Open Council

3rd Meeting of City Council

Open Council

3rd Meeting of City Council

December 13, 2022, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that there were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   His Worship the Mayor recognizes the 2022 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Awards: Airshow London / Amazon Delivery Station / ATN Access Inc. / Jess Jones Recreation Therapy Inc.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

4.1    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/1/CSC)

4.2    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. (6.2/1/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending 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. (6.3/1/CSC)

4.4    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 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. (6.4/1/CSC)

4.5    Land Acquisition/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 lease of City-owned land by a third party, 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. (6.5/1/CSC)

4.6    Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List – “Sports” Category. (6.1/1/CPSC)

4.7    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose regarding an exemption to the Animal Control By-law. (6.2/1/CPSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:19 PM to 1:49 PM.

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

5.1   2nd Meeting held on November 22, 2022

2022-11-22 Council Minutes

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on November 22, 2022 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1  931-1225 Southdale Road

1.  M. Rexer

2.  J. and J. Campanaro

3.  Harrow Court Residents

6.2   Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022

1.  S. Price

2.  E. Blokker

6.3   Animal Control By-law

1.  Dr. K. Coulter

2.  D. Procop

3.  K. Sussman

4.  D. Leckie

5.  N. Holmes

6.  B. McFarlen

7.  K. Lomack

8.  W. Brown

9.  T. Beernink

10.  M. Andreetta

11.  S. Ryall

12.  S. H. Ross

  1.  M. A. Shepherd

14.  S. Olivastri

15.  A. M. Valastro

16.  J. Jacobson

17.  F. Morrison

18.  P. Harris

6.4   Renaming of Paul Haggis Park

1.  J. McCall

6.5   City of London Corporate Growth Projections2021-2051

1.  J. Zaifman

2.  C. Lewis

3.  A.M. Valastro

  1. C. Godes

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-11-28 PEC Report 1 - Complete

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 19 (3.9), 20 (3.10) and 21 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (1.2) Election of Vice-Chair

Motion made by S. Lehman

That Deputy Mayor Lewis BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2023.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.1) Building Division Monthly Report - August 2022

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - September 2022

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.3) 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on November 9, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A02)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.4) 1865 Finley Crescent (P-9546)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 96, Plan 33M-733 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 November 28, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 96, Plan 33M-733 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 are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(1)) which permits street townhouse dwellings; 

b)    the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 96, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)    the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title; 

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

xiv)    in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1865 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict;

xv)    as per condition xii) of the subdivision agreement, a reference plan (33R) is to be provided for the 5m storm servicing easement located at the rear of the property;    

xvi)    the existing subdivision agreement is to be amended as per condition vi) of the subdivision agreement. The agreement is to include provisions for the 5m storm servicing easement located at the rear of the property; and,

xvii)    a complete ECA application package is to be submitted to Planning & Development for the proposed storm sewers at the rear of the property.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.5) Southwest Sunningdale Road West, Wonderland Road North and 2170 Buroak Drive (Formerly 751 Fanshawe Park Road) (39T-03505)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Vista Woods Estates Ltd., relating to the lands located at 2170 Buroak Drive (formerly 751 Fanshawe Park Road), the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in Appendix “A” (File No. 39T-03505) as appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.6) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 10 Moir Street - Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District (HAP22-073-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to pave a portion of the front yard for parking on the heritage designated property at 10 Moir Street, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.7) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 123 Wilson Avenue - Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District (HAP22-067-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for alterations to the heritage designated property at 123 Wilson Avenue BE PERMITTED as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

a)    the proposed four replacement windows have a simulated divided light to replicate the two-over-two fenestration of the former windows;

b)    the proposed replacement windows be painted wood or clad-wood windows;

c)    existing trim be used to replicate the painted wood 5” trim, including eared hood as well as windowsills;

d)    all exposed wood be painted;

e)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit drawings to verify compliance; 

f)    the proposed alterations be completed within twelve (12) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.8) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 645 Lorne Avenue - Old East Heritage Conservation District (HAP22-075-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for alterations to the heritage designated property at 645 Lorne Avenue BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a)    turned wooden spindles be used for the railing/guard of the porch, including the steps;

b)    wood lattice, in a square or diamond shape, be used for the porch skirt;

c)    all exposed wood be painted;

d)    use of paint colours from the Old East Heritage Conservation District palette be considered;

e)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit drawings to verify compliance; 

f)     the proposed alterations be completed within twelve (12) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

g)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street while the work is underway.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.1) 3195, 3207 White Oak Road and 2927 Petty Road (Z-9350 / 39CD-21505) (Relates to Bill No. 15)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Whiterock Village Inc., relating to the lands located at 3195, 3207 White Oak Road and 2927 Petty Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Urban Reserve UR4 and Holding Urban Reserve UR4 Special Provision h-94*UR4(11)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(**)) Zone to permit cluster housing in the form of townhouse dwellings. Special provisions to the Residential R5 (R5-7) Zone would permit cluster townhouse dwellings, and cluster stacked townhouse dwellings and would permit a reduced exterior side yard setback of 1.2 metres and a rear yard second story deck setback of 4.1 metres and a rear yard depth of 6.0 metres north interior side yard; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the lands located at 3195, 3207 White Oak Road and 2927 Petty Road:

i)    requesting traffic access from Petty Road be moved to White Oak Road;

ii)    indicating that Petty Road is busy already and with increased traffic it will be unsafe for children; and,

iii)    advising that there will be increased noise and traffic;

 

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd., on behalf of the owner; and,

  •     M. Dalawir;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it promotes efficient development and land use patterns; accommodates an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing types, and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents; and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs;

  •    the recommended zoning amendment 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 amendment provides appropriate regulations to control the use and intensity of the building and ensure a well-designed development with appropriate mitigation measures;

  •    the subject development block is of a size and shape suitable to accommodate the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium; and,

  •    the proposed use, form, and intensity are considered appropriate and compatible with existing residential development in the surrounding neighbourhood.   (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.2) 2846 and 2870 Tokala Trail (Z-9523) (Relates to Bill No. 16)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2846 and 2870 Tokala Trail, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 / Neighbourhood Facility (hh-71h-100h-108R5-7 / NF1) Zone and Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone and a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-18*R5-7()) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)    easement for pedestrian traffic along the east or west property lines of the subject site to provide north-south connections;

ii)    consideration should be given to consolidate the amenity spaces to create one large outdoor common amenity space for all units on site;

iii)    no gates shall be permitted to the pathway to the north abutting the stormwater management pond that restrict access to the multi-trail pathway; and,

iv)    provide pedestrian connections, as direct as possible, from Tokala Trail to the rear of the site to connect to the multi-trail pathway at the rear;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, on behalf of the applicant;

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

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

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies, to facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.3) 870-922 Medway Park Drive (Z-9533) (Relates to Bill No. 17)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Dillon Consulting Limited., relating to the property located at 870-922 Medway Park Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Office (h-17RO2) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-17R5-7(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following through the site plan process:

i)    units fronting along Medway Park Drive are to have front doors facing the street with driveways and garages at the rear of the site;

ii)    board-on-board fencing that meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law; and,

iii)    the site be developed in general conformity with the layout provided;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect to the proposed by-law as the change in the maximum front yard setback is minor in nature and a technical change, the concept site plan circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately reflect the site layout, no site changes were proposed for the maximum front yard setback;

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

  •    M. Fletch, Dillon Consulting Limited;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (3.4) 338 Boler Road (Z-9510) (Relates to Bill No. 18)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Alma Village Inc., relating to the property located at 338 Boler Road: 

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-1) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider board-on-board fencing along the east and south property boundaries that exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law and do not negatively impact any grading, on-site stormwater management or any existing landscaping through the site plan process;

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

  •    R. Brown;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (3.5) 6092 Pack Road (Z-9493) (Relates to Bill No. 19)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Magnificent Homes and Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 6092 Pack Road, the proposed attached, revised, by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h*R6-5(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)    provide additional details for shared outdoor amenity space;

ii)    provide high quality landscaping with consideration to any existing significant mature trees on the site and along property boundaries;

iii)    further emphasize the heritage character through the on-site amenity area and greenspace;

iv)    limit the construction of new residential dwelling(s) to only one of the interior side yards adjacent to the existing single detached dwelling to allow sufficient space to accommodate an access driveway on the opposite interior side yard; and,

v)    the façade for new residential development abutting the existing single detached dwelling to have a first floor grade no higher than the existing dwelling first floor grade;

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

  •    the revised staff report; and,

  •    a project fact sheet;

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

  •    M. Davis, siv-ik planning and design;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 as it encourages efficient development and land use patterns;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low and Medium Density Residential policies within the North Talbot Residential Neighbourhood;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the retention of a heritage designated single detached dwelling.  (2022-D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (3.6) 931-1225 Southdale Road East (Z-9544) (Relates to Bill No. 20)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by London & Middlesex Community Housing, relating to the property located at 931-1225 Southdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 (R5-5) and Compound Residential R5 and Daycare (R5-5*DC) Zone TO a Special Provision Residential R8 (R8-4(_)) Zone;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the community consultation presentation from M. Fadaei, MHBC Planning;

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

  •    E. Theodore, MHBC, on behalf of London & Middlesex Community Housing;

  •    A. Chance;

  •    L. Sabria; and,

  •    J. Campanero;

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

  •    the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 by providing efficient and affordable residential infill;

  •    the proposed amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan including the applicable City Design, Housing and Homelessness Prevention, and Neighbourhood Place Type policies; and;

  •    the proposed amendment assists London & Middlesex Community Housing in completing their part of the City’s affordable housing development target.   (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.17   (3.7) 608 Commissioners Road West (Z-9544)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the application by Copia Developments, relating to the property located at 608 Commissioners Road West, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to review the traffic patterns, the access points and the intensification for the proposed development;

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

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Copia Developments; and,

  •    D. McLeod;

  •    J. Burrell;

  •    Resident;

  •    C. West;

  •    R. de Papp;

  •    N. Turudic;

  •    Resident; and,

  •    M. Mackey.

