.

And even Mayor Holder and the city of London were mentioned in the provincial budget. And in this report, it shows why that was so important. And remember, this was an issue of fairness to equalize the business education tax rates amongst those who had been paying at the old rate and those who’d been paying at the new rate. The province went even further than our request and lowered it to 0.88.

And what that means for London businesses is an annual savings projected by our staff of almost $21 million every year. And as we know through the pandemic, that sort of relief to London businesses could not come at a better time as we move forward towards the recovery phase of the pandemic. But the report also highlights an important consideration for Council to be aware of. And that is with that reduction of business education taxes, there is the possibility that we receive different payments under the payment and lieu of taxation program.

And I know Mayor Holder has already written a letter to the federal government saying that we certainly don’t want to see a decrease in the amount of revenues that the municipalities would receive from this. It is an issue that’s on the horizon. And the magnitude of this is not insignificant. It could result in almost a quarter of a million dollar hit to our budget.

So very good for London businesses. It has been good for the city because we certainly have not taken that hit yet. But an important lobby position on the horizon that I know AMO and us and others have taken up. So something to be aware of in the future and something to continue to work on.

But overall, a very good news story for London businesses on those education tax rates as we move forward at the new lower rate. So I want to add those comments today. Thank you. Thanks very much.

Any other comments with respect to this item in the education tax? Any other comments colleagues wish to make on any and all of the items with the exception of the two that have been pulled? Councillor Hopkins, please. Councillor Hopkins, we need to take you off mute.

Actually, you need to take you off mute. There we go. Yeah, I need to take my house off mute to your worship. So thank you for giving me a moment to be able to do that.

And I hope colleagues you were able to review the update from the AMO board of directors that I sit on. And it’s really been a conversation at AMO for all municipalities, big or small, on housing. And AMO has come up with a blueprint that recognizes the importance of housing in our community. And as you go through the report, you can see the importance.

It underlines unaffordable housing. It’s got its blueprint. It’s made recommendations to the provincial government. I have been very honored to be a part of that conversation with the provincial government on behalf of the city of London.

We’ve had really great conversation underlining the importance of affordable housing. The need for federal and provincial funding as well cannot be just mentioned. There’s just such a need that for us to deal with affordable housing, we need that collaboration and partnership with all governments. And it has been— I hope you get an opportunity to look at that blueprint.

It is very, very important to all municipalities. And there’s full support at the AMO board on this housing blueprint. It would also like to just give you an update. I do chair the large urban caucus.

And at the large urban caucus, we have a continuous conversation at the AMO board about the importance for social supports, for social services relief fund. I know there was an announcement to continue that. That is so important to help municipalities deal with the challenges coming out of the pandemic. And dealing with economic recovery, we can’t do it alone.

We need those supports from all levels of governments. That has to continue daycare, $10 a daycare, has also been a conversation that large municipalities really, really have been pushing for that. And I am glad that the province has come forward supporting that the affordable housing just continues to be an ongoing conversation with the large urban caucus. As well, the mental health and addictions, that is something that large municipalities— all municipalities— but the large urban caucus, in particular, is constantly pushing the importance of the need for supports to all municipalities.

And I think we have to continue having those conversations. I know you will worship your on the OBCM. And we, at the large urban caucus, at AMO, sort of align with OBCM, the Ontario Big City mayors, in trying to push, encourage the government to support municipalities as we try to be whole, as we deal with economic recovery. So with that, I hope you get to read the housing blueprint, got some great recommendations, and just hope the provincial government is listening as well.

So thank you. And thank you, and for your work on AMO as well, sincerely, from all of us, thank you. Any other comments or questions with respect to all but the items that are dealing with separately? I see none, so with that, we will call the question.

Closing the vote, do you see that Councillor Hopkins has her hand up? Was there a question you had? No, and my apologies for being out of order, but it is— I missed a very important part of my comments. I want to thank City staff, Nick Steinberg, and Adam Thompson for their support.

There’s absolutely no way I can be at the AMO board without their support, and without a doubt, my thanks to City staff for their continuous ongoing support, because it just does not take one person to make this happen. Thank you. Very appropriate. Thank you very kindly.

That— Put the closing of the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Thank you very much. You snuck that in just at the very last moment, Councillor Hopkins.

All right, so with that, back to Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I will put item 4. This is 2.3 from the committee agenda.

The year 2022 tax policy on the floor. This was pulled by Councillor Helmer. Perfect. Any other— any comments that anyone wishes to make?

Let’s go to Councillor Helmer then, please. Thank you, colleagues. I want to explain why I’m not going to support leaving the tax ratios the way they are this year. I did last year support, given everything was going on with the pandemic, essentially leaving things as they are and just making no changes.

