May 24, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:06 PM; it being noted that the following members were in remote attendance:  Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, E. Peloza, S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 11, clause 2.4, of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services and Temporary Easement Agreement with the University of Western Ontario: Huron Street Watermain, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University.

Deputy Mayor Morgan discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 11, clause 2.4, of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services and Temporary Easement Agreement with the University of Western Ontario: Huron Street Watermain, by indicating that he is an employee of Western University.

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 1 of the 8th Report of Council in Closed Session, and related Added Bill No. 228, having to do with the property located at 148 Wellington Road with respect to the Wellington Gateway Project, by indicating that he owns property within close vicinity of the subject property.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   His Worship the Mayor will recognize the recipient of the 2022 Tim Hickman Health and Safety Scholarship:  Shelby Delagardeaux

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/8/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/8/CSC)

4.3       Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions and advice which is subject to solicitor-client privilege and communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/8/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to 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; personal matters about an identifiable individual; and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. (6.1/7/CWC)

4.5          Information Explicitly Supplied in Confidence to the Municipality or Local Board by Canada

A matter pertaining to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them. (6.2/7/CWC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, at 4:26 PM.

The Council reconvenes at 5:06 PM, with Mayor E. Holder in the Chair.

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

5.1   7th Meeting held on May 3, 2022

2022-05-03 Council Minutes - Including Bill No. 206 and CSC Report

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Minutes of the 7th Meeting held on May 3, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Council Communications and Petitions:

a)    the report from G. F. Stewart, Integrity Commissioner for the City of London, with respect to the Council meeting of May 3, 2022, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the communications related to the following BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED, as noted on the public agenda:

          i.    1140 Fanshawe Park Road East – refer to Item 10(3.5) of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee;

          ii.    Revised Victoria Park Secondary Plan – refer to Item 11(3.6) of the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-05-09 CSC Report 8

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 8th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interst

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Employee Attendance 2021

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports that the staff report dated May 9, 2022 regarding the Employee Attendance 2021 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2021 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund and Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the 2021 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund and Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Report BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 7 of the O. Reg. 509/20: Community Benefits Charges and Parkland, 2020, as well as sections 37 (7) and 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990, which require annual financial statements; and,

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2021 Annual Parkland Reserve Fund and Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Report available to the public on the City of London website.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens – United Way Elgin and Middlesex

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk and in accordance with Council’s City of London Days at Budweiser Gardens Policy, the request from the United Way Elgin & Middlesex to host the annual Stairclimb on November 3, 2022, BE APPROVED as a City of London Day at Budweiser Gardens.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.6) Report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors Meeting held on March 1 - 4, 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated May 9, 2022 from Councillors J. Morgan and M. Cassidy regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) update on board activities from the virtual meeting held on March 1-4, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.3) 2021 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring

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 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring:

a)    the report dated May 9, 2022 with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED, in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, which requires the City Treasurer to provide a financial statement relating to development charge by-laws and associated reserve funds; and,

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2021 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Council’s obligation under section 43 (2.1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.5) Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report - City-Owned Industrial Land (Relates to Bill No. 210)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with concurrence of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services with respect to the City of London’s Industrial Land Development Strategy, the following actions be taken with respect to the annual monitoring and pricing of City-owned industrial lands:

  

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and other Disposition of land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A”  to amend the current pricing for City-owned serviced industrial land in Innovation Park, Skyway Industrial Park, River Road Industrial Park, Cuddy Boulevard Parcels and Trafalgar Industrial Park as follows:

Innovation Park (Phases 1 to 4), Skyway Industrial Park, River Road Industrial Park, and Huron Industrial Park (all phases) and Cuddy Blvd Parcels: 

  • Lots up to 4.99 acres from $125,000 per acre to $175,000 per acre 

  • 5.00 acres and up from $115,000 per acre to $165,000 per acre 

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Trafalgar Industrial Park:

  • All lot sizes – from $115,000 per acre to $165,000.00 per acre;

Pricing for serviced industrial land in Innovation Park Phase V:

  • All lot sizes – $250,000.00 per acre;

b)    the staff report dated May 9, 2022 entitled “Industrial Land Development Strategy Annual Monitoring and Pricing Report – City-Owned Industrial Land”, BE RECEIVED; and,

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the inclusion of requirements that could be added to future updates to the Industrial Land Development Strategy policies that would assist to ensure that prime, serviced, city-owned industrial land is reserved for targeted uses such as, but not limited to, advanced manufacturing and agri-food industries.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.1) Association of Municipalities Ontario - Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board of Directors:

a)    Councillor A. Hopkins BE ENDORSED to stand for election to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus, for the 2022/2024 term; 

b)    subject to Councillor A. Hopkins’ successful election to the AMO Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus, all associated cost to attend the Board of Directors meetings, AMO Conferences and other related commitments (Task Forces, Executive Committee, etc.) for the 2022/2024 term BE APPROVED for reimbursement by The Corporation of the City of London outside of her annual expense allocation; and,

c)    Councillor A. Hopkins BE REIMBURSED up to $500 for campaign-related expenses outside of Councillor A. Hopkins’ annual expense allocation, upon submission of eligible receipts.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.2) Board of Directors - Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated April 29, 2022 from Councillor J. Morgan regarding standing for re-election to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Board of Directors and his associated expenses:

WHEREAS the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) represents the interests of municipalities on policy and program matters that fall within federal jurisdiction;

WHEREAS FCM’s Board of Directors is comprised of elected municipal officials from all regions and sizes of communities to form a broad base of support and provide FCM with the prestige required to carry the municipal message to the federal government; 

WHEREAS FCM’s Annual Conferences and Trade Show will take place June 2-5, 2022, in Regina and online, and May 25 to May 27, 2023 in Toronto, during which time the Annual General Meeting will be held and followed by the election of FCM’s Board of Directors;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of The Corporation of the City of London endorses Councillor Josh Morgan to stand for election on FCM’s Board of Directors for the 2022/2023 term; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Councillor J. Morgan be reimbursed by The Corporation of the City of London, outside his annual expense allocation, for his campaign expenses in seeking re-election to the Board of Directors, in an amount of up to $500, upon submission of eligible receipts; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council assumes all costs associated with Councillor Josh Morgan attending FCM’s Board of Directors meetings, the FCM Annual Conference and AGM and the Trade Show, during the 2022/2023 term.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Never Give Up Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That consideration of the proclamation request from A. Horowitz, Director-Global, for “Never Give Up Day”, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee in order for additional information to be provided to the Committee for consideration; it being noted that Councillors J. Morgan and M. Hamou will reach out to the organizer for the aforementioned information.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Day of Remembrance for Our London Family

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated May 3, 2022 from London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, June 6, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Day of Remembrance of Our London Family.

Motion Passed

8.2   7th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-05-10 CWC Report with Attachment

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 11 (2.4).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to Item 2.4, having to do with the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services and Temporary Easement Agreement with the University of Western Ontario: Huron Street Watermain Remediation, by indicating that Western University is his employer.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 4th Report of the Cycling Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 20, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) West London Dyke: Consultant Award for Infrastructure Feasibility Assessment

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 staff report dated May 10, 2022, related to the RFP21-70 West London Dyke Feasibility study:

a)    Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete consulting services for the West London Dyke Feasibility study with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $246,718.80, including 20% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) 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 work;

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-F06A)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Contract Award: Tender RFT 2022-016 Springbank Reservoirs 1 & 3 Roof Membrane Replacement and Repairs 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 May 10, 2022, related to the Springbank Reservoirs 1 & 3 Roof Membrane Replacement and Repairs Project (EW3583): 

a)    the bid submitted by Stone Town Construction Limited at its tendered price of $9,268,377.75, 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 Stone Town Construction Limited was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements; 

b)    R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, 557 Southdale Road East, Suite 200, London, Ontario, N6E 1A2 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 $808,692.00, including contingency, 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 the 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 Stone Town Construction Limited for the work;

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with R.V. Anderson Associates Limited; 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-E09)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.5) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 218)

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 May 10, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2022-T02/T08)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.6) Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements - Environmental Assessment Project File 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 May 10, 2022, related to the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment:

a)    the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment Study Project File Report Executive Summary BE ACCEPTED;

b)    the Notice of Study Completion for the Project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Project File Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period. (2022-T06)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.7) Colonel Talbot Road Two-lane Upgrades from Southdale Road to James Street - Appointment of Consulting Engineer

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 May 10, 2022, related to the appointment of a Consulting Engineer for the detailed design and tendering of Colonel Talbot Road Two-lane Upgrades from south of Southdale Road to James Street:

a)    AECOM Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the Detailed Design and Tendering Services at an upset amount of $756,192.00, excluding HST, in accordance with RFP-2022-008 and Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment 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 assignment;

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 including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T06)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.8) 2022 New Traffic and Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers (Relates to Bill No. 219)

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 May 10, 2022, related to the planned pedestrian signal and pedestrian crossover installations:

a)    the installation of the following pedestrian signal BE APPROVED:

i)    Tecumseh Avenue and Wharncliffe Road South;

b)    the attached revised by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2022-T07)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.9) London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Stormwater Management Facility: Engineering Consultant Award

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 staff report dated May 10, 2022, related to RFP2022-017 - London Psychiatric Hospital Stormwater Management Facility Consulting Engineering Services:

a)    Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers to complete the functional design, detailed design, inspection, and general construction administration for the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Stormwater Management Facility with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $558,376.44, including 15% contingency and provisional items, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) 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 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)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.10) Municipal Drain Petition - London Dairy Farms Ltd.