Motion Passed

8.1.18   (3.8) 307 Sunningdale Road East (Z-9498) Relates to Bill No. 21)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Margrit Johnson, relating to the property located at 307 Sunningdale Road East:

a)    the proposed, attached, revised, by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1,  (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-17) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-2*R1-17) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-3(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues for 307 Sunningdale Road East through the site plan review process:

i)    ensure the appropriate setbacks from the east and west property line as outlined in Appendix A to provide full protection to the boundary trees and critical root zones;

ii)    ensure that the proposed building/built form is oriented to both Skyline Avenue and Sunningdale Road East and establishes a pedestrian-oriented built edge with street oriented units; 

iii)    ensure the extension of sidewalks to Sunningdale Road East along the private driveway; 

iv)    ensure that no part of any required interior side yard shall be used for any purpose other than landscaped open space excluding swimming pools, but decks or patios may be permitted; and,

v)    ensure a north exterior yard setback of minimum 8.0 metres and maximum of 11.0 metres, and a north parking area setback of 11.2 metres;

 

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

  •    a memo from the Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication dated May 14, 2022, from A. Thompson;

  •    a communication dated November 15, 2022, from J.A. Medeiros; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    H. Surgenor, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application 

for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the Low Density Residential and Open Space policies of the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development on a large size lot located at the periphery of a residential neighbourhood.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.22   (5.1) Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 - Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the communication dated November 21, 2022 from K. Redman, Chair, Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario and Chair, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, with respect to Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.19   (3.9) 4452 Wellington Road South (OZ-9497) (Relates to Bill No.’s 9 and 22)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by MHBC Planning on behalf of 2858637 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South:

a)    the proposed appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend The London Plan to:

i)    change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Shopping Area Place Type TO a Light Industrial Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types; and,

ii)    amend section 1565_5 of The London Plan, List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan, by changing the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM Commercial TO Industrial on Schedule 4 Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and Schedule 17 Wellington Rd/Hwy 401 Land Use Designations;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1,  (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial (h-17ASA1/ASA2/ASA6) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI6) Zone, and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone;

 

c)    the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following matters during the site plan process:

  •    lighting concerns, preference for lights facing downward;

  •    appropriate garbage and rest facilities to address the needs of the people using the facility;

  •    fencing; and,

  •    quality of the facility;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

  •    D. Gillis;

  •    A. Tipping;

  •    G. Dowler; and,

  •    F. Connor;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Industrial Place Type, Shopping Area Place Types, and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan and the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Wellington Road/ Highway 401 Neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will delineate a natural heritage feature and ensure the appropriate environmental studies are completed.     (2022-D08)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.1.20   (3.10) 952 Southdale Road West (OZ-9431) (Relates to Bill No.’s 10 and 23)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1739626 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend The London Plan to:

i) change the Place Type on a portion of the subject lands FROM the Green Space Place Type TO the Neighbourhoods Place Type and FROM the Neighbourhoods Place Type TO the Green Space Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types; and,

ii) modify the Provincially Significant Wetland Feature on Map 5 – Natural Heritage;

b) the proposed, revised by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1,  (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR2) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Zone (hh-129R8-4()) Zone, a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Zone (h*R8-4()) Zone, a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-129CSA1()) Zone a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h*CSA1()) Zone, and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

it being noted to ensure the orderly development of the lands the following items will be addressed prior to the removal of the “h” holding provision/through the site plan approval process;

-    Transportation – construction of a median to restrict access to the residential portion of the site to rights in/rights out, and to include a one-foot reserve along the Colonel Talbot Road frontage (excluding the access points); 

-    ensure all reports (Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS), Final Hydrogeological Assessment and Water Balance Analysis) are fully completed and accepted by Staff, and that restoration and compensation works are all carried out to the City’s satisfaction; 

-    final EIS, Final Hydrogeological Assessment and Water Balance Analysis, Servicing Report, Floodline Analysis and Geotechnical Report for the proposed retaining wall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA); 

-    a Section 28 Permit from the UTRCA will be required prior to finalizing the development agreement;

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

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC;

  •    P. Mills;

  •    K. Lake;

  •    R. Delurenits;

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the property owner at the southeast corner of Colonel Talbot Road and Southdale; and,

  •    C. Hindemit;

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

-    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhoods Place Type, Shopping Area Place Types, Specific Policy 1070C_ and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will delineate a natural heritage feature and ensure the appropriate buffers are in place to protect the features and ensure appropriate compensation and mitigation will be implemented at site plan.   (2022-D08)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following amendment BE APPROVED to the associated by-law for 952 Southdale Rd. W.

Amend by adding the word “Maximum” in Section 2. a) iii) Density to the R8-4 Zone.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 20, clause 3.10, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Item 20, clause 3.10, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1739626 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend The London Plan to:

i) change the Place Type on a portion of the subject lands FROM the Green Space Place Type TO the Neighbourhoods Place Type and FROM the Neighbourhoods Place Type TO the Green Space Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types; and,

ii) modify the Provincially Significant Wetland Feature on Map 5 – Natural Heritage;

b) the proposed, revised by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1,  (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR2) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Zone (hh-129R8-4()) Zone, a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision Zone (h*R8-4()) Zone, a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-129CSA1()) Zone a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h*CSA1()) Zone, and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

it being noted to ensure the orderly development of the lands the following items will be addressed prior to the removal of the “h” holding provision/through the site plan approval process;

-    Transportation – construction of a median to restrict access to the residential portion of the site to rights in/rights out, and to include a one-foot reserve along the Colonel Talbot Road frontage (excluding the access points); 

-    ensure all reports (Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS), Final Hydrogeological Assessment and Water Balance Analysis) are fully completed and accepted by Staff, and that restoration and compensation works are all carried out to the City’s satisfaction; 

-    final EIS, Final Hydrogeological Assessment and Water Balance Analysis, Servicing Report, Floodline Analysis and Geotechnical Report for the proposed retaining wall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA); 

-    a Section 28 Permit from the UTRCA will be required prior to finalizing the development agreement;

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

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC;

  •    P. Mills;

  •    K. Lake;

  •    R. Delurenits;

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the property owner at the southeast corner of Colonel Talbot Road and Southdale; and,

  •    C. Hindemit;

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

-    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Neighbourhoods Place Type, Shopping Area Place Types, Specific Policy 1070C_ and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will delineate a natural heritage feature and ensure the appropriate buffers are in place to protect the features and ensure appropriate compensation and mitigation will be implemented at site plan.   (2022-D08)

8.1.21   (4.1) Planning Application Process Changes due to Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated November 28, 2022 entitled “Planning Application Process Changes due to Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022”, BE RECEIVED for information. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2   1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-11-28 CSC Report 1 - Full

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

8.2.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Councillor S. Trosow BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 14, 2023.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.1) Authorization for Temporary Borrowing (Relates to Bill No. 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 13, 2022, to authorize the temporary borrowing of certain sums to meet current expenditures of The Corporation of the City of London for the year 2023.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.2) Amendments to the Travel and Business Expenses Council Policy (Relates to Bill No. 11)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479 being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.3) 2021 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2021 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.4) Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Phase 1 (Relates to Bill No. 12)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval be given to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Wellington Gateway Project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the Wellington Gateway project;

b)    The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and,

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on December 13, 2022 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.5) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Emerson Avenue at Baseline Road East

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property described as a portion of the cul-de-sac at the south end of Emerson Avenue at Baseline Road East, described as the cul-de-sac fronting on 229, 230, 233 and 238 Emerson Avenue, Plan 914 London / Westminster, more particularly described as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-21319, in the City of London (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the subject property BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner, London Youth for Christ, in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.6) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of 181 Hamilton Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property legally described as Part Lot 28, S Hamilton Road, N/E Grey Street, Plan 176 (E), in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being part of PIN # 08313-0062, municipally known as 181 Hamilton Road adjacent 580 Grey Street, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.7) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of 108 Clarke Road

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property legally described as Part Lot 17, Plan 761 designated as Parts 1, 2, 5 and 6, Plan 33R-11453, S/T Ease over Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-11453 as in LT361005; London Township and Part Lot 18, Plan 761 designated as Parts 9 and 10, Plan 33R-11453 London Township, known municipally as 108 Clark Road, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy in exchange for lands required for road widening along Clarke Road.

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.8) Human Resources Information System (HRIS) Implementation Partner Successful Proponent – RFP 2022-080

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, with the concurrence of representatives from Information Technology Services and Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the SAP SuccessFactors, Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) Implementation:

a)    the proposal for implementation partnership, submitted by Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP (PWC), 99 Bank Street, Suite 710, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1E4 BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the 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 staff report dated November 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”;

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

d)    the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the City of London (The Corporation) entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (4.1) Development Charge Appeal

That, after convening as a tribunal under section 26 of By-law C.P.-1551-337 to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, by Neil M. Smiley, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP of the property located at 2365 Innovation Drive, regarding the development charges being appealed, as the amount should be adjusted to reflect the Industrial Development Charge rate and not Commercial on the subject property, as detailed in the attached Record of Proceeding, on the recommendation of the Tribunal, the complaint BE DISMISSED on the basis that the Tribunal finds that the amount of the development charge being applied were correctly determined and no error occurred in the application of the Development Charges By-law.

8.3   1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-11-29 CPSC - Report 1

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 8 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (1.2) Election of Vice-Chair

Motion made by E. Peloza

That Councillor D. Ferreira BE APPOINTED Vice Chair of the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term ending November 14, 2023.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.1) 2021 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, with respect to the 2021 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.2) Award of Request for Proposal 2022-232 Group Purchasing Organization Services for City of London Long Term Care (Relates to Bill No. 6)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, with the concurrence of the Director, Financial Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, related to the Award of Request for Proposal 2022-232 for Group Purchasing Organization Services for City of London Long Term Care:

a)    the submission from SGP Purchasing Partner Network (SGP), owned and operating by Extendicare (Canada) Inc., 3000 Steeles Ave., Markham, Ontario, L3R 9W2, to purchase, at the City’s sole discretion, required items for the Dearness Home, City Golf courses, City Hall Cafeteria, Storybook Gardens, Senior Centres and other Life Stabilization areas such as Discretionary Benefits, BE ACCEPTED  for a contract term of two (2) years beginning January 1, 2023, with the option to renew three (3) additional one (1) year terms, in accordance with Section 12.2 b) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022, to:

i)    approve the Purchasing and Revenue Share Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Extendicare (Canada) Inc., carrying on business as SGP Purchasing Partner Network (SGP) and The Corporation of the City of London, commending January 1, 2023, for the purpose of participating in a Purchasing and Revenue Share Program to receive a share of rebates received by the SGP on volume purchases of food products and other related services and products;

ii)    authorize the Civic Administration to undertake all the necessary administrative acts in connection with this matter; and,

iii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement. (2022-S03)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.3) 2022-2023 Winter Response Program and Action and Accountability Working Group Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, with respect to the 2022-2023 Winter Response Program and Action and Accountability Working Group Update, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.4) London Fire Department Automatic Aid Agreement with Central Elgin Fire and Emergency Services (Relates to Bill No. 7)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Fire Chief, with concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022, to:

a)    approve the Automatic Aid Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin regarding the provision of certain fire protection services by Central Elgin to specified areas withing London; and,

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted by-law. (2022-P16)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.1) 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 3, 2022:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) 2022 Budget:

i)    M. Blosh, Acting Chair, BE GRANTED delegation status at the November 29, 2022 Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) meeting to advise CPSC on the AWAC request for the expenditure of it’s budget; and,

ii)    the full 2022 Budget expenditure of $1,500 BE ALLOCATED for the purchase of bird-friendly window collision tape;

it being noted that the AWCAC received the attached Sub-Committee Report with respect to the review of the 2022 AWCAC Budget; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3 and 5.1 to 5.6 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.2) Renaming of Paul Haggis Park

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated November 21, 2022, from Councillor E. Peloza and Mayor J. Morgan, related to the Renaming of Paul Haggis Park:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to begin removing Paul Haggis’ name from the city park located at 2875 Bateman Trail and to remove all related references from the City’s website; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to subsequently begin the process of renaming this location, including consultation with residents in the vicinity;

it being noted that the above-noted communication from Councillor E. Peloza and Mayor J. Morgan, as well as the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Dunn, London Abused Women’s Centre and K. O’Brien, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-M04A)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.3) 2022 Parkland Conveyance and Levy By-Law CP-9 Update (Relates to Bill No. 8)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken, with respect to the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, related to an update on the 2022 Parkland Conveyance and Levy By-law CP-9:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 13, 2022, to require the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes as a condition of the development or redevelopment of land within the City of London, or the payment of money in lieu of such conveyance (the “Parkland Dedication By-law”); it being noted that the by-law will come into force and effect January 1, 2023;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the Parkland Conveyance and Levy By-law, as required by the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 and the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the next bi-annual Parkland Conveyance and Levy By-law CP-9 land values update to be completed by January 1, 2025;

it being noted that the delegation request from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, as appended to the Added Agenda, was withdrawn by Mr. Wallace. (2022-C01)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (4.1) Animal Control By-Law