But the fundamental problem of having the high, relatively high, multi-residential tax ratio remains. And where I see this going is, over time, we’re going to steadily decrease it until we get it down to the same rate as both the residential class and the new multi-residential class, which, of course, is already down at the same rate as the residential class. And until we do that, and I do think it’s going to take some time, we’re going to have this situation where some higher density buildings are taxed at a much higher rate than others. No condos are taxed at the low rate, and things that are not condos are taxed at the high rate.

Things that are new are taxed at the low rate, and things that are older are taxed at the high rate. All the single family residential is taxed at the low rate, and the higher density, seven or more, so contained units is taxed at the high rate. And I just don’t think it’s right. I never have thought it’s right.

I think we have to resolve this unfairness in the tax system. And I think, rather than leaving things the way they are, we should be taking a small step towards getting to equal rates over the long term this year. I know that means pushing the tax levy from this property class onto the other property classes. I know people don’t generally want to do that sort of thing.

But I think the longer we put it off and skip years without making any small changes, the harder it’s going to be in the long run to deal with it. So this year, I’m not willing to just leave it the way it is. I think we should make another small bump down this year, and then do another one next year and the one after that, until we finally resolve this unfairness. It’s in some ways been made worse by the introduction of the new multi-residential tax ratio, which has to be down at the same level as the residential one.

Obviously, that’s stopping the problem from getting worse. It’s contained the problem, and we’re not going to keep adding new buildings at the high rate. But I don’t think it’s right that we’ve got these older buildings, higher density that are carrying the highest property tax burden of any residential property in our community, including, as I pointed out before, unsuccessfully, our own social housing buildings. So I would like to just vote against it.

If that were to fail, I think we could propose an alternative tax ratio for multi-residential that’s just a bit lower, not dramatically lower, and make a small changes. Thanks for much any other comments or questions. Seeing none, we will call the question. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

Very much, that’s for those. Thank you, your worship. I will put the final item on the floor now. That’s item seven, 2.6 from the committee agenda, the elected officials and appointment, citizen members 2022 remuneration.

Thanks very much, comments or questions? I have no one on the speakers list. So with that, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one.

That is it for the fifth report of the Corporate Services Committee, Your Worship. Thank you very much. Colleagues, there are no deferred matters, but I do have an inquiry. So with that, I’ll turn this to Councillor Turner if I could please.

Thank you, Your Worship. We got to that point really quickly. So I appreciate the opportunity to ask. If I might throw you to perhaps Mr.

Mathers, I’ve had a number of inquiries about construction noise, especially prior to 7 a.m. I know that back when we had the first stay-at-home order afterwards, the provincial government it kind of suspended those noise bylaws to allow for the industry to try and catch up to some of that deferred and delayed building. But we’re a couple of years later right now and it seems that those construction starts continue to persist prior to 7 a.m. Just wondering if that provincial order is still in effect and if there’s any options that we have as a municipality to address these concerns.

Mr. Mathers, do you have a response? Your Your Worship, we are now in a position to be able to enforce the sound by-law once again so that the provincial exemption has been lifted. So if we are provided, our by-law department is provided with an address then we can go through our normal process of putting people on notice and then going through the AMP process.

Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. If I might just as a follow up, is it possible to put that information out through say something like the London Home Builders or any other industry representatives so that it might be hard to do it on a complaint basis rather than letting the industry know as a whole?

Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, that would be no problem. We meet very regularly with them so I will pass along that information.

Councillor Chair. Very good, thank you so much. Thank you as well. Colleagues, there are no emergent motions and so I’m just going to share with you what we’re going to be doing in terms of by-laws.

We are going to be dealing with by-laws 155 through 174 and that it builds 176, 77, but we are going to be excluding Bill 167 which is a conflict due to Rock the Park and by-law 175, which has been pulled due to complaint or conflicts, excuse me, not complaints, conflicts associated with Western. So with that, colleagues, what I’m going to be doing, Councillor Hummer, you have something to add, please. Could you also pull the Bill 156 separately? So noted.

So this will be a tongue twister, but humor me then. Thank you. Does anyone wish any other bill pulled separately for voting? Councillor Turner.

Your worship defense just might seek clarification. I think you mentioned Bill 165 due to a conflict with Western. Those are a part lot controlled by-laws with- No, that was 175. My apologies, thank you, Councillor.

Yep, and that’s why I say it’s a little convoluted, but we’ll get to the right place, I promise. So here is the plan. We are going to be looking for a mover and seconder for introduction and first reading of Bill’s 155 through 166, 168 through 174, including revised bills 165, 172 and 174, and added bills 176 and 177. Oh, excuse me, and we are excluding.