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 May 10, 2022, related to the London Dairy Farms Ltd. municipal drain petition:

a)    the petition for the reconstruction of the Jenkins Municipal Drain located in the area of Wilton Grove Road and Old Victoria Road to benefit the drainage of Lot 6-8, Concession 2, 3700 Old Victoria Road, Township of Westminster BE ACCEPTED by the Council of the Corporation of the City of London under Section 5 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)    Mike DeVos, P.Eng. of Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED under Section 8 of the Drainage Act to complete a report for the new drains. (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.1) Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law

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 May 10, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend By-law A-57, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to remove the Bike Locker Pilot Project Fees timeframe;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter. (2022-F21)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at May 2, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for Contract Administration Services and Temporary Easement Agreement with the University of Western Ontario: Huron Street Watermain Remediation

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 May 10, 2022 related to the Huron Street Watermain Remediation Project (EW3580):

a)    Stantec Consulting Ltd., 600-171 Queens Avenue, London, Ontario, N6A 5J7, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration, construction supervision and environmental monitoring required for this project as well as additional engineering activities, all in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset amount of $172,506.40, including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the City BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a temporary easement agreement with the University of Western Ontario in a form to be approved by the City Solicitor’s Office;

c)    the financing for the 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; 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-E08)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3   10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-05-09 PEC Report - Final

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED, excluding Item 11 (3.6).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2022:

a)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Working Group report relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)    on the advice of the Civic Administration, the proposed draft Goldfish brochure BE FORWARDED to the new Ecological Community Advisory Committee for discussion, and to Corporate Communications for review;

d)    on the advice of the Civic Administration, the Wetland Relocation Lessons Learned document BE PROVIDED to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for discussion;

e)    the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 1349 Western Road BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

f)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.3) 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (P-9488)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), to exempt lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, legally described as Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657, from Part-Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement; and further noting that the applicant has applied for a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands from an Urban Reserve UR2 Zone to a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to permit single detached dwellings;

b)    the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657, as noted in clause a) above:

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

ii)    that appropriate zoning shall be in effect for the subject blocks, prior to passage of the Part-Lot Control By-law;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x)    the applicant shall obtain approval from the City of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

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

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

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

xiv)    the applicant shall register on title and include in all Purchase and Sale Agreements for the lot at the northeast corner of Cranbrook Road and Longworth Road, identified as Part 8 on the draft reference plan, a requirement that the purchaser/home builder provide concept plans and elevations prior to the application for a building permit which demonstrate that both elevations facing the streets (the front and exterior side elevations) are designed as front elevations. Both elevations should be constructed to have a similar level of architectural details (materials, windows (size and amount) and design features, such as but not limited to porches, wrap-around materials and features, or other architectural elements that provide for street-oriented design) and limited chain link or decorative fencing along no more than 50% of the exterior side-yard abutting the exterior side-yard frontage, to the satisfaction of the City.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.4) Building Division Monthly Report - February, 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.2) Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Financial Incentives Program 5-Year Review

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan incentives:

a)    the staff report dated May 9, 2022 entitled “Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Financial Incentive Programs 5-Year Review”, with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan incentives, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with a comprehensive review, including a sensitivity analysis, of the City’s existing Community Improvement Plans and associated financial incentives; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting with preliminary information for the 2024-2027 multi-year Budget.   (2022-D19)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (3.1) 3101Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road (39CD-22501)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2831570 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.2) 3557 Colonel Talbot Road (39CD-21519)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2749282 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road, relating to uncertainty relating to the common element; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road;

i)    concerns with respect to the lack of a proposed fence on the south side of the property; and,

ii)    uncertainty relating to the common element;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    N. Khamidbayev, 3596 Isaac Court.   (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.3) 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (Z-9487) (Relates to Bill No. 227)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), relating to lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR2 Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-8(  )) Zone;

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

  •    C. Linton, Norquay Developments;

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

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

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

  •    the zoning will permit single detached dwellings which are appropriate and compatible with existing and future planned development in the area, and consistent with  zoning applied to residential uses along Cranbrook Road and Longworth Road within Crestwood West Subdivision - Phase 2.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.4) 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street - Revised Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21522)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Vision SoHo Alliance relating to the properties located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.5) 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East (39T-07502 / OZ-9473)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc, relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the request to amend the 1989 Official Plan to change the designation on Schedule “A” – Land Use on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low-Density Residential designation along Sunningdale Road East TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED;

b)    the request to amend the 1989 Official Plan change the designation on Schedule “A” – Land Use on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low-Density Residential designation TO an Open Space designation, BE REFUSED;

c)    the request to amend The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Green Space Place Type TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type, BE REFUSED;

d)    the request to amend The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type, BE REFUSED;

e)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2UR3) Zone, Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, TO a Bonus Residential R8 Special Provision (B-_R8-4()) Zone, Residential R5 (R5-7) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3()) Zone, Residential R1 (R1-2) Zone, Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone BE REFUSED;

f)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East:

i)    concerns with respect to the increase in traffic;

ii)    concerns with respect to the increase in noise;

iii)    relating to the road widening around Nicole Avenue, wondering if it is possible to relocate where Nicole Avenue exits as there are other properties along Sunningdale Road East that do not have housing directly across the road;

iv)    enquiring if the City intends to add sewers;

v)    relating to Block 34, requesting that the provision of yard depth be provided in order to accommodate a landscaped buffer for screening from the residential properties on the north side of Sunningdale Road East; and,

vi)    consideration be given for the aesthetics for homeowners in these existing properties by way of an aesthetic looking fencing, street orientated windows to ensure existing property owners are not looking into the backyards; and,

g)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council does not support issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-07502), prepared by MTE, which shows 18 low density blocks, six (6) medium-density residential blocks, two (2) school blocks, and three (3) open space blocks including one (1) open space block for the compensation and relocation of an existing Provincially Significant Wetland, seven (7) new access points at Sunningdale Road East, Savannah Drive, Nicole Avenue, Devos Drive, Blackwell Boulevard, Stackhouse Avenue and Fanshawe Park Road East as well as five (5) internal streets;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the revised staff recommendation;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings; and,

  •    L-A. Gill, 1468 Sunningdale Road East;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments propose development within a Provincially Significant Wetland;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments do not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the policies of the Neighbourhoods and Green Space Place Type and to the Our Strategy, Our City and the Key Directions;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments do not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Density Residential designation, the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential designation, and the Open Space designation; and,

-the proposed and recommended zoning amendments do not conform to The London Plan or the 1989 Official Plan.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (5.1) Deferred Matters

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Deferred Matters List for the Planning and Environment Committee, as at May 1, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (3.6) Revised Victoria Park Secondary Plan (O-8978) (Relates to Bill No.’s 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 and 217)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADOPT the Victoria Park Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A”, Schedule 1;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADD the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to Policy 1565, the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan by ADDING the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO AMEND Policy 1038 to add clarity for the application of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to the lands in the Woodfield Neighbourhood Specific Policy Area;

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989), as follows:

i)    AMEND Section 20.2 TO ADD the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans; 

ii)    ADD Section 20.10 the Victoria Park Secondary Plan; 

iii)    ADD the naming and delineation of the “Victoria Park Secondary Plan” to Schedule “D” – Planning Areas.

f)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “F” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (1989) TO AMEND Section 3.5.4 – Woodfield Neighbourhood to add clarity to the application of the policy for the area subject to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan;

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to evaluate the properties in the block bounded by Richmond Street, Central Avenue, Wellington Street, and Hyman Street for designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act;

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

  •    a communication from B. Lansink;

  •    a communication from H. Handy, Vice President, GSP Group Inc.;

  •    a communication from S. Stapleton Vice President, Auburn Developments; and,

  •    a communication from C. Kulchycki, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    H. Handy, GSP Group, on behalf of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc.;

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of St. Peter’s Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Diocese of London;

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd, on behalf of Great West Life;

  •    B. Lansink, 505 Colborne Street;

  •    M.A. Hodge, 310 Wolfe Street;   

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    G. Bruzas, 568 Wellington Street.   (2022-D09)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That Part A, West Policy Area, as indicated in Table 1: Permitted Heights of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan the minimum height BE AMENDED to require one storey, rather than 2 storeys (or 8 Metres).

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

The motion to approve Item 11 (3.6) is put.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   8th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

  1.    Property Acquisition – 148 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 148 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 25, Concession Broken Front, Geographic Township of Westminster, designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-15635, being all of PIN 08358-0009 (LT), containing an area of approximately 8,386 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 588274 Ontario Inc (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $800,000.00 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 (12 to 1)

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

  1.    Execution of Collective Agreement - Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada (Registered Nurses Bargaining Unit) January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023.

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the following actions be taken;

a)       the September 20, 2021 Agreed to Items attached as Schedule “B” BE RATIFIED; and,

b)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Mayor and the City Clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the Collective Agreement for the years 2021 to 2023, appended as Schedule “C” to the staff report dated May 9, 2022, pursuant to Memorandum of Agreement dated October 25, 2021 (Schedule “A” to the staff report dated May 9, 2022), and the Agreed to Items dated September 20 and 21, 2021 (Schedule “B” to the staff report dated May 9, 2022) between The Corporation of the City of London and Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada (Registered Nurses Bargaining Unit) (“SEIU RN”).

  1.    Canada Community Revitalization Fund - Contribution Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the staff report dated May 10, 2022, related to the Canada Community Revitalization Fund - Contribution Agreement:

a)   undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the Mayor and the City Clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the attached Contribution Agreement for the Canada Community Revitalization Fund between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister responsible for Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement); and,

b)   delegate the necessary authority to Civic Administration with regards to reports, documents and certificates required under the above-noted Agreement.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Lewis enquired with respect to fireworks outside permitted dates and times.  The Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

Councillor J. Helmer enquired with respect to the restoration of power, the cleanup following the storm and if the City of London has received requests for assistance from other municipalities.  The City Manager provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enquired with respect to specific dates and times fireworks are permitted this year.  The Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s  207 to 227, and added Bill No.’s 229 and 230, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No’.s 207 to 227, and added Bill No.’s 229 and 230, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No’.s 207 to 227, and added Bill No.’s 229 and 230, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 228, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 228, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 228, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

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

Bill No. 207

By-law No. A.-8243-136 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 24th day of May, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 208

By-law No. A.-8244-137 - A by-law to appoint Sarah Corman as Deputy Clerk. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 209

By-law No. A.-8245-138 - A by-law to appoint deputies to the City Clerk and repeal By-law No. A.-8089-121. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 210

By-law No. A.-6151(af)-139 - A by-law to authorize and approve to amend By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, being “A by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001” by deleting Attachment “B” to Schedule “A” – Sale and other Disposition of land Policy of the By-law and by replacing it with a new Attachment “B” to Schedule “A”  to amend the current pricing for City-owned serviced industrial land. (2.5/8/CSC)

Bill No. 211

By-law No. A-57-22002 - A by-law to amend By-law A-57 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to remove the Bike Locker Pilot Project Fees timeframe. (3.1/7/CWC)