At 2:44 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 2:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 3:33 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 3:37 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a staff report to be brought forward to the January 2023 Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with respect to a potential amendment to By-law PH-3, the Animal Control By-law, to permit the keeping of class 7 animals within the City of London, under such requirements as are recommended by the Civic Administration; it being noted that a draft by-law will be included with the staff report;

it being pointed out that the following individuals gave verbal delegations, with respect to this matter:

  •    B. Child, Reptilia;

  •    L. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP;

  •    Dr. R. Murphy, Reptilia;

  •    M. Hamers, World Animal Protection;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    J. Van Daele;

  •    F. Morrison;

  •    J. Woodyer, Zoocheck;

  •    Dr. C. Warwick;

  •    S. Tinney, Animal Justice;

  •    A.E. Nash, Colorado Reptile Humane Society;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck;

  •    M. Markham; and,

  •    M. Lerner, Lerners Lawyers;

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, were received with respect to this matter:

  •    M. Lerner, Lerners Lawyers;

  •    B. Child, Reptilia;

  •    L. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP;

  •    Dr. R. Murphy, Reptilia;

  •    M. Hamers, World Animal Protection;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    J. Van Daele;

  •    K. Lomack;

  •    F. Morrison;

  •    J. Woodyer, Zoocheck;

  •    Dr. C. Warwick;

  •    S. Tinney, Animal Justice;

  •    L. White, Animal Alliance Canada;

  •    A.E. Nash, Colorado Reptile Humane Society;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck;

  •    M. Markham;

  •    Councillor P. Van Meerbergen;

  •    K. Smith;

  •    D. Brooks, Ontario SPCA and Humane Society;

  •    L. Jackson;

  •    S. Baisley;

  •    J. Winston;

  •    K. Sussman;

  •    B.K. MacKay; and,

  •    W. Brown. (2022-P14)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part a)

That clause 4.1 BE AMENDED following the words, “prepare a staff report” to add

“a)  including any related previous recommendations; and

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That clause 4.1 BE AMENDED by adding the follow new part b)

“b)  an evaluation of both onsite and offsite programs;“

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That item 8, clause 4.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a staff report, including any related previous recommendations, to be brought forward to the January 2023 Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with respect to a potential amendment to By-law PH3, the Animal Control By-law, to permit the keeping of class 7 animals within the City of London under such requirements as are recommended by the Civic Administration; it being noted that a draft by-law will be included with the staff report;

it being pointed out that the following individuals gave verbal delegations, with respect to this matter:

  •    B. Child, Reptilia;

  •    L. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP;

  •    Dr. R. Murphy, Reptilia;

  •    M. Hamers, World Animal Protection;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    J. Van Daele;

  •    F. Morrison;

  •    J. Woodyer, Zoocheck;

  •    Dr. C. Warwick;

  •    S. Tinney, Animal Justice;

  •    A.E. Nash, Colorado Reptile Humane Society;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck;

  •    M. Markham; and,

  •    M. Lerner, Lerners Lawyers;

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, were received with respect to this matter:

  •    M. Lerner, Lerners Lawyers;

  •    B. Child, Reptilia;

  •    L. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP;

  •    Dr. R. Murphy, Reptilia;

  •    M. Hamers, World Animal Protection;

  •    M. Blosh;

  •    J. Van Daele;

  •    K. Lomack;

  •    F. Morrison;

  •    J. Woodyer, Zoocheck;

  •    Dr. C. Warwick;

  •    S. Tinney, Animal Justice;

  •    L. White, Animal Alliance Canada;

  •    A.E. Nash, Colorado Reptile Humane Society;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck;

  •    M. Markham;

  •    Councillor P. Van Meerbergen;

  •    K. Smith;

  •    D. Brooks, Ontario SPCA and Humane Society;

  •    L. Jackson;

  •    S. Baisley;

  •    J. Winston;

  •    K. Sussman;

  •    B.K. MacKay; and,

  •    W. Brown. (2022-P14)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Council recess at this time, for 20 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:40 PM and resumes at 4:01 PM.

8.4   1st Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-11-29 CWC - Report 1

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 1st Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (1.2) Election of Vice-Chair

Motion made by C. Rahman

That Councillor H. McAlister BE ELECTED Vice-Chair of the Civic Works Committee for the term ending November 14, 2023.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.1) 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 2, 2022:

a)    the Working Group comments with respect to the Revised Notice of Planning Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision for the properties located at 3350, 3480 Morgan Avenue and 1363 Wharncliffe Road South BE FORWARDED to M. Johnson, Senior Planner, for consideration; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 to 3.3 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.2) 5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 16, 2022:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the presentation, dated November 16, 2022, from J. Kelso, AECOM, related to the Southdale Road West Phase 2 Improvements – Southdale Road/Colonel Talbot Roundabout:

i)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, in a timely manner, to provide an update as to public comments received through the consultation, and any related design and/or implementation changes as a result; and, 

ii)    the above-noted presentation BE RECEIVED;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 1, 2022, related to the Mobility Master Plan Appointment of Consultant:

i)    that the Master Mobility Plan Project Team BE REQUESTED to liaise with D. Foster, Chair, Master Mobility Plan Sub-Committee, with respect to matters related to the sub-committee activity; it being noted that D. Foster will also liaise with other sub-committees of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee; and, 

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

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1 to 3.4 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.3) SS-2022-299 Single Source Contract Renewal: Navistar Original Equipment Manufacturer Replacement Parts

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, related to the Single Source Contract Renewal: Navistar Original Equipment Manufacturer Replacement Parts (SS-2022-299):

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the single source provisions of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy under sections 14.4 (d) and (e) to renew the contract with Carrier Centers, 90 Enterprise Dr. London Ontario N6N 1A8 for the supply and delivery of Navistar Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) replacement parts on City owned trucks for a one (1) year contract with an option to renew for five (5) additional years;

b)    the negotiated price of 1% discount (net 30) off the Navistar National Pricing List for all Navistar inventoried and non-inventoried OEM parts BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the Electronic National Price List is to be provided on a quarterly basis to the City of London Purchasing and Supply Division from Carrier Centers;

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

d)    the approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-V01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.4) Contract Amendment: RFP21-38 CNG Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 29, 2022, related to a Contract Amendment for CNG Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks (RFP 21-38):

a)    the Supply and Delivery of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Split and Single Stream Side Loading Waste Collection Trucks (RFP 21-38) contract value with Vision Truck Group BE INCREASED by $110,000.00 to $2,415,511.00 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the funding for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2022-V01)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.5) 2025 One Water Development Charges Background Study Appointment of Consultant

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 29, 2022, related to the appointment of a consultant for the 2025 One Water Development Charges Background Study:

a)    Aquafor Beech Limited BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the 2025 One Water Development Charges Background Study in the amount of $465,814.80 (excluding HST) in accordance with their proposal and Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E13)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.6) Vendor of Record Contract Award: Request for Proposal RFP-2022-170 - Rapid Transit Shelter Infrastructure

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 29, 2022, related to an award of contract for the Request for Proposal RFP-2022-170 – Rapid Transit Shelter Infrastructure project:

a)    Enseicom BE APPOINTED to undertake engineering and prototype fabrication, at an upset amount of $563,496.55, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to appoint Enseicom as the Vendor of Record for fabrication, supply, and installation of rapid transit shelter infrastructure for periods of one (1) year for final engineering design and prototype works and three (3) years for fabrication, supply, and installation with an option for renewal based on positive performance and price;

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

d)    the approval given herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with Enseicom for this work;

e)    the funding for the engineering completion and prototype works BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

f)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-T03)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Update

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 29, 2022, related to the development of the Mobility Master Plan:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for the purpose of providing Municipal Council with an update on the progress of the consultation for the Mobility Master Plan; and,

b)    the following Vision and Guiding Principles for the development of the Mobility Master Plan BE APPROVED:

Vision Statement:

In 2050, Londoners of all identities, abilities and means will have viable mobility options to allow them to move throughout the city safely and efficiently, as well as providing connectivity to the Region. The movement of people and goods will be environmentally sustainable, affordable, and supportive of economic growth and development.

Guiding Principles:

  •    Environmentally Sustainable

  •    Equitable

  •    Financially Sustainable

  •    Healthy and Safe

  •    Integrated, Connected and Efficient. (2022-T03)

Motion Passed

8.5   3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-12-06 SPPC Report 3 - Full

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Items 1 to 10, inclusive, of the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022) – Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated December 6, 2022, titled “London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022) - Update”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS) – London Transit Commission Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild – Project 1

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure with the concurrence of the General Manager, London Transit Commission, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit London Transit Commission (LTC) Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild – Project 1 to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS);

b)    the budget for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022, as Appendix “A”; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to carry out all budget adjustments required to establish the budget for the LTC Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle Business Improvement Area

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Rob Graham, Chair, Jiffy Lube

Carol Taylor-Wilks, Vice Chair, Carol Wilks Consultants

Frank Boutzis, Treasurer, Easy Financial

Chris Metron, Warehouse Guys

Rob Aiken, Music Central

Deborah Haroun, Children’s Place

Donna Moerenhout, Razor’s Barber Shop

Lina Marie Phillips, Craklins Fish and Chips

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Confirmation of Appointment to Downtown London

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the London Downtown  Business Association Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Asaad Naeeli, Dos Tacos

Bonnie Wludyka, Citi Plaza

Carolyn Conron, Conron Law Professional Corp

Keith Brett, ANNDining

Kristin Neilson, Glen CORR Management Inc

Marcello Vecchio, Farhi Holdings Corporation

Michelle Giroux, Fanshawe College Downtown Campus

Mike Pottruff, London Police Service

Michaelanne Hathaway, Stache Fabric & Notions

Nick Vander Gulik, Shoppers Drug Mart – Vander Guli Pharmacy Inc

Scott Collyer, Empyrean Communications Resources LLC

Steve Pellarin, London Small Business Centre

David Ferreira, City of London Councillor

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 23, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, London Downtown with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.5) Confirmation of Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Nancy Moffatt Quinn, Moffatt & Powell Rona 

Vickie Balazs, Jaydancin  

Terryanne Daniel, Synergy Centre 

Lorean Pritchard, ReDECOR Consignment 

Tom Delaney, Oxford Dodge 

Kelsey Watkinson, Curley Brewing Company

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.6) 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 10, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.1) Tabling of the 2023 Annual Budget Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft 2023-Tax-Supported Annual Update and the Draft Water and Wastewater Treatment Budgets Annual Update:

a)     the Draft Budget documents BE REFERRED to the 2020-2023 Multi-Year annual budget update process; and,

b)     the overview presentation, as appended to the added agenda, by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with respect to the 2023 Budget Update BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the following documents were provided to the Members, and are available on the City website: Draft Property Tax Supported Budget, 2023 Annual Update and Draft Water and Wastewater & Treatment, 2023 Annual Update.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.1) Valerie Terejko - Bill 5 - Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Mayor BE DIRECTED to write to local MPPs, Premier Doug Ford and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on behalf of the municipal council, in support of the proposed Bill 5; it being noted that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will also be copied on this letter.

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (4.2) City of London Corporate Growth Projections 2021-2051

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London corporate growth forecast:

a)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the revised final report by Watson and Associates Economists entitled “Population, Housing and Employment Growth Projection Study, 2021-2051”, as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the Reference Scenario outlined in the final report prepared by Watson and Associates Economists entitled “Population, Housing and Employment Growth Projection Study, 2021-2051”, as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE ENDORSED for use as the City of London corporate growth forecast, including but not limited to use in forthcoming Planning Act and Development Charges Act initiatives; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council, through the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, in advance of the Ontario Government’s deadline, on options, approaches, and necessary investments required to achieve the City of London’s assigned housing target of 47,000 new homes;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from C. Mettler and S. Levin, Urban League of London (attached), M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute and A. Valastro, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   2nd Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve the 2nd Report of Council in Closed Session, excluding item 4.