Thank you very much, Clerk. Councillor just made that point and 156 will be excluded as well. So do I need to repeat that? Are we kind of good, Councillor Van Halst?

You’re moving, okay, great. Happy to move those. Thank you kindly. Is there a seconder?

Councillor Hanukkah, no comments, questions? Let’s do a vote. Councillor Hilliard, sorry, Hilliard. Third call, Councillor Hilliard will mark you absent.

Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. The first secretary will be looking for a mover and seconder of the following. Bill’s 155 through 166, 168 through 174, including revised bills 165, 172 and 174, and added bills 176 and 177. Exclusive of bills 156, 167 and 175.

Councillor Lehman to move. Councillor Ploza to second, thank you. Comments or discussion? I see none.

Let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Yes, now I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for third reading and enactment of bills 155 through 166, 168 through 174, including revised bills 165, 172 and 174, and added bills 176 and 177. Exclusive of bills 156, 167, and 175, which will all be called separately.

Councillor Hopkins, thank you, Councillor van Mirberg and seconding, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Colleagues will now be dealing specifically with bill 156. I’ll be looking for introduction in first reading.

Councillor Pfeiff miller, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Seconder for bill 156, second reading. Moved by Councillor Hobb, seconded by Councillor van Mirberg and any discussion? I see none, we’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

Colleagues, I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for third reading and enactment of bill 156. Moved by Councillor Faiff miller, seconded by Councillor Ploza, thank you. We’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

Now I’m going to deal with bill 167. That is the rock the park pulled by virtue of a conflict declared by a colleague. So with that, I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for introduction in first reading of bill 167, Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor. I did do third reading and enactment.

I actually hope you voted. Okay, all right, so with that colleagues, I’ll come back to it as I apologize. 167, the rock the park bylaw. I’m looking for a mover and I had moving, Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Liman.

But I thought, thank you, let’s take the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. So colleagues now for, again, for the rock the park, we will be looking for a mover and seconder for second reading of the bill. Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Faiff miller, any discussion?

Seeing none, we will call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Finally for third reading and enactment of bill 167. Then with rock the park, I will be looking for a mover and a seconder moved by.

Mr. Ploza, seconded by Councillor Lewis, let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Thank you and colleagues.

Bill 175 with the conflicts associated with Western. So with that, what I’ll be doing is looking for a mover and seconder for introduction to the first reading of bill 175 moved by Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Faiff miller. With that, we will call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one recuse.

Councillor Palmer, Councillor Palmer. Yes. I just want to confirm the vote to bill 175. We can read lips, Councillor.

(clears throat) I think you said abstaining. Booths. Is Westlake power, is that possible? Just getting clarification from the clerk of colleagues.

Mr. Chair, I’m sorry, I had already closed that vote. So I can’t back out of it. I can announce that it would be 12 to zero with two recuse.

Sorry, 11 to zero with two recuse. So noted. So with that, colleagues now, we will be looking for a mover and seconder for second reading of bill 175 associated with Western. Moved by Councillor, unmoved, seconded by Sir Lewis.

Thank you very much. Any comments or discussion? I see none. Let’s call the question.

I’m confirming Councillor Hymou and Councillor Lewis. That’s correct. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 11 to zero with two recuse.

Colleagues, finally relating to bill 175 regarding the Western conflict. I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder for third reading and enactment of said bill. Moved by Councillor or seconded by Councillor Hymou. We’ll call the question.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 11 to zero with two recuse. So for the benefit of the public, in a moment I’m gonna ask the clerk to confirm to the public as to why we are going into a closed session. You will call it’s one of the items.

This is to the public that we move to this portion of the agenda and it is our intention from this, from confidential session to move back into public session once the items are dealt with. So with that, can I ask the clerk to confirm the reasons we go into public session? Confidential session, excuse me. Thank you, Your Worship.

The matters to be dealt with in closed session are the six matters that are outlined on the public council agenda. There are three items related to the proposed or pending acquisition of land along with solicitor client privilege and related advice. Two matters related to litigation or potential litigation and related solicitor client privilege advice. And one matter subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the second report of the animal welfare advisory committee.

So with that, I’ll look for a mover to go into confidential session. I see Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. Let’s call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thanks very much, colleagues. We just need a few minutes to do the transfer over and to move the appropriate personnel into closed session. So just bear with us a few moments and we’ll ask you for screens on at that time.

Thank you. Colleagues, can I have screens on, please? Thanks very much, Clerk. I’m going to call Councillor Fife Miller to report out of closed session, please, put the report on the floor.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. The sixth report of the council in closed session. Your council in closed session reports, number one, property acquisition of 136 Wellington Road, the Wellington Gateway Project. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services with the respect to the property located at 136 Wellington Road, further described as part of lot 25, broken front concession, geographic township of Westminster, designated as part one, plan 33R-2911, being all of pin 0-8-358-0004, bracket LT, containing an area of approximately 4811 square feet, as shown on the location map.