Bill No. 212

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wy)-140 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6e/10/PEC)

Bill No. 213

By-law No. C.P.-1284(wz)-141 - A by-law to amend Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6/f/10/PEC)

Bill No. 214

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bg)-142 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6a/10/PEC)

Bill No. 215

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bh)-143 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6b/10/PEC)

Bill No. 216

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bi)-144 - A by-law to amend The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6c/10/PEC)

Bill No. 217

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bj)-145 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. (3.6d/10/PEC)

Bill No. 218

By-law No. PS-114-22002 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.5/7/CWC)

Bill No. 219

By-law No. PS-114-22003 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.8/7/CWC)

Bill No. 220

By-law No. S.-6178-146 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish, name, and assume lands in the City of London as public highway to be known as Bradley Avenue. (Chief Surveyor – pursuant to the Bradley Avenue Extension project)

Bill No. 221

By-law No. S.-6179-147 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Exeter Road, Wonderland Road South and Wharncliffe Road South)  (Chief Surveyor – registered as ER1451779 pursuant to B.011/21 and in accordance with Z.-1)

Bill No. 222

By-law No. S.-6180-148 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Southdale Road West between Westdel Bourne and Colonel Talbot Road; and as widening to Wickerson Road north of Southdale Road West) (Chief Surveyor – pursuant to the Southdale Rd W and Wickerson Rd Improvements project)

Bill No. 223

By-law No. S.-6181-149 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Wellington Road north of Greenfield Drive)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, registered as ER1454637 pursuant to the Bus Rapid Transit Project that require presentation at the present time)

Bill No. 224

By-law No. S.-6182-150 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Dundas Street east of Egerton Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes, pursuant to SPA18-039 that require dedication at the present time)

Bill No. 225

By-law No. W.-5618(e)-151 - A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5618-64, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Southdale Road Widening-Farnham Road to Pine Valley (Project No. TS1629-1)” (4.6/5/CWC)

Bill No. 226

By-law No. W.-5685-152 - A by-law to authorize the Bostwick Rd Upgrades – Pack Rd to Southdale Rd (Project TS1357). (4.6/5/CWC)

Bill No. 227

By-law No. Z.-1-223030 - A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road. (3.3/10/PEC)

Bill No. 228

By-law No. A.-8246-153 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and 588274 Ontario Inc, for the acquisition of the property located at 148 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. (6.2/8/CSC)

Bill No. 229

By-law No. A.-8247-154 - A by-law to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Collective Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada (Registered Nurses Bargaining Unit). (6.3/8/CSC)

Bill No. 230

By-law No. A.-8248-155 - A by-law to approve the Canada Community Revitalization Fund Contribution Agreement between the Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada hereby represented by the Minister responsible for Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and The Corporation of the City of London (“Agreement”); and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/7/CWC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:29 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 (1 hour, 56 minutes)

Colleagues, we’ll be starting just a few moments, please. Can I ask for screens on, please, Colleagues? The clerk advises colleagues that we have quorum, and I would say welcome to this council meeting, the eighth meeting of city council this year, a meeting that is virtual as well as present, those present in chambers during our COVID-19 emergency. We invite people to check the city’s website for current details of the COVID-19 service impacts.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, it’s great to be back.

And as we work through the agenda, we are going to resume with a tradition that has been part of our council plus a new tradition that we will be establishing as well on a go forward basis. So on the basis of tradition, I’m going to start and ask one of our guests, special guests who is here today to lead us in O Canada. And his name is Asante, who specializes in R&B pop and was successful and won Best Essence and Culture Awards Artist against three other artists who were on signature labels. And it gives me great pleasure to invite Asante to the front of the room.

And I would ask you to stand and join me in the singing of O Canada. ♪ As long as we see the rise ♪ ♪ The true, nor strong and free ♪ Asante, thank you very much. Councillor Palosa in the spirit of new traditions and important ones to offer the land acknowledgement, please. Councillor Palosa, please.

Bonjour, we acknowledge that we are gathered today in the traditional lands of the Neshnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Manakkuk, and Out of Wandering Peoples. We honor and respect the history, language and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call the territory. We acknowledge all the trees that are specific to this area, the two row romp and belt treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee, Naffen Treaty of 1701, the McKay Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827, with the Neshnabek and the Tish with Juan Spoon Covenant, Wampum of the Neshnabek, and Haudenosaunee, the three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oh, not a nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures and customs. Miigwech, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I will now ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none, so that moves us colleagues to recognitions. And the first one is recognizing the recipient of the 2020 excuse me, Tim, I’m out of practice.

Tim Hickman, Health and Safety Scholarship, and it’s my honor to do this. And this is a particularly sensitive and very important award from my standpoint. And I say to the Hickman family, someone who’s lost a child, how dramatically impactful it is, which is what makes this so significant as we announce the Tim Hickman award winner, Shelby De La Gardo. For those who may not be aware in the public, the Tim Hickman Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship represents the importance of raising awareness of occupational health and safety in our community.

This annual scholarship for students in an occupational public health and safety related program was established in 2006 as a tribute to Tim Hickman, a young man who died in service to his community, the young age of 21. So tonight I’m so pleased to announce Shelby De La Gardo is the 2022 recipient of this scholarship. Shelby is studying at Fanshawe College in the paramedic program and her vision of making AED devices available in outdoor settings combined with her passion for creating safer workplaces, makes her a superb candidate and the right candidate for this year’s award. Shelby, thank you for the work you do now and the work you will continue to do in your future careers of paramedic.

Let me also say thank you to our QP Locals 101 and 107 and of course to the Hickman family for their your continued support of this scholarship. Shelby, well done. We take the thanks of council, our QP Locals, our city as we present this award to you. I know you’re watching tonight and from all of us we say congratulations and thank you.

At this time now I’d like to call on as the second recognition. I’d like to call on Councillor Lewis to make a recognition regarding the anniversary of D-Dang, please. Thank you Your Worship. Colleagues, this year June 6th will be an especially poignant day for Londoners as we mark the first anniversary of the loss of the Afselle family, our London family.

But we also need to make time that day to pause and reflect on June 6th as an important day in Canada’s history and in the world’s history. June 6th marks the 78th anniversary of D-Day, the beginning of the liberation of Europe from an evil tyranny by the Allied forces. On that day, our own Holy Roller tank landed on Juno Beach as part of the Canadian effort. And after a remarkable effort by many volunteers and donors, the Holy Roller will be returning to Victoria Park in time for this year’s anniversary, not to glorify war, but to honor the valor of those who sacrificed so much, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives so that we can live in the free and democratic society we enjoy today.

So on June 6th, I call on all Londoners to pause, not only to honor the Afselle family, but to also acknowledge this day of remembrance for the 359 Canadians killed in action, the 584 wounded and the 131 who were captured on D-Day in action, lest we forget. Thank you very much, Councillor. So this is interesting colleagues, this recognition because it deals with one of our own. And that one of our own is Mr.

Dave O’Brien who has submitted his retirement notice, so seems to be a theme here. Effective beginning of June 2022. Dave, as council members and staff know, has served in several capacities, but primarily as director of emergency management and corporate services, something that he has done in this city for 21 years. What Dave’s very good at is establishing collaborative relationships with community partners, with other members of staff, with this council.

And there seems to be an unending seamless response to a variety of circumstances that he gets himself into. So here’s what’s interesting. This morning we’re at the Emergency Ops Center in Byron, and I had the honor to present a certificate to Dave. But I was thinking about over the, I can’t talk about the 21 years he has served in London, but in the three and a half years that this council has served, when I think of the kinds of activities that David has been involved in, it’s staggering.

So multiply anything I give you by six, and that gives you a range of some of the activities. So one has certainly been the Northern Ontario fires, and most recently this past year, the evacuation. Secondly, as we all know too well, the COVID issues and the pandemic and the advice he gave me regarding the emergency declaration. Dealing with the tragedy is your Councillor Lewis referenced the Afself family, that horrible, horrible circumstance.

The major storms that we have dealt with in the last three and a half years and most recently this weekend, the Woodman explosion. While we say OEV proud and totally true, very actively involved in that, the building collapse at Teeple Terrace. The three death threats that I received as mayor, one a year, so, and he’s always been involved in ensuring that the protection of this council has been paramount. I’m not recommending, that’s how you get to know Dave as a result of that, but I will tell you it’s certainly one of the things that he’s been exceptionally thoughtful.

Do you know what, he’s just helped provide, I think, confidence in this council. Those are related to safety and security. David, I don’t know how we’re gonna replace you, but I just wanna say on behalf of a grateful council, a grateful administration, a grateful city of London, thank you very much for all that you’ve done. You deserve this retirement and we honor you very much.

Thank you, Dave. Finally, in terms of what I have on the books here and colleagues, I know this has taken a while, so I apologize, but Mr. Coelica, I’d like to stand on a point of personal privilege. Council members and staff likely will know this now and perhaps for the benefit of the public.

As today, I announced that I do not plan to seek election, reelection in the fall term. But I wanna take a few moments to thank each of you for the kind words, the well wishes and support. Not only as a result of that announcement, but during my time away while recovering to home for the better part of a month following a medical procedure. Your kindness has meant the world to me and to my family and from my heart, and I wanna say thank you to all of you.

Your goodwill is part of what made my decision not to seek reelection, frankly, so difficult. On the other hand, what we’ve achieved, all of us together over these last three and a half years as part of why I am at peace with my decision. I think of the historic investments made in sort of London’s most vulnerable, a move towards the electrification of our public transit system, unanimous support for the climate emergency action plan. Together, this council, this term, secured funding for the largest public infrastructure in London’s history, resulting in generational and transformative upgrades to our city’s transportation network.

London’s economy is the fastest growing and best performing anywhere in Ontario, and our population is expanding at a more rapid pace than anywhere in Canada, outside of British Columbia. Because of this council, London became the first city in all of Canada to make the safety of women and girls, a strategic priority, and we made systemic and structural change within city hall through the creation of an anti- and entire anti-racism and anti-oppression division. I said, at the state of the city, and I’ll say it again tonight, over the years, we’ve had debates and we’ve had some divides. However, on the issues of greatest importance to London, and of most significance to the city, I’m proud to say that this council has stood united.