  1.    Unifor Tentative Agreement

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the attached Memorandum of Agreement dated September 27, 2022, and Agreed to Items dated June 21 and 22, 2022 concerning the 2022-2025 Collective Agreement for Unifor BE RATIFIED.

  1.    Offer to Purchase Industrial Land – Innovation Park – Concept Millwork Corporation

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Innovation Park Phase I, being composed of Part of Block 3, Plan 33M-544 more specifically shown as Part 1 and Part 2, Plan 33R-21109, being part of PIN 081970291, located in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Concept Millwork Corporation (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 3.84 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $672,000.00, reflecting a sale price of $175,000.00 per acre BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms set out in the Agreement.

  1.    Acquisition – Buy Back of Industrial Land from 2842613 Ontario Ltd. – Innovation Industrial Park, Phase II

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to industrial land located in Innovation Industrial Park, Phase II, containing an area of 6.0 acres Part of Block 1, Plan 33M-592, Parts 14 and 17, Plan 33R-20884, located in the City of London, County of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “C”, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by The Corporation of the City of London (the “Purchaser”) to repurchase 6.0 acres of the subject property from 2842613 Ontario Ltd., for the sum of $378,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and,

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

  1.    Lease of City-Owned Land for Billboard Advertising

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Pattison Outdoor Advertising LP, by its general partner Pattison Outdoor Advertising Limited for the Lease of City-owned lands for billboard advertising, the Lease Amending Agreement (the “Lease”), attached as Appendix “A” between The Corporation of the City of London and Pattison Outdoor Advertising LP, by its general partner Pattison Outdoor Advertising Limited, for the lease of up to eight (8) locations as detailed in the agreement BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve item 4.

  1.    Property Acquisition – 2 Kennon Place – 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 2 Kennon Place, further described as Lot 10, Plan 449 (4th), being all of PIN 08357-0027 (LT), containing an area of approximately 2,475.00 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 Dana Mary Jeanette Hewitt (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $430,500.00 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 (14 to 1)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 4 to the revised Bill No. 23 and Added Bill No.’s 24, 25 and 27, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 4 to the revised Bill No. 23 and Added Bill No.’s 24, 25 and 27, and excluding Bill No. 10, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 4 to the revised Bill No. 23 and Added Bill No.’s 24, 25 and 27, excluding Bill No. 10 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 10, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 10, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 26, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 26, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 26, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting is adjourned at 4:26 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 9 minutes)

[1:37] Okay, thank you colleagues. Welcome to the third meeting of Municipal Council. I’m going to start today by doing a land acknowledgement. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwock and Adawandran. We honor respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[14:58] City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I also want to add that the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide, every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To everybody’s delight, we do have an old Canada singer today, so it won’t be me leading us as we did last time. So just so you know, I’ve set the bar pretty low. But today we have Brent Jackson, who is a singer/songwriter originally from Toronto, who’s now located in London. Jackson is most recognized as the singer/guitarist in the junction.

[15:57] The band has toured Canada and the US countless times on their own and as supporting openers for Monin, Bedouin Soundclash, Sloan, Colorado and the reason. Countless plays on the radio across the country and charting videos on much music. Jackson’s current projects include Sunshine Makers, Heartlake and Gold Tongue. All bands have recently released music. Sunshine Makers have enjoyed radio play on CBC and Gold Tongue’s newest single was featured on Hockey Night in Canada. Quite the accomplishment. Please welcome me in joining Brent Jackson at this time. I will stand and have him sing.

[17:24] OK, colleagues, we’ll move to disclosures of peculiar interest for today’s meeting. OK, seeing none, there are a number of recognitions that we have today, so I’ll move to the podium to start those. Human rights day is observed every year on December 10th. The day the United Nations General Assembly adopted in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U-D-H-R. The U-D-H-R is a milestone document which proclaims the inalienable rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being. Regardless of race, color, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

[20:01] Available in more than 500 languages is the most translated document worldwide. The diversity in race relations and inclusivity awards focus on four key areas to which nominees are asked to respond in their submission. The first that contributes to the promotion of diversity, race relations, inclusivity and human rights in London and promotes London as a welcoming city. The second that carries a short or long-term impact that the initiative has on the promotion of diversity, race relations, inclusivity and human rights in London and promoting London as a welcoming city. Third that the potential for expansion and inspiration for replication of their initiative. And finally understanding how can receiving this award can be encouraged to further diversity, race relations, inclusivity and human rights in London to promote London as a welcoming city even further. This year we are pleased to recognize the contributions from four local community-based organizations. And so I will invite them to come up as I say their name and then I will say a few words about each view and we’ll present the award.

[21:13] The first recipient is Amazon delivery station. In the category of corporations, large businesses of 50 or more members. Monop. Their initiative fostering a culture of inclusive and diverse experiences internally and supporting the greater community through volunteering, donating and fundraising awareness campaigns. Amazon is committed to diversity and inclusion. The organization’s diverse perspectives come from many sources including gender, race, age, national origin, sexual orientation, culture, education and professional life experience.

[21:56] Areas of service are as follows. Community events, community involvement including donations and volunteer work such as Children’s Hospital, London Clean and Green, Ronald McDonald House, tree planting, habitat for humanity, the great cycling, the great cycle challenge in which Amazon raised $15,102.79 to fight kids’ cancer. Engagement events. To spread awareness and keep the community involved, Amazon focuses on monthly planned events to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Food and celebration. Celebrate diversity through food from different cultures and organize a diversity awareness campaign. Leadership principles.

[22:38] Amazon’s culture described by its leadership principles helps the organization relentlessly pursue its mission to be a customer-centric company and the safest workplace, affinity groups. Bring Amazon employees together across business and locations worldwide. Celebrate and elevate groups like the Black Employee Network, LGBTQ and Women at Amazon. Amazon delivery station is a well-balanced organization that provides many services to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. And therefore, we congratulate Amazon delivery station for continuing to make London an inclusive city. Congratulations. And if you want, we can get that in a nice bubble wrapped envelope so it can be safely transported home. Probably have a few of those. They knew I was going to make that joke. There wouldn’t be Christmas for my kids without Amazon. That was also said earlier today. The next recipient, ATN Access Inc. They could come forward. The category is social community service, not-for-profit, fewer than 49 members. The initiative in recognition of your continuing service and training opportunities for people with disabilities and barriers. ATN was established in 1984 and continues to offer services and support people with disabilities and barriers. ATN works with the community of supporters and partners to provide services, training opportunities and workshops to clients, local employers and other social services and training institutions. ATN excels in providing individualized services and accommodations and creating a genuinely inclusive ad inspirational environment. ATN Access Inc. also provides life changing services, program and training opportunities to help empower people with disabilities and barriers to engage in their communities fully, finding meaning and developing a more significant social network. ATN does, sorry, this is typo, in opportunities for all. We continue, we gradually ATN Access service for their outstanding contributions and thank you for eliminating diversity barriers and making London an inclusive city. Congratulations. Next we have Jess Jones recreational therapy, which is in the category, small business, small labor, fewer than 50 members. Come on forward.

[26:19] Initiative. The FASD group provides opportunities to improve life skills, executive functioning skills and social skills through therapeutic recreational interventions. Jess Jones recreational therapy is committed to ensuring equity and inclusion amongst their clients. The initiative has contributed to inclusivity by supporting the FASD, should I be using the acronym or can I say it a shorter way? All right. Including those who are affected with disorders, their caretakers and community members by allowing children, youth and families to connect, create and stay curious in a safe and welcoming space will improving their quality of life. Jess Jones recreational therapy takes pride in supporting community members affected by FASD, by meeting people where they are and providing unique curtailed programs for individuals, their families and relevant community members. This company recognizes the complicated and intricate journeys that individuals and their families embark on and provides them with the necessary tools to allow them to flourish. Jess Jones recreational therapy proudly supports and serves people of all backgrounds and abilities and takes great joy in meeting people new and with new and different experiences.

[27:38] We offer our sincere congratulations to Jess Jones and her staff for the exceptional support of people with FASD, their families and their communities. Congratulations. Finally, Airshow London. We could come forward. Airshow London is nominated in the social community services with 50 or more members. The initiative. Airshow London provides an exceptional volunteer and employee experience for those with disability barriers. The organization provides accommodation and safety for people with disabilities. The Airshow has continually strived to provide meaningful accommodations for volunteers, fostering an environment that is inclusive and equitable.

[28:40] They make the Airshow accessible by making exceptions for transit pickups, thus providing safe travel to and from event locations, providing meal delivery to volunteers with mobility impairments and by reaching out to volunteers far in advance of the Airshow to check in. Airshow London also strives to ensure diversity by accepting and accommodating volunteers of all ethnicities, abilities and other demographics. The nominator for the Airshow is a regular volunteer who has been working with the organization for the past six years. This person uses a wheelchair and has expressed gratitude and thanks to the organizers for making their experience a welcoming and positive one. Airshow London is a major event within the city of London and it’s encouraging and inspiring to hear that the organizers have done so much to include community members of all backgrounds.

[29:30] Thank you for your dedicated work to diversity, equity and inclusion. You didn’t arrange a flyover for the awards did you? No. Okay that concludes the awards. I’ll return to the podium and we will continue with the meeting. Before we return to the meeting I just want to add there was a wonderful reception posted earlier with the award winners that I know a number of members of council were able to participate in and I did want to say thank you to our committee for all of the work that they’ve done and all of the staff who supported the event today. I know in speaking with many of the recipients they felt very much appreciated and honored that the work that they’re doing is recognized in this way and of course I again thank them for the work that they’re doing to make London and even better cities. So thanks to them and thanks to all the staff who supported the event today. Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. Council in closed session is the next item. There are a number of items on the public agenda.

[31:36] There are no added items so we’re looking for a motion to move into closed sessions for the items that are listed on the public agenda. Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Caddie. Any discussion? Okay we’ll open that vote in the system. Close in the vote. Motion carries 15-0. So we’ll be moving into closed session. That means everybody who isn’t supposed to be in closed session will leave the room and once we get everybody organized we will start our closed session. Okay we’re back in public session. Thank you for all those who waited for us and have returned. We are now on to the confirmation signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the second meeting held on November 22nd, 2022. I’ll look for someone to move those minutes. Councillor Palosa don’t need a second or unless we make an amendment.

[37:00] So any changes to the… All right we’ll open that up in the system. Councillor Trossa. Thank you. Close in the vote. Motion carries 15-0. We have communications and petitions. You’ll see on the added agenda that there’s a number of additional pieces of correspondence related to different items and sections of the agenda.

[37:58] Just a reminder what we usually do here is seek a motion for those to be placed in the various parts of the agenda that they refer to and we deal with them at that time. So I’ll look for that motion. Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on that? This is for all of the communications and petitions items. Okay we’ll open that for voting two. Close in the vote. Motion carries 15-0. There are no motions to which notice is given. So we’re into the report section of the agenda and the first one 8.1 is the first report of the Planning Environment Committee. I will turn it over to Councillor Layman. Thank you Mayor. I’d like to put on the floor of the first report Planning Environment Committee. We got off to a great start. Very robust, fulsome committee meeting. Councillor Frank, welcome to the show. Get used to it.