The purpose of the future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by Valdez, Joseph Ordis, and a state of Louise, Mitro Ordis, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $509,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement, and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report. Two, agreement of purchase and sale of assets from London Hydro, former substation number 36, at 1131 Kalelele Road on the Meander Creek Park. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director parks and forestry, on the advice of the director realty services, with respect to the agreement of purchase and sale of assets from London Hydro, located at 1131 Kalelele Road, as shown on the location map, for the purpose of renovating the building into a field house along the Thames Valley Parkway, the following actions be taken.

A, the agreement of purchase and sale of assets, submitted to London Hydro, the vendor, to sell the building and assets to the city for the sum of $5,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, B, the bill of sale submitted by London Hydro, the vendor in connection with the sale of the building and assets referenced in the agreement of purchase and sale of assets be approved and C, the financing for this acquisition be approved and set out in the source of financing report. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Do we have a seconder, Councillor Lewis?

Thank you very much. Any discussion, Councillor Van Merebergen? Yes, I just wanted to, I don’t think I’m wrong, but 6.1 and 6.2 are both on the floor currently. Yes, they are.

Could we separate 6.1 from that so I could vote on that separately? Yes, we can do that. So with that, we will deal with 6.1 first, just for the benefit of all, just clarify precisely, please, what it is we’re voting on with that separation, please, because we will be colleagues. We’ve got two added bills to deal with.

One is the Wellington Gateway and the second deals with Kalele Road acquisition. And those will be two separate, those will be split as well, the bylaws. So, you know, just to satisfy some of the concerns previously expressed. Clerk, if I could please.

Through you, Your Worship, the first matter relates to 136 Wellington Road. The Wellington Gateway Project. The second item will relate to 1131 Kalele Road, Meander Creek Park. So the items in this report will mirror the bylaws that we’ll be voting on.

So with that, 6.1, the Wellington Gateway, we have a mover and a seconder. I’ll vote manually, yay. Thanks. So all those, so we will now call the question and Councillor Sleeh’s yes, 6.1 colleagues.

All those in the vote, motion carries 10 to one. My colleagues deals with Kalele Road. It’s been put on the floor by Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much.

Comments or questions? I see none. We’ll call the question. Yay, Councillor Sleeh.

Councillor Van Halst. All those in the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. Colleagues, and we’ll now deal with these added bills. The first impacts Wellington Gateway and this will be first reading.

I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for introduction first reading. I’ve added bill 178, Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Van Halst. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote.

Yay. All those in the vote, motion carries 10 to one. Again on the Wellington Gateway. I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for second reading of added bill 178, Moved by Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Layman.

Thank you very much. Any discussion? I see none. We’ll call the question.

Okay. All those in the vote, motion carries 10 to one. Yay, third reading. I’ll be looking for mover and seconder for that third reading an act.

I’ve added bill 178 on Wellington Gateway. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote.

Yay for third reading. All those in the vote, motion carries 10 to one. Thank you. Now the final bill we’ll be dealing with is related to Clearly Road.

Action and first reading of added bill 179. I’ll look for mover, Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Humber. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question.

Councillor Sely. Yay for me. All those in the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. 79, now I will be looking for mover and seconder for second reading of this added bill.

Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Van Holst. Thank you. Any comments, questions? I see none.

We’ll call the question. Thank you. All those in the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. And finally, colleagues, I’ll look for mover and seconder for second and an act.

I’ve added bill 179 doing Clearly Road, Councillor van Merberg and seconded by Councillor Van Holst. We’ll call the question. Yay for third reading. Thank you, Councillor Sely.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to zero. Thanks very much, colleagues. German, you’ll know that we’ve gone through public health week and we had the opportunity to pay particular attention and acknowledgement of our great public health teams administratively frontline everyone there.

And I had the privilege to represent council colleagues at the Middlesex London Health Unit on Friday. And it was a very, I thought it was a very special day. I’d like to remind everyone it’s wear pink day tomorrow for those who have that in their wardrobe. I think it’s totally appropriate.

Finally, Ms. Livingston tune your staff to our clerks, to everyone that keeps this well oiled machine oily. I just want to say thanks very much for the work that you do. It really does matter.

And the longer I’ve been here, the more I plan to appreciate the tremendous amount of effort that it takes. So colleagues, thank you all. And I know I join you in thanking our staff as well with that all for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councilor Flayf Miller.

Is it okay if we just show of hands? Apparently we can. So all those in favor, and you’re silly if you don’t. Madam Chair is.

And it carries. Thank you very much, meeting adjourned. We’ll see you all soon. Thank you.