When it matters most, our London city councilor stand as one. It is my personal honor to stand alongside all of you, because your contributions to our city, we’ve felt long after this term is concluded. When things happen, they don’t happen by accident, they happen because council works together. And it happens because of an absolutely dedicated, committed, professional civic administration, which I’m so proud to play a part.

Not only do we all work together, we work with others, and I’m talking about other orders of government, the private sector, public sector, not for profits and countless others. Colleagues, let us remain focused on the present and the future. You know, there are 174 days remaining in this term of council. During that time, let us continue to make progress on behalf of all Londoners.

This is the greatest job I can ever imagine, serving the greatest city in the world. It’s a city that has proven itself capable of us standing unimaginable trauma, while at the same time allowing us to build a fairer, more compassionate, more prosperous London. So let’s not only continue believing in each other, let’s ensure we prioritize each other, and that we will always prioritize the city we call our home. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s been my privilege to serve, and it will remain my privilege to serve until November 14th.

I’m so honored to be part of this family. Thank you. So I have no other recognitions on the list. I guess we do.

Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan, you go ahead, please. Yes, I wanted to get on the recognitions list. I spent the afternoon writing a recognition. So I’d like to give that today.

Colleagues, today I’d like to recognize Londoner with over four decades of contributions to the city of London. As you know, Ed Holter was sworn in as London’s 64th mayor on December 1st, 2018. Prior to being elected to city council, he served as member of parliament for London West from 2008 until 2015. He also had the great honor of serving our country as a federal minister of science and technology.

Mayor Holter studied at Western University, where he earned a bachelor’s of art degree in philosophy. He worked for many years in the insurance industry, serving as president of Stevenson and Hunt Insurance. Some other noticeable business accomplishments include being the founder of the Directors Club of London, serving as president of the London Chamber of Commerce, president of the London Club, and chair of the London Convention Center. He’s also served as a member of Western University’s Board of Governors and Senate.

He has held leadership positions in more than 40, believe it 40, community, and not-for-profit organizations over the years. Of course, he was the co-chair of London’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve event, co-founder of the Business Care’s Food Drive, past president and patron of St. John Ambulance, and is a member of the Rotary Club of London. He is the past president of the Sunshine Foundation of Canada and co-chair of two major endowments, the Sunshine Dreams for Kids Endowment, and the Why for Kids Endowment.

His volunteerism has been recognized with more than two dozen awards, including the Canada 125 Medal, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal, and the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteerism. As I said in the beginning, Mayor Holter has been proud to call London Home for over four decades. Student, family man, business leader, community leader, volunteer, philanthropist, member of Parliament, minister, and until November 14th, 2022, mayor of the city of London. Mayor Holter, Ed, on behalf of the residents of London, Ontario, thank you for your ongoing service to this great community.

Thanks very much. Any other comments? You know, my Cape Red mother used to say about compliments. She’d say, Eddie, don’t let your head get so fat, it can’t get through the door, so.

So there we have it. So with that, thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. Colleagues, can I turn our attention then, please, to item three. I’m not aware of any confidential matter to be considered in public.

So for the benefit of the public, and I know this has taken some time to work through a number of the recognitions, and we thank you for your indulgence there. We’re gonna go into closed session in just a moment to that in a moment I’ll be looking for a motion, but I’m gonna ask the clerk just shortly to explain why we’re going into closed session. What’s changed in this particular meeting, and I can’t recall if last meeting we did this, but we’re doing this in the proper order, as opposed to deferring it to later on, because we have the technology now to be able to do this cleanly. So with that, we will be going into closed session, and then we will resume out of closed session, and carry on with the balances of the meeting, which will include committee reports and the like.

So with that, perhaps I could, before we move to go into closed session, I’m going to ask the clerk to explain what it is, the issues that we’re dealing with, if we could please. Thank you, Your Worship. The matters to be dealt with in closed session are five matters that are outlined in the public council agenda. There are two items related to the proposed or pending acquisition of land, along with solicitor client privilege and related advice.

There’s a matter related to labor relations, a matter related to a position plan procedure criteria, or instructions to be applied to negotiations. And finally, a matter related to information supplied in conference to the municipality by Canada, a province or territory, or a crown agency. Thanks very much. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to go to closed session.

Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Lewis. Let’s call the vote. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

That could be here for forbearance for a few moments, while we shut down the appropriate hardware. With that, we’ll resume just a few minutes. Can I ask for screens on, please? Thanks very much.

The clerk advises, we have quorum. Now, what’s interesting is that in the old world, prior to today, we would then report out of closed session, but we will do that later in the agenda. Right now, item five are the minutes, and what I’ll be looking for is a motion to approve the minutes held on May the third. Do I have a mover, please?

I see Councilor Van Meerberg and seconded by Councilor removed. Thank you very much. Comments or questions? Go back to our screens now.

With that, I will call the question. Sir Helmer, thank you and Councilor Turner. Press here. In the meantime, we’ll vote in the affirmative.

Thank you. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. So colleagues, that moves.

Thank you. That moves us as indications and petitions of which you will note. We have item six, one, six, two, and six, three. And I’m certainly comfortable moving those all as one motion at your pleasure.

The first one, six, one, is a report from GS Stewart, the integrity commissioner, the second, deals with two communications regarding 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East. And the third is the revised Victoria Park secondary plan. And in that case, we’re moving that they be put into the appropriate components of the agenda. And with that, I would look for a mover of those three items, please.

I see Councilor Turner is seconded by, I see Councilor Palosa, thank you. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, let’s call the question. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14. Questions to which notice have been given, which turns us now to our committee reports and with the Board of Corporate Services, I’ll call Councilor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been made aware of any items that colleagues wish pulled.

So we’ll look to see if there are any of those now. If not, I’m prepared to move the entire committee report. Everything was supported unanimously at committee. Thank you very much.

So with that, and I appreciate that, Councilor does anyone wish to have any item dealt with separately? Director, back to you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I will put the entire report on the floor and look for questions and comments.

And I believe Councillor Hopkins has a comment to share. Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I would like to make a comment on the parade, which is 4.1, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Board of Directors to the large urban caucus.

I want to thank the committee for supporting my endorsement to run again for the Board of, the AMO Board of Directors and that election will take place at the AMO Conference in August. I do want to just take this opportunity just to say that it’s been an honor to represent the city of London on the AMO Board. And I’ve been able to chair the large urban caucus, which it titles me to sit on the executive, which allows me to be at the MOU table. And that has been such an honor to be able to represent the city and municipalities as we’ve gone through the pandemic.

It’s really been very important to speak with the provincial government the importance of having the municipalities stay as whole. I also want to take this opportunity to thank staff. This is a position that can be demanding at times, especially through the pandemic and having city staff there in particular, Nick Steinberg, who assists me through government relations is also very imperative and I want to give my thanks to all the support that I get through staff. Thank you.

Well, thank you. And good luck in the upcoming election. Crush them as we like to say and as we go forward. So we think that’s great.

I believe Deputy Mary, you have a comment as well. Yes, first let me finish where Councillor Hopkins left off and thank Councillor Hopkins for her service. Certainly I’m very supportive of her desire to be reelected to the AMO Board and anything she wants to run for on that board. She’s been a great representative.

As you can see on the same agenda, I have my similar request for the FCM and are seeking council support to continue the work on that organization. I chair one of the major standing committees of the FCM and serve on their anti-racism and equity committee. The work that’s being done is very important and I’m certainly would love to continue to represent council in the city of London in that role. I will say it will be a little bit of an awkward election for me because I will be returning for the anniversary events of June 6th and I will be at the conference and I’m returning and running in the actual election remotely, but I know we’ll have a couple of representatives there.

So I’d appreciate your support today and we’ll do my best to secure a seat again. Thank you very much. And Deputy Mayor, like Councillor Hopkins, we wish you both great success in upcoming elections as well. Thank you for the great service that you provide the city of London.

And more broadly, through your efforts the province of Ontario and Canada. Any other comments or questions colleagues? Councillor Turner, please. I think Mr.

Chair, just with respect to item 2.5, which is the industrial land development strategy and monitoring pricing report. One very interesting to note that we’re exceeding revenue expectations and especially in the classifications around low density residential and medium density residential and high density residential. So that it kind of counters the narrative a little bit that we’re in a housing crisis. We continue to build, we continue to go well about the expectations and forecasts.

The second is just a question where we take a look at the reserve funds specifically in stormwater and wastewater and the revenue to debt payment ratio. There’s some comments from staff in here and I was wondering if we might just be able to get a bit more of an exploration of the impacts of this. We’ve seen an increase in that ratio and then forecasted a fairly significant decrease in that ratio almost fairly, I think like almost a halving of that, especially in the stormwater. So staff will continue to monitor this but I worry about what those impacts are and what mitigated efforts we can take or if this is of concern, it seems that staff are identifying that maybe.

So why don’t we start with you in perhaps direction traffic to the queries as put forward by Councillor Turner. Absolutely, through your worship, Paul Yeoman is with us this evening and would be happy to answer those questions. Mr. Yeoman.

Thank you, through your worship. I’m really glad that this matter highlighted ‘cause it has been a concern that we’ve had for a number of years now is about the financial health of both the stormwater reserve fund and sanitary reserve fund. Given that they are very front end loaded services that we provide for development and they’re also very heavily based on debt issuance going forward into the future. One thing that’s quite mitigating the increase that we’ve seen in recent years related to the revenues to debt ratio is the index that occurred this year for the price increases that we have been seeing or across the problems for a variety of goods that is resulting in increased revenues that are coming in.

Thankfully for London, we’re not seeing a lot of significant pressures on the expenditure side, which is something we’re going to continue to be looking at going forward as well. So that is giving us a bit of a cushion, but we are expressing caution in this report that should cost begin to increase for our infrastructure projects. It will then have stress as well going forward. Thank you, Counstor Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yeoman, for that. So specifically, what kind of measures would we be looking to do to try and mitigate those impacts? Whether that’s policy change or by-law change or anything like that, that we might have to do in order to stave off any of the negative impacts that we might see.

Mr. Yeoman? Thank you through your worship. What we’ve done as was articulated in the capital monitoring report which was brought forward in the last cycle, we are using some surplus to offset some of the life cycle costs.