[39:15] Number of things I just saw highlight for Council on the consent items. We had the building reports from August and September. I think those reports are good for Councillors to look at. It kind of gives a snapshot of how we’re doing. They’re building in planning areas on permit processing. We also dealt with some minor planning issues and some heritage items. We had 10 public participation meetings and of the zoning applications approved by committee to go for consent today. 431 units were approved, of which are 167 affordable units brought forward by the London Middlesex community housing, which is I think Deputy Mayor would like to speak to that later on. We also heard from staff regarding Bill 109. So I will pull that item, which is number 21, because I believe staff wanted to give an update. Both Bill 23 that we saw was very fluid until it got royal sent and Bill 109 again is in that same process, which affects the city very much because it will deal with reducing to 90 days from application receipt to getting a decision made. If that’s not met, then we would have to refund the application fee, which is studied on by staff. Councillor, if you’re going to pull it separately, you can make those comments when we deal with it. Sorry, got a little excited. I will leave it at that and come back to that. I’ve also had requests to have number 19 3.94452 Wellington pulled and number 2952 Southdale Road West pulled. So Councillor Lehman is willing to put everything on the floor from that report with the exception of 1920 and 21 is my understanding. Would anybody like something else dealt with separately? Is there Frank? Sorry, I just have a question. I think my, I don’t know if it’s my numbering system, but Southdale is 20. And you said 21, so I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if I’m off. Anyway, I said we’re going to deal with 19 20 and 21 as separate motions from this package of considerations. So essentially 1 through 18 and 22 is less someone would like something separate, which we could separate out now. Otherwise, I’ll let Councillor Lehman move that motion. I will move that. Okay, any discussion? Councillor Lewis, or Deputy Mayor Lewis, sorry. Thank you, Your Worship. And as Councillor Lehman indicated, I do want to speak very briefly to item 16, which is 3.6 from the committee report. That’s the 931 to 1225 Southdale Road East. This is the reimagined Southdale project from London middle sex community housing. This is a really, really important project to move forward in terms of meeting affordability needs in the community, filling that gap in terms of the lack of RGI housing. But I did speak with Mr. Chisholm as well. He’s not able to be here today, but we did communicate about some of the concerns that were raised by the community as well as some of the things for folks to bear in mind going forward. So not only will this create 167 new affordable units and gain a net 90, I believe it is RGI. But in this mix, in this new development, we will have both RGI as well as affordable units. It will be a mixed income community. So some of the units will be at that 80% of AMR, which we also know there is a gap in the community that this will help fill in addition to the RGI units, which of course will take people off of our housing wait list.

[43:33] Something I know Mr. Dickens will be happy to see happen. In terms of the community concerns, you did see a couple of communications on the agenda. And I just want to address those very briefly. And certainly through you, I’m sure that Mr. Mathers can confirm this. The idea that there is a 13 meter height limit on Southdale Road is not in fact accurate. Under the London plan, we don’t actually have limits that would restrict that from being a six-story building. Under the 1989 official plan, that may in fact have been the case, but under the London plan, we can get this done here. And also when we’re talking about the tenants, there were communications about how we’re displacing people from housing. That is absolutely false. And I want to be really clear about that. No tenant in London community housing at Southdale Road is losing their spot for this project. In most cases, the tenants have already been relocated to other units in the existing complex. One more is expected to be moved at the beginning of the year.

[44:50] And the final tenant who needs to be accommodated is actually going to be accommodated at a new location. And that’s at the tenant’s choice. So I think it’s really, really important to understand that we are not displacing tenants. We are increasing density here. We are providing new housing. I’ve heard and seen in a couple of the communications London housing should just buy more land and build it elsewhere. Well, that would be great if London Housing was sitting on a big pile of money and there was land available to do that. But it also wouldn’t be consistent with our goal to increase density and infill. The services, the infrastructure services and the soft services, whether it’s transit, library services, schools in the neighborhood, those are already here.

[45:37] This is exactly the kind of project that we envision when we talk about infill and addressing affordable housing through infill. So I certainly hope this will have unanimous support going forward. I know that the community had some concerns, but really this is the kind of project that we are looking to see. And when this is done, I know that London Housing, the board members, are already talking excitedly about where can we do this elsewhere on some of our other properties in the future once this is done. So really encourage us to support this move it forward unanimously. Further comments on the package of items that Councillor Layton has put forward?

[46:23] Seeing none, then we can open that for voting. Those are items 1 through 18 and 22 from the Planning Committee agenda. Councillor Cutty, thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Councillor Layton. Thank you. Before I put 3.9 in the floor, Mayor, I was remiss in not recognizing the Deputy Mayor Lewis’s appointment and real election to the position of Vice Chair for the Planning Committee. So thank you to the Planning Committee for making that choice.

[47:22] And I look forward to the Deputy Mayor’s assistance on this portfolio. So now I’d like to put 3.9 4452 Wellington on the floor. Put on the floor by Councillor Layton, questions or comments on this item. Seeing none, then we can open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. Councillor Layton. Thank you. I’d like to put number 2952 Southfield World West on the floor.

[48:22] Yes, there’s a correction that needs to be added. So we have to amend this particular item. So this is put on the floor by Councillor Layton. And now he will move an amendment and explain what that amendment is. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to amend a brief technical amendment here by adding the word maximum in Section 2A3 density to the RA-4 zone. So I’d like to move that amendment.

[49:31] The seconder to add that amendment, Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. Is everybody clear? This is essentially what happens from time to time. Is there technical amendments that need to be made to correct the bylaws to line up with the motion that was passed? This is the addition I think of one word that was missing in the original bylaw. So we are voting on the amendment of adding that word back in. And as Councillor Layton has described, if everybody’s good with that, I will open voting just on the amendment. Okay, we’ll do that. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. 15 to 0. Okay, Councillor, will you, if you could put it on the floor as amended now? Yes, I’ll put number 2952 Southdale Road West as amended on the floor.

[50:51] And since it’s been amended, I need a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, any discussion on the amended motion now? Councillor Frank. Thank you. And as fellow Councillors can see, I did not support this zoning rezoning application. And I would like to reiterate my comments just so that all of Council is aware kind of the stance that I took and the information that I provided. So I don’t support the zoning of this area of the commercial development and based on the information provided in the report from staff, as well as the supplementary reports, the environmental reports. As you can see, the list of exemptions for this location is very long. I counted and they’re requesting 13 special provisions, which to me indicates that this space is not a good use of the site for what they want to use it for. This many special provisions is intended to try and make the site design viable for the applicant instead of adhering to our city policies. And in my opinion, the applicant should probably either reduce the development so that they can meet some of our policies or find a larger site to suit the needs of what they’re hoping to put into it. Given that, again, what they’re trying to use the site for, I think that it is much too small for the desired usage. And that’s on top of already having reduced how many parking spaces, requesting a reduction for drive-through spaces and requesting a reduction for setbacks.

[52:12] And don’t get me wrong, I really like intensity and infill. I’m very supportive of that. But I do find that intensity at the expense of wetlands, at the expense of green space, at the expense of natural heritage is not exactly what we’re going through at the London Plan. So reducing these setbacks, to me, appears that we’ll have less space for trees and green infrastructure, which we need as we are moving into a continual climate crisis. And we need more green infrastructure to retain water on land. I also support the use of the new parking standards minimum. I do want to see less parking at all sites, so I was excited to see that. I do find it confusing that we are using that, though, which came into effect earlier this year, but we’re not using the application of the environmental management guidelines on this site.

[52:53] In some areas, they’re only doing 10-meter buffer, and there’s in our new EMGs, which were passed last year, we are supposed to be doing a 30-meter buffer. And within even the 10-meter buffer, they’re proposing putting a walking path or a cycling path through, so it’s not, again, to me, a true 10-meter buffer. It’ll probably end up being a 5 or 7-meter buffer. So regarding those adjustments, I just don’t think that it’s a suitable site given it’s beside a provincially significant wetland. And in general, as the city grows, as we all know, we need to be prioritizing land use. So there already appears to be a lot of commercial development in that area. Residents said that they’re already happy with the grocery stores they have, that they’re able to walk to them. So I’m not keen on supplying more commercial and office space, literally at the edge of our urban growth boundary, because we are trying to get folks to use our office space and our commercial space downtown and our cores and their core areas.

[53:41] So given all of that, and given that we’re in a climate emergency, I’m not very in support of development and then croaches on wetlands. And this development actually already destroyed two small wetlands on the property. And it is adjacent to a provincially significant wetland. So the need for that has gone greater to protect it. The site appears to be almost 80 to 90% pavement or building. So we will have likely spillover into the wetland. And I’m worried about the salt content ending up in the wetland, which would destroy a lot of the aquatic animals. So according to all of that, and the London plan, we need to be managing our growth differently.

[54:18] And I think for that reason, I’m trying to encourage other counselors to move away from car-centric development. And I’ll be voting against these zoning amendments again for the above reason. So thank you. Thank you, other speakers, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And thank you, Councillor Frank. I won’t go into the details that you so eloquently spoke to, but I didn’t support this at planning either. And I think one of the challenges here is that this did go to the OMB. There was a ruling to allow for this kind of development. And that to me was unfortunate. This is a very sensitive area of the wetlands, the natural environment here. I’m very supportive of infills. That is what we should be doing.

[55:06] This could be a development that is intensified. But to this degree, next to the provincially significant wetland, the challenges, I think, they could have reduced that development in this area. And if you think that this development is not in a sensitive area, just look directly to the north of this development, there’s an asparagus farm. The reason there’s an asparagus farm there is because it’s wet, lots of water, lots of fertile land. And there is going to be significant challenges with this development, making it less, could have supported the natural environment. So I didn’t support it. I did hear from residents across the street from this development. It is in Ward 9, the challenges of how they move around. And it’s really good to know that the roundabout itself, Dale, and Colonel Talbot is coming in 2023, which will alleviate some of the challenges of moving around here. But it still does not take away from the significant natural area that this area has and the intensity of this development. So that is why I’m not supporting it. That’s a true sign. Through the chair, thank you very much for those presentations.

[56:33] I’m not going to be supporting this either. And I’d like to ask staff through the chair, is there is there any possibility of having further discussion? May I finish? Sure, Mr. Mathers. Well, my question is, is there any point in having further discussion with the developers to address some of these issues? So maybe we could move to a consensus, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, just to give you a little bit of background, as was noted by Councillor Hopkins, this has gone to in the past tribunals to deal with. And we were left with a very constrained site. As you can see, we’ve worked tirelessly with this developer to come up with something that Council could consider being appropriate that also suits what they’re looking forward to bring forward its development. I don’t know how helpful it would be to continue that conversation with them. I would suggest that if it’s something that you’re looking that Council would not be supportive of, that you bring that back to us. However, I don’t know what else we could come up with. Honestly, we’ve entirely worked with them on it. So I think this is probably the the most appropriate option for what they’ve suggested. Otherwise, there’s always the opportunity to go back to OLT if they want to appeal. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

[58:03] And colleagues, I’m going to encourage you to support this application. First of all, it’s important to know that when this was brought forward to planning committee, it was brought forward with our planning staff’s support. That’s really important to understand, because if this goes to OLT, it is going to the tribunal with our staff having recommended this coming forward. The buffers that are included in this around the wetland, whether an individual personally agrees with them or not, meets the requirements. This is also a mixed-use development. Yes, there’s a grocery store and some commercial spaces there. There are also residential units there. This is kind of mixed-use development that the London Plan encourages. And well, it’s easy for us to stand here and say, and I don’t mean this in any negative wage colleagues, it’s easy to stand and say, if they just made it smaller. Well, the reality is that they have to make the economics of the development work. They have to know that when they bring forward a proposal, very, very few developers in this province even, let alone this city, are simply writing a check and putting shovels in the ground. These projects are generally debt financed.

[59:20] They need to provide to their financiers proof that they can recoup their money in X number of years. So whenever we talk about, we’d like to see something smaller on the site that creates the possibility of the financing falling apart. As Councillor Hopkins and Mr. Mayithers both pointed out, the site was already the subject of, at the time, an OMB. Now the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal. The applicant won. This site is going to be developed. And we have a mixed-use development. Yes, Councillor Frank mentioned that there are a number of, there are quite a few amendments or requests in this application. As we continue to go through planning agendas over the year and the next three years of this term, you will see that a lot of applications come through with a lot of changes, often very minor. In this case, for example, one of the changes that the applicant requested was a change in a setback. And it was a setback between parking lots for the grocery store and the townhouse complex. Nobody’s being impacted by this in terms of their quality of life when we’re changing. And in fact, they gave us more space on the other side to help us compensate for the fact that the buffer between the commercial zone and the residential zone was going to be decreased. So it’s really important that we look at these on the balance. Councillor Frank mentioned the parking reductions. I agree with her on that.

[1:00:50] It is a good thing that we have applicants who are seeking to take advantage of the parking reductions because it does encourage people who are able to, who are within the distance of being able to walk or being able to take the bus and make a quick trip home or whatever it happens to be on any given location when we have those reduced parking spaces. We have less asphalt that’s typically sitting empty a lot of the time. And when it is busy, it encourages people to come at other times, changes the traffic flow, makes it a better option all around for the neighbourhood. So I really do encourage people to support this. The changes that are being requested are minor in nature. The buffer zones meet the requirements in terms of the wetland.

[1:01:34] And in fact, in one area, the applicant has actually given a much wider buffer than is required on the residential side of the application. So I do hope that people will support this. I would hesitate to guarantee that I would strongly, strongly suspect if we were to say no, this goes to appeal. They’ve already won one appeal on this site. And I’m sure that they, after 12 years, by the way, so 12 years, they have been working with our staff on this. It’s quite unreasonable after 12 years to think that we’re going to get anything better than what’s before us today.

[1:02:10] The speakers, I’ve already spoken Councillor, sorry, I can’t wait to speak once. Okay, we have a moved motion on the floor. We’ve had some discussions. So there’s no further discussion to open this for voting. Councillor Ferrer, Councillor Ferrer, take your vote. Councillor Ferrer, we can help you show you how you can change your vote if you need to.

[1:03:45] Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to 4. Councillor Layman. Thank you. And I’ll go down to a number 21, 4.1. This deals with 109 that I got into before the mirror so wisely cut me off and forced me to my proper place. What this bill does, I think it’s in conjunction with Bill 23 in moving the provincial plans to get things moving faster. What it does is it restricts our response to application to 90 days from the date that we receive it. And if we do not meet that target, we get penalized financially. And in ways of refunding the application fee. So a study was done and presented to us by planning that showed 2021, the number of applications that we did not meet that time frame would have resulted in over half million dollars in refunds of application fees. So quite a significant financial penalty on the city. The staff also presented to us ways that they have come up with and continuing to work on in response to that to get to where I think we all want to to see us get to is quick quicker turnaround on the application processing, which quite frankly is challenging in these times of shortage of staff, etc. But we will get there and I had full confidence in staff’s report on terrific ideas on how we’re going to address this. But like when we saw with Bill 23, 109 is very fluid. And I just found out from Mr. Mathers that there’s some kind of additional developments that I would like to through you chair go to Deputy City Manager to kind of fill us in on where we stand on that, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, just wanted to give a brief update. On November 30th, the province committed to the Association, Miss Palais, Ontario, AMO to mend the enforced date for this new legislation. So that will be pushing the date that this legislation comes into effect specifically the pieces about refunds from January 1st to July 1st. So that that has been a very beneficial for staff. We’ll be able to make our changes to the process so we can reflect that prior without risking losing this additional funding we usually receive. So I just wanted to highlight that. That came in after it was November 28th that we had the PAC meeting. This was on the 30th that we heard back. So I just wanted to give you that brief update. Thank you. So I’d like to put that on the floor, please. Okay, the items on the floor, are there questions or comments?

[1:07:16] Councillor Trozau. A question through the chair. It’s often the case that in the course of an application being pending, there are ongoing discussions between the developer and the city. My worry here is we enter into these discussions with developers but we don’t take the trouble, we don’t always take the time to cross all the legal legalisms to have the time told. And is there something that we could be doing to make it much clearer to developers that if we have to have this discussion with you, because we could take it to Council and vote it down.

[1:07:58] But rather than do that, we’d like to have this discussion with you but you have to agree explicitly to waive that ability to get that back. Could we be doing a better job with that explicit understanding? Mr. Mathers, and then I actually have something to add to that as well. Great. Through your worship, that’s absolutely the case. We were always working with developers, even up to the time that we were preparing the planning report. So one piece is just our advocacy with the province and trying to work with them to see if there is a way for even if it was on a volunteer basis that a developer would be able to, if we’re working with them, be able to waive that return of funding. As well, we’re looking at making a change to the bylaw that would allow the developer to come forward and actually possibly remove the application that they put in to be able to cancel it and then still be able to have that funding applied to a future application. So there’s a couple of things we can do. The biggest thing that we’re planning to do as part of the 109 changes is to have more of a conversation up front before the application is even submitted so that we cover off all these issues before they actually are under the clock.

[1:09:10] So that’s what we’re really trying to do to be able to address it, but absolutely it’s very important to have these conversations. Yes, and I’ll add for the Councillors some information. Today, my office was in receipt of a letter from LDI and Mr. Wallace. Specifically on this topic, I was copied. It was letter two to the minister saying with the additional time that the province is given with the implementation of bill 109, there are a number of changes that they would be interested in suggesting, one of which being exactly what you’re describing and that is the ability to agree to waive the financial penalty, especially in situations where the city and the developer are very close, rather than have something come forward for rejection rather than have an application have to be withdrawn and then put back in at a future date to simply have by agreement that ability. And so, you know, I certainly am very supportive of initiatives like that and I would say that the more time on this sort of implementation of legislation allows for more consultation to make improvements to it and this is certainly something that would improve it. I just wanted to recognize for colleagues because I was in receipt of that today. I read it. I wanted to be aware that our development community in the city is supportive of exactly what you’re describing, Councillor Preble. Mr. Chair, to Mr. Mater, just to reiterate from yesterday and I’m very much looking forward to the entire council to receive the target report by end of February and our path to pledge by end of March so we can get on track and we can get to that number of 47,000. So, I just want to reiterate it from yesterday and thank you very much. Any other questions or comments on this matter? Seeing none, then we will open this for voting. We’re just voting to receive the report that was given to Planning Committee on the implications of Bill 109 and the changes. Councillor Hopkins? I vote yes. It’s not coming up. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15-0. Councillor Layman. Thank you. Worship, that concludes the first report. Okay. Item 8.2, first report of the Corporate Services Committee. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been made aware by any colleagues of a desire to have any items pulled to be dealt with separately so we should see now if there are any. Anybody like anything from this report dealt with separately or can we address them all together? Looks like you can put them all on the floor together. Then I’m happy to move the entire report for the first report of the Corporate Services Committee. Okay. That’s on the floor. Any discussion, comments, questions? Seeing none, we’ll open the Corporate Services Committee report for voting.

[1:12:57] Close on the vote. Motion carries 15-0. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Item 8.3, the first report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Councillor Close on. Thank you. I am not going to be as efficient as Councillor Lewis was but I will still be as efficient as possible. I would like to start off by recognizing the election of the Vice Chair being Councillor Ferrera and thank you for him stepping up and taking on this learning and leadership opportunity. I am going to be pulling item 8 being 4.1 being the animal control bylaw. I’ve been given no notice to pull anything else.

[1:13:51] Anybody like anything else dealt with separately? We will be dealing with the animal control bylaw items separately but anything else on this item or this agenda that you’d like to deal with as a separate matter. Okay. Looks like you could put the rest on the floor. Thank you. I’m going to be putting the rest of the items on the floor with the exception of 8 being 4.1. We had an efficient meeting up until that item. Recognizing the Animal Welfare Community Advisor Committee is going to be doing some things that help support the city being bird friendly and thanking them for all the work that they do in the community. That unanimously passed that committee was my motion for the renaming of Paul Hager’s Park. Recognizing that ties into creating a safe London for women and girls as well and the rest ties into service delivery, long-term care purchasing agreements and our aid. Okay. Any questions or comments on what the Councillor has put on the floor which is everything except item 8 in that package. Provoting those in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. That’s our plaza. Thank you. That left us with the longest item of the evening that took several hours. We did receive delegates from near and far in regards to the animal control bylaw and a potential exemption to reptilia. The high level overview is reptilia has a provincial license that they’re going to be operating under. Their construction is almost done at the West Mount Mall with their anticipated opening date of January 1st. The conversation shared a bunch of different perspectives that we were bringing to the table. It refocuses on animal welfare, business opportunities and entertainment options and learning opportunities for those in the city and abroad. We had several goals at crafting a motion, one of which failed. So what came out of our meeting was trying to find a path forward that is to have staff draft a proposed bylaw of what the permitting processing would look like for exemptions for the seven class animals and bring that up at a future meeting early in the new year, preferably January back to the committee for a full discussion. So I’ll put that item on the floor and we can start hopefully not a concise discussion. Democracy does not need to be efficient, Councillor Ploza. So we’ll start the discussion on this item. I’ll look for speakers.

[1:16:57] Councillor Hopkins. Thank you Your Worship and I might as well start first and I find myself in a very peculiar situation right now because I did not support this exemption to the animal bylaw when this was in front of us in April and for me nothing much has changed since then other than reptilia losing a accreditation with Cesar. But nothing has changed in my opinion. I did listen into, I was at the committee, hearing the debate and I agree it went on for a very long time, really appreciated the great participation from the community, really great delegations there explaining in a very articulate and respectful manner about the exemptions that the committee was looking at. And I understand as well that we are a new council. That’s why reptilia has come to us because we’re a new council and I appreciate the committee wanting to make a recommendation coming to this council. They work very hard at it and I appreciate the fact that if we are going to change our direction where we’re going to go as a city to allow zoos in our city that at least we need some information coming back. So I want to thank the committee for wanting some report back.

[1:18:41] I would like to add an amendment to that report and the reason I sent the amendment around to hopefully all the councilors have received it. The amendment is and I’ll read it to clause 4.1 that it be amended with the following words to prepare a staff report to add including any related previous recommendations as well as an evaluation of both on-site and off-site programs.

[1:19:19] And I’m really and I do have a seconder in the move of the motion councilor Ferreira. So I’ll put that on the floor for now and if I could just speak to the amendment. Yes and before we speak to the amendment I do see that councilor Ferreira is willing to second it. Just a reminder for colleagues at council you get to speak once to a motion. However you can speak to an amendment and then the main motion. So I would prefer to keep the debate as tight as possible to the amendment because you will have an opportunity to speak on the main motion afterwards as well. So go ahead and comment on the amendment councilor Hopkins. And thank you for that because I would like the information that I have received. I’ve been here 2018-2022 having those reports as well to this council. We should be gathering the same information that’s already being presented but I think it’s really important if we are going to even consider an exemption to our by-law that we receive the information. And in particular without burdening staff I’m not asking that they like other municipalities do research and and do broad consultation but just coming back to us with a general understanding and evaluation of past reports that we have received as well as looking at on-site and off-site programs. I think that is the very least that we can do.