Anything that increases related to DC should be compensated through the increased revenues that we are seeing coming in. So we do think that we have a good cushion and a good ability to respond to any circumstances that do occur. At this time, we’re not proposing a global adjustment to budgets to come forward related to this matter, but it’s something we’re going to continue to monitor and determine whether or not we need to bring recommendations related to that to Council for consideration. Thank you, Counstor.

One last one, thank you, that’s helpful too. What would be the triggers? What would be the things that we should be watching for as a Council to say that we’re in an area where we need to be able to take some sort of affirmative action on this? Through you, Your Worship, I’m actually going to ask Ms.

Barbone to speak to that because it’s more global than just development matters specifically. Well, let’s do that then, please, Ms. Barbone. Yes, thank you through your worship.

So it is something we are starting to look at globally. So we had a section in our most recent year and monitoring report that we did highlight that this is something we are tracking very closely. So we are looking at all the tenders that are coming in and trying to look at globally what the potential options are. So right now we’re seeing many that still come in within budget.

We’re also seeing many that are below and some that are still above. So we’re not concerned yet, but that doesn’t mean that as we proceed with some more projects that may start to trend in the opposite direction. So we are monitoring it. Certainly what our plan is right now unless we see something more concerning is that when we bring forward the mid-year monitoring report in September, that we would flag something there with potential actions in a little bit more detail on if there are any potential recommended actions.

Certainly one of the things we did through the year and monitoring was to put something aside to help deal with inflationary pressure. So that may be a tool that we can use aside from many of the other pressures in the UNI experience. So we’re trying to look for flexibility at this point in time in case we should need it. But if we need to flag it sooner than the mid-year, we will bring a Council report forward.

But at this time, we believe there will be, we will be okay until such time that we bring forward the mid-year. But if that changes, we will certainly bring a report forward and not wait until then. Any other comments or questions? Constantly quick comment, if I might, thank you.

Worship and thank you Ms. Pervong, MSG Omen. So this is really worth watching for us. It’ll be important over the next little bit.

There’s two options to submit the curve. One comes either from reserves and from levy funds, or the second is to pass those costs on. And so in both those circumstances, if we saw that ratio, if we saw that construction price index ended up influencing the tender results as they came back and they were outside of what we’d anticipated in terms of the budgets, somehow we need to be able to absorb that. So this is helpful to see and it’s really important as these come up that we make note of them.

Thank you for spending the time to explain that for us and also putting in the report. Thank you. Any other comments or questions for staff? Councillor Helmer.

Thank you very much. Through Mayor to Mr. Warner, I certainly support the increases in the price break or that you’re talking about at least going that far, but I wonder if we might even be underestimating or setting it a little bit low. And so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about whether it should be a bit higher than what you’re proposing now.

I at least remember a few years ago when it was $75,000 an acre and we were bumping into 80,000. The increments were 5,000 an acre. And even at that time I was asking is this the right level? I know you and your team do extensive analysis to figure out what the right price is and I’m quite confident in that work, but I do want to ask about it to make sure that we’re properly valuing these lands given the really rapid and very significant increase in the price of this kind of land through city and the whole region.

Mr. Warner your comments, please. Thank you through your worship. Thank you for the question.

We do feel very comfortable and confident with the new pricing we’re recommending. This was through the team and we did some regression analysis as well as studied all the sales that have been transpiring through the city and the region. We think that it’s important to still maintain competitiveness and I also wanted to just remind you that your policies do provide restrictive covenants. So there’s additional conditions with respect to the sale of municipal lands that does have an impact on value as well.

We’ve canvassed the private sector and we also are seeing a lot of speculative sales activity. So some of the pricing we’re seeing, I actually think it’s not really reasonable, frankly. And we’re seeing a lot of companies coming out of the GTA and some of them are looking at speculating on non-targeted type of industry, which again is not the intent of the dear council’s ILDS strategy. So I do feel like this is a reasonable next ceiling for pricing for this municipal lands.

I think we’re in pretty good shape with our inventory. We’re gonna be bringing on several hundred more acres over the next year, notably in the northeast of the Huron that’s getting very close probably into the end of the month or should say into June, beginning of July. So the timing of the price increases actually good timing as well as that. Coach Trauma?

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you very much for that. And I know your team works both on the sale side with the overall ILDS team, but also on the acquisition side and a number of acquisitions made in previous years are looking very wise at this point. And I wanna say good work on that front as well, save us a lot of money acquiring the lands when we did. Thanks very much, councilor, any other comments or questions?

Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. Through you to Mr.

Warner, we talked about this a bit at the committee meeting and that’s why the recommendation of council is slightly amended. But I know that our policy is designed so that we have targeted uses for this, sorry, I’m speaking of the industrial land. I’m just building off of councilor Halmer’s discussion. So we have some policies in place and some ways to ensure that our land, which is extremely valuable and we’re not land speculators.

We’re not looking to make a profit off the land itself, but we want targeted uses. We want high employment and all of those sorts of things. I’m wondering given that sometimes there still are things that slip through the cracks, such as a warehouse going up on land that we thought was going to manufacturing. Is there a way, and I know this is part of the review, but is there a way of tightening that so that we have restrictions if the land is in built on within 12 months and we can purchase that land back at the original sale price?

So is there a way to add that same sort of restriction for end use? So if this is the end user that a middle person says is going to be on the land, can we tighten that up so that we ensure that that happens? And if that end user is not the buyer in the end, can we get that land back the way we do when no building takes place? Well, let’s see what Mr.

Warner says about that. Through your worship, yes, actually your counselor, you’re thinking along this very same lines as what our team is internally. We have had some frustration with a couple of situations where the end user wasn’t necessarily the end user we thought it was going to be. So we’ve had some very important and strong conversations with our team and my team, Adam Ostrowski and myself, when we’re in, when LEDC is marketing, we’re definitely targeting end users.

We prefer to sell to the end user and to the target industry. So we’re definitely looking at ways to tighten that up. And I think that the way to do that is when we negotiate the actual sale of the land, it would be to the end user. And of course, council gets to make the final decision on that end user.

Councilor? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you to Mr. Warner.

Thank you so much for that answer. And again, going back to some of my comments at committee, just want to ensure that everybody on the team knows that I am really happy with this industrial land development strategy. I’m very happy with how hard the team has worked and in some of the buyers that we’ve seen come in and invest in the city of London. I think you’re doing a fabulous job.

And I think where we can tighten policies to make sure it works even better for Londoners than all the better. So for you, Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for all of your hard work. Thank you, councilor, any other comments or questions colleagues?

I see none. This has been put on the floor with no amendments. So with that, we will call the question. Mr.

Halmer, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Councilor Lewis, anything else for you? Thank you, Your Worship Services Committee.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Now for the seventh report of civic works, call on Councilor Palosa, pleased to present the report. Thank you, Your Worship.

This is the seventh report of the Civic Works Committee. There’s 13 items before us. I had been given notice to pull item 11 being 2.4, as it was dealing with Western University. And there was a conflict declared.

I’m not sure if there’s any other things to be pulled. Well, let’s ask that question. Any other items that colleagues wish to have dealt with separately? Councilor Halmer?

Councilor Palosa has flagged the easement agreement with Western, which I declared a few in her interest on. So as long as that one’s already being pulled. It is, yes, and that’s great. Any other items colleagues that you wish to have dealt with separately?

Councilor Morgan or Deputy Mayor? Yes, I wasn’t at the meeting ‘cause I don’t sit on that committee, but I will declare the same conflict given Western as my employer on that item. I didn’t declare the start of the meeting, so I’ll do so now. So noted, thank you.

Any other other? I see none. Back over to you, Councilor Palosa, please. Thank you.

All items were unanimous votes at some routine traffic and parking bylaws in there. We had a public participation meeting being item 3.1. No one joined us, which is always unfortunate, but it went smoothly and we accepted all things related to staff reports, just environmental things in there, consulting engineers, pedestrian crossovers and stormwater facility management were the key highlights. Thanks very much.

So with the exception of item 2.4, does anyone have any other comments or questions with respect to this agenda? Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I do have comments on 2.6 and 2.7.

These two projects are in my ward. And 2.6 is the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive intersection improvements. We’re doing a roundabout there and we’re going into a 30-day report. The report’s going into a 30-day review and just want to encourage the public if there’s any questions or concerns that they may have.

They can still put those comments forward through the review. 2.7 is the Colonel Talbot Tulane upgrades from Southdale Road down to James. This is an important project as we develop along Colonel Talbot with all these subdivisions and the need for infrastructure improvements are very well much appreciated in the community. In particular, the construction of looking into bike lanes and the walkability of Colonel Talbot is going to be very important.

Do have a quick question through your Your Worship to staff about the timelines. We are doing a project right itself, Dale and Colonel Talbot, which is also another roundabout and just coordinating these projects. Any concerns there? And are we on time through your to staff?

Thanks very much. I wonder if I could turn that over and just share. I see you just popped up. Thank you very much Your Worship.

Yes, we are sequencing the work that’s being done on Southdale. So right now we’re working in the neighborhood of the community center around Bostwick Road. The Colonel Talbot and Southdale roundabout is starting detail design at this time and we intend to move that forward soon. So likely the construction of the Tulane upgrade would start in 2023 with the roundabout in 2024 to be able to coordinate and continue to allow access, particularly important in this area because we also do have an EMS station just south of these locations and we need to make sure that we’re able to continue to move traffic through.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that response. This is an area that is full of development and construction projects and really one of thanks staff for being on top of all the importance of making these move forward in a smooth manner. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments with respect to all of the items with the exception of 2.4? I see none. This has been a duly moved.

We will call. Question. Councillor Halmer. The voting button is now working.

I’m in favor. Thank you very much. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Thanks, colleagues. Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I’ll now put, I’m in the appointment of consulting engineers for contract administration services of temporary easement agreement with the University of Western Ontario here on St.

Waterman remediation as two colleagues have declared a conflict on this one. So noted. Thank you very much. Comments or questions?

I see none. We will call the question. Was in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero with two recues.

Thank you. Councillor Ploza. Thank you. That’s a big works committee.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that colleagues. I’ll turn your attention out of the 10th report of planning environment. Councillor Hopkins, if you would please.

Yeah. Thank you Your Worship. I would like to put the 10th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. I have received a request, I guess, for an amendment.

So I will pull number 11, which is 3.6, the revised Victoria Park secondary plan. With that, I’ll put all other items on the floor. Thank you. Does anyone wish to have any other item beyond item 11, 3.6, dealt with separately?

I see none. Back to you, Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah. Thank you Your Worship.

And just to review our planning committee meeting. Of course, we have a number of public participation meetings and most of the items, the recommendations were supported by the committee and consent items receiving an EPAC report, as well as the CIP and financial incentives. And of course, receiving the building monthly report for February and again, busy times in our city when it comes to building permits. Thanks very much.

Does anyone have any other comments with regard to items one through 10 and deferred matters? I see none, let’s call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. Councillor Hopkins.

And I would like to present 3.6, which is the revised Victoria Park secondary plan on the floor. And if I may, just to report that we did have the public participation meeting. This has been a five year review, extensive consultation with the public and it was supported by the planning committee. Thanks very much.

Any other comments or questions? That’s for Ben and Robert. Thank you, Mayor. And I’d certainly like to thank staff and the committee for the hard work that’s gone into this, this revised Victoria Park secondary plan.

However, there is certainly one item that caught my attention and obviously others. And it has to do with the Roman Catholic Diocese of London, wishing to construct a one story, not two story. They don’t need a two story and certainly less than the eight meters prescribed in the new plan, which of course is about a little over 26 feet in height. So this has to do with the minimum height on this particular tract of land, which is known as part A of the West Policy area.

It’s relatively small piece, which is immediately adjacent to St. Peter’s Basilica between the Basilica and the park, Victoria Park. Right now, it’s primarily parking lot, but they are looking, the Diocese is looking at putting in a rectory, some office space, meeting space, what have you, a modern good looking building, which would fit perfectly next to the beautiful cathedral that we all know. And as we also know from this plan, that the city is trying to promote the eastern elevation of the cathedral to have it not blocked as much as possible in terms of sight lines.

And so allowing the minimum height to be one story lower can only help in that regard. So certainly to my way of thinking into many others, it makes sense to basically at this point before we enshrine these requirements that we take note of what the Diocese is saying and what many, many Londoners would certainly appreciate us doing and that is listening to their concern and their request and allowing, this is a very reasonable request to go from two story to one story, certainly below the eight meters. And so with that in mind, I have put forward a proposed amendment, a motion. Perhaps I could have the clerk read that motion.

Good clerk, if you would please. Thank you, worship. The proposed amendment is that part a West policy area has indicated in table one, permitted heights of the Victoria Park secondary plan be amended to require one story rather than two stories or eight meters. Right, and thank you, clerk.

And so that again is a minimum height. These are lands that would only pertain to the lands that are owned by the Diocese right next to the cathedral. It’s a relatively small area. And just for a more fulsome view of this, that’s the part a that we’re talking about.

It’s got a maximum of four stories, a minimum of two, but just to the north of the cathedral, that’s part B. And part B is allowed to go to 30 stories in height, but still has two stories as their minimum. Their plan is to sell the land that they own just north of the cathedral to finance the building of the one story next to them. So somebody else will have that property.

It’ll be fairly, very intensely densified, if you wanna call it that. So the intensification will be greater just to the north. Clearly in the city using agreement with this, from what we’re reading in the policy, we don’t want to block as much as possible the beautiful sight line of the eastern side, the eastern elevation of the cathedral as seen from the park. So again, I think this makes a lot of sense.

I think that a lot, as I said, a lot of people in London would greatly appreciate this happening, and I will leave it there. And hopefully you can get your support on this motion. Councilor van Rogen, I see the amendment there. Do you have a seconder for that?

I believe Councillor Turner was- Well, I see Councillor Hillier, Councillor Turner. If you have arranged with Councillor Turner, lights, TV, Councillor Hillier, but there you go. So Councillor Turner has seconded this. Any other comments or questions?

Do we need to hear from staff with regard to viability, visibility, et cetera? I recognize Councillor Lewis first, please. And then Councillor Hamou. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m not inclined to support this motion. And I wanna share why. First of all, I think if the diocese wants to submit an application for something that’s inconsistent with the secondary plan, they’re free to do so. And Planning Committee will hear staff’s report on that and make a decision either in their favor or not in their favor.

But if they wish to submit something that’s outside of the parameters of the secondary plan, they’re free to do so. Nothing prohibits that. Planning Committee deals with applications that vary from the plans all the time. And sometimes they’re supported and sometimes they’re not.

That’s the process. I think, you know, we had a number of individual property owners who wanted us to amend the plan for their property. And we haven’t done that. You know, we’ve received a communication from far E Holdings that was asking us to review and send it back for referral.

I’m not prepared to do that either. Staff’s done a significant amount of work on this. I appreciate that the Councilor is trying to be accommodating of what we hear the diocese plan is, but we don’t actually have a plan from them. We have a request to limit it to one story.

You know, and like any leadership position, leadership in the diocese can change. It may be that something will happen within the leadership where they decide they need two stories, that maybe they want to develop something there for additional uses besides just as a rectory residential dwelling, whatever that might be for them. So I’m not inclined to alter the plan for one applicant. If we’re going to do that, then I think respectfully, we need to send the whole thing back to staff because other applicants have asked the same and we’re not giving them that consideration.

Again, I would encourage the diocese to actually prepare a plan and submit it. And then the planning committee will review it on its merit. Thanks very much. I have Councilor Homou next and then Councilor Turner.

Thank you and through the chair to staff. My question is, will having one story, is it, will there be any sort of structural issues or is it just purely aesthetic? Why is it two stories and not one? Would that be Mr.

Barrett? Do you worship, I believe it would be? Do you worship? The construct of providing for minimum heights is something that came forward in the London Plan.

There were two reasons, primarily for doing this, a functional reason and a form reason. The first reason, the functional reason, was it was to look to ensure that the development was an intensity that would support the goals for the place type. And we ascribe these minimum heights in the more intense, or in those place types where we anticipate more intense forms of development, like downtown, like the rapid transit corridors and the transit villages. So there was a functional reason for doing this.

And it was, as I said, to ensure that we would have forms of development that fully utilize the investments that will be made within these higher intensity corridors, both within infrastructure and along the rapid transit corridor in transit investments. And the second reason was a form reason. And that was to create a form or an urban context that provided for the vision of the place type. And that was to provide essentially a building envelope that was reflective of the character, not only of what existed, but what we were hoping to exist and create within these areas.

Specifically, as it relates to the lands around Victoria Park, if you were to take a tour of the built context, the form around the park, starting at this other edge where you’ve got the candlelight building, five to six story profile, then moving along the Wellington frontage where you’ve got the city hall complex, then transitioning down the office building at the corner, and then down to the traditional four story, two to four story residential context at the northeast corner. And then that continues all along the north side of the park on the central lab frontage. The Clarence Street Richmond Street frontage is a little bit of a mix. You’ve got two large institutional uses being the Basilica and First Baptist Church, as well as the intervening school site in between.

They provide a two to four story context. The only real outlier is the old Williams Cafe building, which is a one story building. But by and large, that whole context, that whole frame there is a two to four story frame as well. So your context of your surrounding development around the park was that two to four stories.

It’s also important to note that in fact, the London plan minimum requirements within the downtown place type is three stories or nine meters. So in fact, this is a little bit lower than what is required now. So this secondary plan actually provides relief from what would be required just under the downtown place type, which covers these lands, where it would in fact be three stories or nine meters would be the minimum within the downtown place type. So this is reflective of the character that’s around the park and the character that we’d like to see maintained around the park.

It’s interesting to note that in fact, this site was occupied by the former rectory associated with the cathedral came down in 2004. That building for those who might not remember was, I would call it a raised three story. So it was sort of like a very high first floor and a set of stairs that went up. You entered on what would be the second floor.

Then there was another story above that, another full story above that. And then a fourth story or a third and a half story contained within immense our roof. So you had a three and a half to four story profile building that occupied that site, which is now got the parking area on it next to the basilica. And so that provided some of the context of that, that ecclesiastical corner for one of a better term.

And it did frame the park. Certainly the views as the Councillors noted to these facade of the basilica are an important aspect and mentioned in policy in the plan. But the plan now does recognize that and says quite within the West policy area that the minimum height acknowledges the desire to create a sense of enclosure around the park while providing the flexibility to accommodate community facility institutional other compatible uses in a single story building with a volume of two stories. And so we wrote that language explicitly to address how that block could develop in potentially a single story building, but has that volume of the two stories to help frame the park.

Mr. Barrett, I’m going to stop you for a moment to say you’ve got 30 seconds. I’m done, I’m done, I’m done. That was my last comment was just to say there is a basis for the policy context that put that in place.

And with that, your worship, I don’t need my 30 seconds. Thank you. All right, well, thank you. And certainly if other colleagues have questions or comments, I’ll come back to Councillor Amugan, please.

I’m good. Thank you. Are you good? Councillor Turner, please, and then Councillor Venau.

Thanks, Your Worship. But as the part that Mr. Barrett was just about to say or that he’s in the process of saying it was the part that was most intrigued about, especially for that component of a one story that acts like a two story of sorts. I had a chance to speak with Councillor van Mirberg and I agreed to second this because I think it was worthy of discussion.

I share Councillor Lewis’s apprehensions about kind of opening this all up. I wanted to hear the discussion from staff and the response on this and how the policy context played into it, what opportunities there were for the diocese to execute its vision, to some degree, and also how that tied in with the viewshed from the park towards the Basilica, the potential for larger buildings. And I know we’ve kind of put it in a two story range. Beyond that, we start to obscure the Basilica and it’s prominence on the park.

But with a lower context and it’s interesting that we’re talking about lower density for a change here around the park, the opportunity to be able to see that better and to accommodate the diocese wishes. The diocese I don’t see as selling off that parcel at any point and would probably retain their control regardless of what they did. So yeah, I guess maybe I would just ask to reiterate to just put Mr. Barrett was saying at the end there, what options remain for the diocese to explore lower heights on that parcel.

And I’m sure Mr. Barrett can be very tight in his response, go ahead, Mr. Barrett, please. Do you worship very tight?