[1:20:53] And like I said I’m in a very awkward situation because I am not changing my stance on how I voted a few months ago. So with that I’ll put the amendment on the floor. Other speakers to the amendment which is now on the screen in e-scribe if you want to refresh and go to current item. Councilor for our sorry go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So I just wanted to point some things out just basically highlighting what Councillor Hopkins just said. But I just want to point out that Reptilia is permitted to operate as it stands with its current licensing but it’s only allowed to operate with indigenous native species. They’re looking for an exemption to bring in the class seven species. They’re looking for an exemption to basically operate with non-indigenous species the exotic animals that brings in business. So we need to be fully aware of the aspects of what this exemption brings through the impacts that it might bring along with the you know with to public health specifically with the excuse me specifically with you know the mobile operations that it wants to bring in and what it wants to do in-house. So there is public impact to that and we also need to look at how the exemption would open the door which has also been spoken to previously with my colleagues of what what kind of floodgates would be open if we were to bring this exemption by. So Reptilia can operate but they should operate as it stands as a business with basically under the license that they are that they have. We shouldn’t be allowing this exemption just because it does open the floodgates and it will bring a burden on to the public health of our society. So that’s how we have to be moving forward that’s what we need to consider.

[1:22:48] Thank you. Other speakers to the amendment. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. We heard a lot at the committee about the concerns for and what I heard was animal welfare, human safety, transmission of disease, and the proliferation of roadside zoos. But interestingly we have reptilia has been in Vaughan for 26 years. So that’s a quarter of a century of experience that says those fears are relatively unfounded not to say that they couldn’t happen. To say that that level of experience doesn’t allay those fears makes me wonder what else it’s about because we received and I noticed it wasn’t in the package but we did receive the written glowing recommendations from the city of Vaughan and the city of Whitby. And if I can read quickly the director of economic development from the city of Vaughan. Councillor I’m trying to keep the debate tight to the amendment.

[1:24:03] This sounds like a very good main motion piece of the debate. So the amendment is really what we should be debating is are we going to be supportive of of adding prepare staff report and including any related previous recommendations as well as an evaluation about onsite and offside programs to the motion that the committee has already passed. So really we should be debating you want to do that or not. But we can have robust debate on the motion once we’ve dealt with the amendment. Okay no fair enough. I’m against the amendment because I don’t think that we need staff to evaluate the programs either inside or the mobile because they’ve been doing it for 26 years.

[1:24:45] We have glowing recommendations from Vaughan, from Whitby and from the Ministry of Tourism for Ontario. No one is telling us to be worried to be scared. No one’s giving us any reason to ask staff to take on a project. I don’t see burdening staff with the evaluation of programs. So thank you. Other speakers to the amendment. Councillor Trozab and then Councillor Cutty after. I’m going to try to stick to the amendment. So I’m also in a difficult position here because I am going to not be supporting this exemption in the end. And I’m going to reserve my comments until later this afternoon to talk about why. If this council wants to depart from our past practice, which is consistently over the last period of time, not just this council, not just the previous council, the council before that. And it goes back if we’re going to depart from that and allow this type of facility. I think that we owe it to the public to engage in due diligence as much as we can. And I know that due diligence sometimes can be a burden on staff. But I believe that we are going into some very, very perilous territory here if we grant this exemption. And I appreciate the fact that some Councillors, new Councillors, particular, want to get more information.

[1:26:17] And I’m going to respect that. But I want to get you as much information as possible. But to come back and say, I want an exemption, but I don’t want to get as much information about it as I possibly can, that’s reckless. That’s reckless. And I think that we owe it to our constituents. And we owe it to the corporation to be diligent. And that’s why, even though I would just as soon dispose of this matter tonight, I’m going to be supporting the amendment. Councillor Cady.

[1:26:51] Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I won’t be supporting this amendment. And respectfully to my colleague, and I appreciate the work that you’ve done, I agree with my colleague, Councillor Stevenson, that our staff are overworked and burdened. They have a lot of things to do. We have enough information on the table today to make a clear decision. So thank you. Myself on the list. So I’m going to have Councillor Ploza chair. Thank you. I recognize Mayor Morgan as the next speaker.

[1:27:26] I just have a question for our staff. Given the amendment, could you comment on whether this would impact your timeline to deliver the report on the time frame that you expected? And is this pulling together some information that’s already there, or is this an exceptional amount of new work for staff? I just want to get a sense, because it seems to be of interest to colleagues about the workload that we may be creating here. Thank you, to staff? Yes, through the presiding officer. If the amendment strictly focuses on the attachment of previous reports from 2018 and from April of this year, then we could certainly append those reports to if Council goes forward with the motion from CAHPS to prepare an amendment to the by-law. However, if the amendment includes wording to evaluate the programs, we currently do not have any evaluation criteria, and it would take some time to undertake research to determine what exactly we are evaluating from a programming perspective.

[1:28:38] Mayor Morgan, do you wish to provide any clarity of your follow-up? No, I’m happy with the answer to the question. Thank you. Thank you, and you had Councillor Ramana on your speaker’s list next as I return chair to you. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, and through you, I won’t be supporting the amendment. I do appreciate the opportunity to receive more information on this matter, and I thank Councillor Hopkins for bringing that forward. However, I do feel adequately prepared in the information that I’ve received. Mr. Catola’s point regarding the on-site and off-site programs is really, I think, worthy of consideration. With respect to how we would evaluate those programs, it differs based on where they’re located. For instance, Toronto District School Board, they had a program where Reptilia brought reptiles into the classroom and did some learning that way. I’m not sure how we would provide an analysis of a program like that versus taking an animal out to a birthday party or something of that sort, which I do think there’s some things that we can consider, but I’m not sure how our staff would recommend, would provide an evaluation tool for us that would be, that would, that would give us more information than we have already in front of us. So I won’t be supporting the amendment for that region, and look forward to speaking to the main motion. Thank you.

[1:30:09] Councillor Vaihamer, Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. With regard to the amendment, I will not be supporting it. There’s plenty of time to get more information and for staff to come up with a reasonable amendment by the end of January amendment to the by-law. As far as evaluating Reptilia’s programs, I think most of us can agree, being in business for 26 years, working with the public, serving the public, serving first responders, these people, this operation is expert in what they do.

[1:30:57] So how do we compare that to the staff report that will come back and what will they draw upon? So I think, although probably well-intentioned, I will not be supporting this amendment, and I would ask that the rest do so as well. Councillor, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I want to sound like a broken record here. I want to support the amendment, but my challenge with the amendment is asking staff to do an evaluation of programs, which I don’t think we have the in-house technical expertise to reasonably undertake in a reasonable time frame. I do support the idea of including any previous recommendations from our staff. I agree with Councillor Hopkins. I’ve received that information in 2018. I’ve received that information in 2022, and I think for new members of Council, it’s absolutely vital that you take those reports into consideration and those recommendations that our staff brought forward as well. I think they are part of the whole discussion.

[1:32:05] We are a new Council, but there is some history to this file that is worth everyone having the chance to review. So I’m going to continue to listen, and I don’t know whether the mover and seconder want to amend their amendment, or if this amendment fails, I’d be prepared to support something that was more focused on just including the previous recommendations. My challenge with the amendment is asking staff to do an evaluation, and they simply, I don’t believe, and I’ve heard from staff that they don’t really have the in-house expertise to do that. So that’s where my concern lies with the amendment, and I’ll continue to listen to what colleagues have to say on that.

[1:32:44] I have Councillor Flosa, and then Councillor Privelle. Thank you. I’m hoping then hearing a lot from committee, and to now in discussion, perhaps the mover would consider an A&B of attaching the related previously recommendations, and then be being the evaluation of both onsite and offsite programs to allow colleagues to vote as they see fit. For me, I was interested in more of the offsite programs, recognizing that there’ll be mobile operations, and if our by-law hasn’t been trained up, or first responders or anybody, but what is potentially traveling around to birthday party schools and whatnot of just what could be in that cargo moving, should there be an accident in their first there of, oh my goodness, look what we have. So that’s more my concern of looking at the mobile offsite programs of safety measures that are put in place for those, and just thank you for everyone for the continued discussion. Councillor Privelle.

[1:33:50] Mr. Chair, I was first ready to support this motion, but I was under the assumption that all these things were already done, so it was just to bring to our attention. But as the information that the evaluation on the onsite and offsite have not been completed, I’m not in support of it because I don’t want to put the additional work onto the staff, which I don’t believe is necessary at this stage. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, you wanted to speak. I know you spoke on this, but I’m going to allow this to go back to you. A few people were referring to the mover of the motion, potentially making some adjustments that would allow council to vote on it slightly differently. So I’ll use some discretion here and let you speak to that.

[1:34:46] Thank you for your discretion. I would like to ask a question to Clark. I could do this in two ways. We could have the amendment and go to vote, or we could divide it into an A and a B. I am fine with either way. And through your worship, yes, I believe in the council procedure by a lot of propositions can be voted on separately. And looking at the motion as or the rather the amendment as currently worded, I think it could be divided and voted on separately. So I’ll just let you know, the advantage of doing it that way is if you withdraw it and we put it back on, I’ve got to let everybody speak again, which I really don’t want to do. If we divide it, which is in line with our procedure by-law, given there’s two distinct sections of the amendment as council sees it from my read of the discussion, I’d be willing to allow that to happen based on the clerk’s advice and have this amendment voted on in two separate blocks and I’ll have the clerk just prepare that language for adjustment that you and the seconder can ensure is okay and still reflective of your original intent. I’ll look for other speakers. Well, that’s worked on who hasn’t spoken already. Okay, what I’m going to do then is we’re just going to adjust the language here so that colleagues can see it. And then I will call the vote on the amendment as two separate parts.

[1:36:13] Okay, if you refresh, you’ll see that the amendment now reads as follows. The clause 4.1 be amended, following the words, quote, prepare a staff report, unquote, to add A, including any relevant previous recommendations and B, an evaluation of both on-site and off-site programs, which is exactly the same motion, but it’s divided into two pieces and I will have A and B voted on separately. You worship, can I just sum up then or? I prefer not to start a process of summing up at at council on motions given people have spoken once already. Is there any other speakers to the amendment? What we’re going to do is we’re going to vote on part A first and then part B second. So is everybody ready to vote on part A, which is the part including any related previous recommendations? Okay, it’ll be the same mover and seconder for both these councilor Hopkins and councilor Ferrara and we’ll be voting on part A now so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to 1.

[1:38:22] Okay, and same mover, same seconder now voting on part B. I will open part B for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion fails 5 to 10. Okay, so now what we have is main motion that has been amended to include just the part A which is it’ll be as the committee wrote it but with the addition of including any related previous recommendations will be appended to that report for council and the public’s viewing when it comes back. So we’re now on debate on that amended main motion.

[1:39:28] Who would like to be on the speakers list now? Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. People have asked why I’m so spoken on this and I heard loud and clear at the door that people wanted London to start being more of a default yes rather than a default no to growth opportunities, to innovation, to opportunities and this is not asking for any money. There’s a proven history which should allay the fears that we’ve heard about animal welfare, human safety, disease transmission and the proliferation of zoos. We have not heard that we have written recommendations from Vaughn, from Whitby and from the Minister of Tourism for Ontario or the Ministry. I’m sorry.

[1:40:24] And the Director of Economic Development at Vaughn said that the economic development at the city of Vaughn is happy to attest to the high level of corporate citizenship demonstrated by reptilia and its founder since its establishment in 1996. It employs 70 people, its services include training first responders in responsible animal management, assisting with it abandoned animals and supporting education for the Canadian military. There’s lots of highlights. It’s in written form. There are no cautions, no warnings, nothing to their fellow city to say there should be any hesitation whatsoever.