The opportunity exists in the current policy context that allows for a single story form within that minimum height but also is noted by Councillor Lewis and his comments. There isn’t a proposal in front of us now or in front of the committee to review and at such time as a proposal came in, it would be coming to Planning Environment Committee and Council and at that point they could determine whether or not that proposal was worthy of Council’s consideration and approval. Thank you, that’s actually very helpful, Mr. Barrett, Councillor Turner, that’s just my question.

Well, thank you. Thank you, I see Councillor Reynolds, please follow the Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I do also find it interesting that we’re looking to have a lower building rather than a taller one, which is usually the complaint.

My first question through you to our staff is what would be the extra cost to the diocese? Were they to come later on and ask for a one-story building as opposed to a two? Mr. Barrett, can you help him on?

The fee to worship, I would assume that the Councillor is speaking to the cost of an application. So if there was an application to rezone the lens, accompanied by a required official plan amendment to change that, well, then the fee would be up. I can’t tell you what that cost differential would be because it would be, I guess, at whatever time they make that application and the fees that would apply at that point. Councillor Hocht.

Couldn’t you estimate what those fees would be if it was happening now? Good, Mr. Barrett. Sorry, through your worship, I actually don’t have my fingertips to the cost of the ZBA or a zoning bylaw amendment application and the official plan amendment application.

There’s a cost difference. It’s probably a little bit more than double the cost of making that application. Councillor Vanholst. Right, it’s still, I was hoping for a number at least.

Can you give me the lowest number for that we anticipate? I’m just trying to determine how much more the collection plate is going to have to receive because I know at the point that we receive the application, I would be likely to support it, but I can also see doing that right now. Councillor Vanholst and I appreciate your line of questioning. I think a couple of times now, Mr.

Barrett’s come back and said he didn’t have those figures, but perhaps you have something, Mr. Barrett, but if you don’t, then I think that pursuing that line of questioning is not as helpful as much as I appreciate when Councillor Vanholst is absolutely trying to accomplish. Mr. Barrett, can you help?

I can pull up fees and charges bylaw and try to get an answer to the Councillor’s question if there are other questions coming through, but all I can say is that the cost of an application versus the actual cost of the proposal, the cost of the application is minimal compared to the actual cost of whatever it is that they would be constructing on the site. Thanks very much, Councillor Vanholst, other comments, questions? Appreciate it, he’s gonna come back. I would presume during this questioning and we have another speaker as well, but if you have any other questions, Mr.

Mathers, I see you there. Why don’t you take a stab at this, please? Through you, Worship. The current cost for an OBA zone bylaw amendment is 21,000 and for just a simple zoning amendment is 12,000.

So yeah, just the delta of 9,000 there between two. Is that helpful, Councillor Vanholst? Very much, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Bierd, I think you’re off the hook and thank you, Mr. Mathers for that as well. Any other comments, Councillor Vanholst? No, thank you.

Thank you, then I’ll call on Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I agree with the comments that have been made by Councillor Louis and this plan has gone before us many, many times and there has been a lot of public engagement. I did attend the planning committee meeting when this matter came before at the committee and as anyone on the committee and anyone who did attend will note, very few people were happy.

It’s one of those things, a secondary plan around Victoria Park where it’s difficult to satisfy every single person that has an opinion. I will note that I think in the first iteration or the early versions of this plan, there had been a plan to allow for quite a high rise for a building on this particular location. If somebody came forward at the planning application like this, I’m very pleased to see how it has changed and come down to this two story, because I do think the site lines are important for the basilica, but I hear what staff are saying. And I agree with, as I said with Councillor Louis, that there were a number of property landowners in the area that wanted changes that would suit their future needs.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to change one aspect of this overall secondary plan to suit one single property owner that’s affected by the secondary. Thank you Your Worship. Thank you, I will call now, Councillor Hopkins please. Yeah, thank you Your Worship and on the amendment, quick question for you to staff if we were to proceed with this amendment would we have to bring the Victoria Park secondary plan back to staff?

So we would not be adopting it tonight, it’s my question. Let’s take that back, Mr. Bear, the question, and I think that’s fairly clear. If we look at the amendment, are we looking at the whole, I guess, really becomes the question, can you comment, please?

Your Worship, my understanding is that you would not be approving the plan tonight. We would, the direction would be for us to come back, make that change as in the modification to reflect that new height. So that would be reflected in the new plan. We bring back the revised plan with the revised bylaw for adoption of the subsequent meeting.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that information. And it’s important for me. And I appreciate Councillor van Neerberg and intent here to help the Diasi.

And I think it’s really important to understand that it’s been five years. It’s been a long time. And Councillor CASSIDY touched upon, you know, the many revisions of the secondary plan that have come forward in particular in this area. And as we deal with minimum heights now, and there are opportunities to go down.

I know it requires an application, but like Councillor Lewis said, we have received numerous, numerous comments and referrals back on this. And I think I’m going to be very cautious if we say yes over here, are we opening everything up again? And I’m not prepared to do that. Our staff have spent immeasurable time, energy.

The public has had extensive engagement on this. And I think it is, you know, at the public participation meeting, it was one of these plans though, that it’s so important how we develop around Victoria Park, but it’s going to be very difficult to please everyone. And there are processes in place, but we need that secondary plan to guide us as we develop around the park. So again, I appreciate the desire, but will not be supporting the amendment.

So noted, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Now, Councillor van Mirberg, and I note that you brought the amendment forward. Final comment.

Yes, actually, I wanted to ask a question of the clerk because the procedure was just brought up. If this were to pass, what is the procedure? Does it have to go back to the planning committee? Or does it come straight back to council?

If maybe the clerk could define that a little more clearly. That’s a reasonable question. Clerk, can you please help us? Thank you, through your, your worship.

The bylaws that are before council tonight would require some revisions. It is certainly within council’s prerogative to send it back to standing committee, but as I understand it, this is regarding the bylaws themselves. And those could be coming back to a future council meeting, which is the revisions to the bylaws. That said, should council wish to have an additional PPM that of course would have to go to a standing committee.

All right, any others? All right, I just go ahead. Go ahead, Councillor van Mirberg. Yeah, so, so for this, this one floor difference, it’s clear it does not have to go back to planning.

We are not, we are not opening up the entire plan, the secondary plan. It is strictly to revise bylaws and bring it back to council. So I think this is an easy fix. And again, it will help a lot of people throughout London.

So, thank you very much, any other comments or questions? I see none. So on the amendment, as presented by Councillor van Mirberg and I am calling the question. Presenter vote, motion fails, two to 12.

Thanks very much. And now I’m gonna turn this back to Councillor Hopkins for 3.6 to be put on the floor. The staff’s recommendation to adopt the Victoria secondary plan or the revised secondary plan on the floor. And your worship, like I said, we’ve had extensive public input on this process throughout the five years.

I do wanna make a quick comment because staff were really involved along with the previous council and this council on how we move forward. And I wanna give my thanks to staff in particular, Britto Hagen. I know she’s on maternity leave, but I recall when we started this process and the questions that was asked of council at the time, how we saw and envisioned the development of the Victoria secondary plan. So I just wanna give my appreciation and thanks to staff.

Thanks for sharing any other comments or questions. We’ve had fairly extensive discussion on the overall items. So with that, we will call the question. Presenter vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Thanks, Councillor Hopkins. That is my report. Thank you very much. I appreciate that very much.

My colleagues now, I am going to turn to item nine, the eighth report of council on closed session. These are items that are being reported on the public report on the floor, please. Thank you, Chair. Property, so 148 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 of ELT services with respect to the property located at 148 Wellington Road, further described as part of lot 25, concession, broken front, geographic township of Westminster, designated as part one, plan 33R-15635, being all of pin 08358-0009 LT, containing an area of approximately 8,386 square feet, as shown on the location map 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 588274 Ontario Inc, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $800,000. B, accepted, subject to the terms and conditions is set out in the agreement appendix C and B. The financing for this acquisition be approved, a set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A.

Two, execution of collective agreement. Service, employees, international union, local one Canada, registered nurses bargaining unit, January 1st, 2021, to December 31st, 2023. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager enterprise supports, the following actions be taken. A, the September 20th, sorry, 2021 agreed to items, a schedule B be ratified and B.

The civic administration be directed to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the mayor and the city clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the collective agreement for the years 2021 to 2023. Appended a schedule C to the staff report dated May 9th, 2022, pursuant to memorandum of agreement dated October 25th, 2021, schedule A to the staff report dated May 9th, 2022. And the agreed to items dated September 20th and 21, 2021. Schedule B to the staff report dated May 9th, 2022, between the corporation of the city of London and service employees, international union, local one Canada, registered nurses bargaining unit, S-E-I-U-R-N.

Three, Canada community revitalization fund, contribution agreement. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports, the civic administration be directed to take the following actions with respect to the staff report dated May 10th, 2022, related to the Canada community revitalization fund, contribution agreement A, undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in order for the mayor and the city clerk to obtain the necessary authorization to execute the contribution agreement for the Canada community revitalization fund between her Majesty the Queen and right of Canada as represented by the minister responsible for the federal economic development agency for Southern Ontario and the corporation of the city of London agreement and be delegate the necessary authority to civic administration with regards to reports, documents and certificates required under the above noted agreement. Thank you very much, Chair Councillor. Would you have a seconder for that?

I see Councillor Fai from the other. Thanks very much. Comments or questions? Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Your Worship with respect to the first item, the property acquisition for 148 Wellington Road. I’d like to declare a pecuniary interest as the properties within the land value uplift area of a property that I own. So with that, we will vote on that item separate from two and three, unless others wish to have two and three dealt with separately. So we’ll just bear a moment as we ask the clerk to line up the first item.

This has been moved by Councillor Musee, seconded by Councillor Fai from the other comments or questions and knowing that we will be dealing with item one first. That’s the clerk to advise when we’re ready. We are ready on item one, the property acquisition at 148 Wellington. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to one with one recuse. Thanks very much and colleagues. Now I’ll turn your attention to the execution of the collective agreement. SEIU local one registered nurses bargaining unit and the Canada Community Revitalization Fund move by Councillor O’Moo, seconded by Councillor Fai from Miller or any comments.

I see none, let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, Councillor O’Moo, much appreciated.

colleagues, there are no deferred matters, but it’s my understanding we have an inquiry. I’ll call on Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And through over the weekend, I suspect many other Councillors received several angry complaints about fireworks being set off outside of the allowed times and days in our by-law and some frustration with, and I want to emphasize seeming lack of enforcement on that.

So through you, I’d like to ask our staff if they can provide any information on whether or not we did have extra enforcement staff on this weekend to respond to fireworks and noise complaints. And moving forward with Canada Day not that far away being the other date where we traditionally see a lot of fireworks going off, not necessarily within the timelines prescribed by the by-law, what plans are being put in place to ensure that the fireworks by-law is enforced as much as we can reasonably do. Thanks very much. Let’s ask Mr.

Smith for some comments, please. Thank you, and through Your Worship. So this year, like years and past, Mr. May, there’s team dispersed educational flyers to the vendors who sell fireworks to hand out to residents who purchase them.

These flyers clearly articulate when you can and cannot discharge fireworks along with some safety tips. In addition, fire prevention and communication shared social media posts, again, clearly articulating when you can and can’t discharge fireworks and some safety tips around that. For this past weekend, we did not have additional staff. So unlike last year in Canada, we did not staff up beyond our regular staff on over the weekend.

On, I can explain, so on Canada Day in 2021, what we did is we did bring on additional staff through Mr. May, there’s area and through fire prevention. We tried to disperse them geographically through the city, particularly in areas that in the past, we have had the largest number of complaints in. As you can imagine, this is challenging to enforce for a couple of reasons.

One reason is often when we get complaints, it’s about fireworks being discharged in my neighborhood. It’s very hard to go to a specific address or location. And often when we do go there, unfortunately, those discharging the fireworks have left or have dispersed rather quickly. So if Council wishes in conversation with Mr.

May, there’s we can work to bring an additional staff on Canada Day weekend. So for this Canada Day, a allowable date of discharge fireworks is Friday, July 1st. So we can bring additional staff in on Thursday evening. Council wishes and/or Saturday, July 2nd.

Within the confines of your question, Councillor Lewis and your other comments. Thank you, Your Worship. And just briefly, and certainly I can follow up with staff offline further, but I think of particular concern that I just wanna share now are the fireworks, particularly that are being let off well past the 11 p.m. curfew.

Folks who are having their sleep disrupted at midnight, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., and a great frustration was expressed to me that in calling the city, there was nobody there to receive their call and respond. And I would certainly agree, and I know absolutely what Ms. Smith is saying about the difficulty to enforce. I’ve always told people if they have to call in, please, you know, try and be specific about the street or the park or the schoolyard where this might be happening and so our enforcement can respond more appropriately.

But I think, you know, it speaks to the fact that a fireworks ban doesn’t work because we have a banned 362 days, 363 days of the year. And we still have problems during those times. So I just would hope that our staff will be prepared to be able to respond to constituent complaints as best as they can. I recognize it’s challenging as we come up towards Canada today.

Thanks very much, and thank you, Ms. Smith, as well for your comments. Colleagues, we have no emergent motions, so we have some bylaws to deal with. I’m going to let you— Kathy.

Councillor Hummer, you have a thought. Just an inquiry, Mayor, and through you, I wanted to just check in on how the restoration of power and the cleanup from the storm is going here in London and ask through you to staff whether we received any requests for assistance from the other municipalities that are really struggling to get our restored for their residents. Thanks very much, and I appreciate that. I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware you were making an inquiry and I missed you at the end there.

So let’s ask Ms. Livingston her thoughts. Thank you, Your Worship. I can report based on the update that was provided at our community control group meeting this morning that with the exception at that time this morning of a handful of individuals, all power had been restored within our community.

However, and if you’re looking for a greater specifics, I’m sure Ms. Sheer can assist. Our forestry crews are extremely busy and continue to be busy as we work to assist in the cleanup. I’m sure you can appreciate that the weekend was spent dealing with much of the major issues and we are continuing in certain parts of the city.

We have not yet received a request for assistance. I will let council know if we do receive that. I can indicate however that our crews are fully occupied and we anticipate that they will be for a number of days going forward, but we will of course monitor it. With the exception, I should say that London Hydro has indicated that they anticipate shifting their efforts to assist some other communities in the coming days.

I believe I’ve covered off all of the questions that were asked, thank you. Councillor Halver, anything on a related note? I just want to say thank you very much for the amazing work for London Hydro and the forestry crews helping to clean up. It was going around on the weekend.

It was tremendous amount of damage and I know it took awhile to get everybody back and going, but really a very good work by everyone involved. Thanks very much. Well, thank you, Councillor and thank you for those comments. Is this an inquiry, Councillor Vatton, Rivergan?

Yes, it is. Good, please. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted, my question is more of a clarification and inquiry with regard to the days that fireworks are allowed.

I was reading a public service announcement from the city of London dated May 19th, which states that the Victoria Day, Canada Day, July 1st and Saturday, July 2nd are permissible days to launch fireworks. I just wanted that clarified, ‘cause I think I’m hearing there’s only two days, but it looks like this year there’s three days. If I could just ask appropriate staff to comment on that? Excuse me, I’ve got two keen staff who would like to respond to this.

Let’s start with you, Ms. Smith, please. I have the chair and Mr. Mathers can expand on it.

It depends when Canada Day and Victoria Day fall on. So if they fall on Monday and Tuesdays, it’s allowed the days that we can before and sometimes after. So for example, Canada Day falls on July 1st. That means on a Friday, that means that is the only day allowed this year to legally, according to the by-law discharge fireworks.

Mr. Mathers, any additional insights or did Ms. Smith do a pretty good job? So I was just looking at the public announcement that’s recently gone out.

And maybe I can just clarify with Ms. Smith as far as what is actually allowed for this year, that what she had mentioned differs from what the public service announcement. So maybe I can confer with her and we can get an answer back for Council. Thanks very much, appreciate Mr.

Mathers. Anything else, Councilor and Rivergan related to this? I just want to, I just want to once again state that the public and the media are of the mind that there are three days, including July the 2nd, given that what the city’s already sent out that it’s permissible. So I just wanted to bring that up.

I appreciate that Ms. Smith may want wish to comment on it. I thought Mr. Mathers was clear that he was going to be bringing that back, but Ms.

Smith may be of some additional insight in it. No, I will follow up with Mr. Mathers and confirm. We have a couple of follow-ups there on the same issue.

That’s very good. Thank you very much. Any other inquiries since this feels a bit like question period now, something of which I’ve had some experience in the past. Although more, by the way, more informative and better answers than question period, just telling you.

Thanks very much with that. Having said that, there are no emergent motions. From a by-law standpoint, we will deal with all the bills related to the by-laws with the exception of bill 248 related to 248 Wellington. So that’s for the purpose of those wishing to vote differently on bill 248 then, unless the clerk advises me accordingly and he’s hanging on my shoulder, hold on.

I tricked you, it is 228. So actually, I was correct. This is bill 228 to be dealt with separately. Any other comments or questions as we move to by-laws 207 through 227, including added bills which have come from closed session 229 and 230.

For that, I will look for a mover, please. Councillor Hilliard, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the vote.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Now I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder of second reading of bills 207 through 229 and 230 with that. I have Councillor Van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any discussion? I see none.

Let’s call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And finally, colleagues, I’ll look for mover and seconder of third reading of an act when it bills 207 through it. It bills 229 and 230 moved by Councillor Van Mereberg.

A whole seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Thank you very much. We’ll call the vote. Really weird going on with my sister.

It’s sort of making me vote twice every time. I had a bit of that as well. I’m going to vote to vote twice. Well, actually, I like these by-laws and some are worth voting twice for.

So that might well be the case here. And Councillor Cassidy, you are not alone. That sounds like you need tea type things, sorry. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

And colleagues, just in the spirit of that too, with seriousness, we will look at it this from as well as our coming up. The second time, we just ask you to pay attention to your screen, that’s certainly happening. So now we’re going to deal with by-law 228. And for that, I’ll look for a mover and seconder for introduction of first reading.

Moved by Councillor Palosa. Seconded by Councillor Flayf Miller. We’ll call the question. Call me and hear it.

I was opening it from the creation of the vote and- Yes, we’ll know if someone reports through another vote, Clerk, thank you very much. If their vote comes up twice, mine has not come a second. Councillor Halmer. Can you just remind me what L228 is related to?

I’ll let the clerk respond. That is related to Wellington Gateway. Do you close in the vote? Motion carries 12 to one with one recuse.

Did anyone get a double vote on that first double request to vote? Nor did I, so Clerk, I hope that answers your question. Now I’m going to look for a mover and seconder of second reading, added bill 228. Moved by Councillor Hopkins.

Seconded by Councillor Hamou. Comments, discussion? I see none. We’ll call the question.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to one with one recuse. And finally, colleagues for third reading and actman of bill, added bill 228. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Palosa. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one with two.

Thanks very much, colleagues. Before we adjourn, I’m going to call on Ms. Smith to just provide a clarification with respect to an increase. Thank you and through your worship.

I’m so sorry I confused all of you on the dates. So you’re correct, Councillor Van Merebergen. Coming up in July, there are two evenings that fireworks can happen from dust to 11 p.m. And those are July 1st and July 2nd.

Thank you. And thanks for providing that clarification as well. Colleagues, before we adjourn, I said at the outset of this meeting, it’s great to be back and I sincerely mean it. You’ll note that at the community control group this morning, we paid tribute to David Ryan, who is retiring.

What I neglected to share with you is that in addition to the great work that Dave does and has been doing on behalf of our city, really what this is, this is a whole of department response and all the staff and emergency management corporate security, I think, have done fabulous jobs. You heard a query come in as well with regard to the storms over this weekend. And once again, this feels like an all of government response because we’ve had so many of our departments and so many of our associated groups from fire police, certainly London Hydro. Ms.

Sure had provided some great background on the issue this morning, but so many people are involved in it. And you know what this is? Ms. Livingston, this is really a comment from this seat to say that in this great city that we have, it’s because we have the kind of commitment that we have from all our staff as issues arise, we deal with it.

So I’d like to thank on behalf of the city council, all of our staff for the incredible work that you continue to do and continue to make us look good. So with that, I will wish you all well and I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. I see Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Let’s do a show of hands on this one.

Those in favor, please. Madam motion, Chair. With that, colleagues meeting adjourned.