[1:41:05] The same from Whitby, a great corporate citizen and would be a welcome addition to any community. So my thought to my fellow Councillors is why are we the gateway? Why are we preventing Londoners from having the rewards that this offers? I hear the concerns. And if this were a brand new venture, I might share them. But there’s evidence and written recommendations saying that we don’t need to be that worried. Our legal department will make us as safe as we can with the bylaw. And I just, I just asked my fellow Councillors to let Londoners decide. The best way to get public opinion on this is to let people come. If, if, if London doesn’t support it, they won’t survive.

[1:41:54] And when we had the delegates, I did not hear the landlord wants it. I didn’t hear from local businesses. I didn’t hear from the residents of Westmount. The people that I knocked on their doors, door to door, they are not here getting delegate status. They are busy preparing for Christmas, trying to figure out how to pay their COVID loans back. They’re counting on us to vote for prosperity. When we got the survey back just yesterday, people are concerned about poverty. They’re concerned about prosperity. I did not hear door to door people concerned about animal welfare. We have Ontario laws. This company operates legally and successfully in two fellow cities in this province. And I just ask us to leave, allow the advocate or the activist to fight with the province. And if they want to get the laws changed, they can.

[1:42:52] But why are we preventing our fellow Londoners from having a new option for day camps this summer? A new field trip. We’ve got mental health issues. Everybody’s down. Can we give them something exciting to go to for families to have an affordable day trip to bring people in from outside the city? We’ve got restaurants that have had a really tough time. And we can say, oh, we hear you. But do we? If we say no to this, we’re saying, what does that say to the businesses in London? That we say matter to us and value to us. And we’re going to prevent them from having the additional business that they so desperately need and they deserve. So to me, this isn’t about, are we for zoos or against zoos? That’s a personal opinion. And I think for us to make it a right or wrong for the entire city, I think does them a disservice. I noticed on Reddit that they posted a question about reptilia coming despite us saying no in the spring of this year.

[1:43:57] It had 15 comments. I mean, on Reddit, you could ask where the best burger is. You could have 1,000 comments. I really don’t think that the delegate status represented the voters in London. I don’t think that it represented the businesses in the city. And I am really asking my fellow counselors to say yes, to growth, to innovation, to opportunity, to tourism, and for us not to be the problem and to be the block to what could be an amazing thing in London. And not for everybody, but there are many businesses in the city that I don’t like and that I wouldn’t support and I would not prevent them from coming because there are many lenders who enjoy them. And so I think diversity here matters to diversity of opinion, of thought, of belief. And I was really elected to put the people first, you know, to not get lost in the voices of activists and those who oppose change and growth and opportunities. And my morals clearly say that the welfare and mental health of the people and the businesses in London matter more than that of the reptiles. And I think it’s not that I don’t care, but I really believe that we have a choice here. What are we putting first?

[1:45:17] Are we putting people in businesses first? Or are we putting the animals first when it legally is allowed in Ontario if we’re not a block? So, well, it is because it all brings them on. So, for me, it’s really clear. There’s the choice to say yes to economic growth, to jobs, to day camp options, and affordable vacations for families who really could use a break right now. Like, we get to really act our values here. And so my action is clearly for the people in London who are struggling, who could use the jobs, the prosperity, and a place to take their kids and their grandkids. My vote is for the people 100%. Councillor Preble, to the chair and to my fellow colleagues. In last somewhat couple of weeks, days, I had numerous conversations and emails regarding this issue. And they were on both. They were both in support and now supporting on both hands. I think there is still a confusion among public in terms of giving them permission, reptilia, to operate with the exotic species because some feel that in our hands and our power is to operate at all. So, again, where we all know that public is struggling with this because they think that they are not, some of them are not opening. If I look at the perspective of the reptiles, I believe that if they are not going to be in London, they’ll be somewhere else in the jurisdiction of Ontario. So, it’s not, we are not making any difference in terms of, and I don’t think none of us are prepared to travel from one jurisdiction to another and lobby for those for those reptiles. Yesterday at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, the staff gave us five top areas of concern for Londoners. Number one, poverty. Number two, economics.

[1:47:14] Three, transportation. Four, development and infrastructure. We, I, or a business case, could be made with such initiatives as reptilia that it’s in support of the concerns. Top four, that Londoners have been asking for. We have financial challenges ahead of us. We talked about it. I think that next, over the next five years, 95 potentially, $95 million in terms of the development charges, et cetera, and other costs that we are going to be more responsible being downloaded from the two other provincial and federal governments. And I think that these are the things that we can consider the new initiatives because we have to depend, and we will have to depend a lot on our own initiatives, on our steps, how we are going to take them. And I do believe that I am quite sure it’s going to be anything new that I’m going to mention to you outside the London gates. We are considered for new initiatives, for new developments as the most both coming community. And we are more, no London, no weekend. And I don’t believe that. I think that we are London and we are going to be London, which will state, yes, yes, we can. Thank you.

[1:48:32] Thank you. I have Councillor Layman and then Councillor Joseph. You can ask a question on your turn on the speaker’s list. Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair. I think it’s quite evident. There’s a number of pauses with reptilia. First of all, the economic benefits, not only to the city, but specifically to West Mount Mall. All that has been struggling for many years. And I believe just now it’s starting to on the path of revitalization. Education, we’ve seen a number of communications from various school boards and various other communities. The value that reptilia is adding in their education tasks also is a place of refuge for reptiles that are released into the public.

[1:49:32] Add on to that the province allowing a certain amount. I understand there’s a distinction between the class of animals that the province allows. My concern here is that we’re basing a decision on this company, reptilia, which I think operates in the very first class manner. So I look forward to seeing how a bylaw will be crafted that will not just be based on assuming that every applicant that comes forward would follow to that bylaw that might not be up to the standards of reptilia. So I will reserve judgment, but I want to see our legal department and see how a bylaw can be crafted in that respect. So I will be supporting this.

[1:50:23] So if you want to ask a question and speak out, it would be my preference to do it all at the same time. So if you could ask your question and then make your comments in the committee, if you want to wait until later to do that, that would be ideal. Can you use your microphone? You can ask for a point of order for sure. Councilor Layman, we need your microphone. It wasn’t your fault. I’m just a little unclear what we’re debating right now because it sounds as if we’re debating the merits. And as much as I’m keen to jump into that, I want to make sure that I keep things in procedural order. Can you help me with that? Yes, I can’t control what Councilor’s going to say in a debate and it certainly relates to the matter, but you are correct in that we are not debating giving any permissions today to operate or not. We are considering a motion to bring back a report that would outline the path under which the municipality could consider this. So if we’re going to consider it how it can be done and how to do it properly and putting in the protections of staff, you’ll need to be put into an exemption of a by-law. But we are not debating tonight whether or not to allow a reptilia to operate under special provision. I hope that provides the clarification you need, Councilor. It does and I appreciate that. So there are a variety of matters I won’t get into like the fact that reptilia has lost its accreditation. I mean, when people say that reptilia is doing a great job, well, actually they’re not because they lost their kazza accreditation. And I think that this is the sort of thing that should be included in a staff report. So I guess I’m going to support this motion because I’d rather see more information come back than not. I should stand. However, what I’m hearing from some of my colleagues is we want to we want to do this because we need the economic development. We need the tourism.

[1:52:37] There is nothing in the evidence before us from, for example, tourism London and to the chair, to the staff, correct me if I’m wrong, if we’ve received anything from tourism London, saying we’ve done an evaluation of this of this kind of plan. This is going to lead to tourism. Has there been anything like that given to us from tourism London? Mr. Mathers. Through your through your workshop tourism London, of course, is led by board of directors. They have not provided any comments at this time on this matter. Okay. So so my my support of this motion is my concern about this motion is very tentative. And I’m just I’m still not clear how to how to vote on this because what I’m what I’m hearing people say is we need to do this and we recognize that there are a lot of issues out there, but we don’t want to burden our staff too much to figure out what those issues are. And again, that’s a responsible and I think that that could lead to very, very bad results for us in terms of not being in terms of not being diligent. And you know, people want to talk about one and would be what about Toronto?

[1:53:55] Toronto did a thorough staff report on this. And by the way, it wouldn’t be too much burden for our staff and maybe through the chair I should ask Mr. Mathers. Would it be a burden on our staff to include in the report reports that have already been done by the City of Toronto that have addressed these very issues? I’m going to be careful about going down this line because that’s not what we necessarily directed our staff to do. But we all know that the Toronto report is readily available to us. And so if we want to add additional reports to the staff direction, I think it would be also appropriate for us to provide that direction rather than start to get into a Q&A of staff that is adding potential components to the motion outside of actually making that as an amendment.

[1:54:42] Okay. Well, I’m still puzzled by how I’m going on this motion because on the one hand, I want a lot of information to get on the table because I think the information that gets on the table based on the extensive information that I’ve read and that I’ve read coming out of Toronto and that I heard coming out of St. Catherine’s last night, which by the way, voted unanimously to not grant the exact same exemption, I think it would be irresponsible for this council not to thoroughly look at all of these potential downsides. And this has to do with animal welfare and it also has to do with health and safety. So I’m hoping I can get a little bit more nuanced discussion here about the merits of this motion because again, I want to reiterate, I am opposed to granting this entity, which I do not think has been a responsible actor, which I think subjects the public to health and safety dangers. I am adamantly opposed to giving them permission to operate here beyond what they’re allowed to do in their provincial license and they’re welcome to do that.

[1:55:58] And that’s basically salamanders, bullfrogs, and the like, not alligators and not venomous snakes. So I look forward to how this is going to unfold. Other speakers. I’ll go, I wasn’t sure who’s first. So I’ll go by Ward order, Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to be very brief. I’m not going to speak to the motion itself or the merits of whether or not an exemption should be granted. I do, however, think that for new Councillors and to follow up on Councillor Trust House comments, it is certainly possible for individual Councillors to submit through the clerk, at least don’t copy us all on an email that does not go through the clerk, but you can do research, provide links to articles, provide reports to your Council colleagues if you submit those through the clerk. So individual Councillors who are passionate on either side of the issue can certainly collect that information themselves. So we’re not putting a burden on our staff so that we are allowing our staff to do staff’s work, but we can do those things ourselves if we’ve done particular areas of research. So any member of Council, whether it’s this issue or another issue down the road, you can always communicate that to all of Council if you put it in a communication that goes through the clerk.

[1:57:26] Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to reiterate a few comments that my colleagues, Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Preble have noted. If this company is allowed to operate in London, it will find another home to operate in outside of our city. And one of our jobs, if I’m not mistaken, as Councillors, is to build business, to generate jobs, to generate revenue. And we’re not talking about a 40 or 50 jobs that might be generated. We’re talking about the downstream effect of this.

[1:58:04] And it is substantial. And quite frankly, we’ve allowed other companies to come in and operate this city. On the edge, we allow abattoirs and processing plants to operate. And we understand animal welfare does not exist with these companies. But we do have a company here, Your Worship, that actually has a track record of success and a good animal welfare. And I would make a comment about I’ve heard so many comments about about disease and so on. And Councillor Trosso, if you want to see disease, take a look at chickens. Okay, forget to create the reptile to reptiles, chickens all along. We speak through the chair. No, I’m sorry, pardon me. We speak through the chair, not directly to other Councillors. My point is, my point is, and I’ll make it brief, and I’ll sit down. My point is that this is a company that’s going to operate somewhere.

[1:58:55] They’re going to settle in some city. It would be our benefit financially for them to settle in this city and for us to work with them. Thank you. And I’ll make a general caution to colleagues. As a debate gets some passion behind it, we do speak through the chair. We don’t speak directly to a colleague. We can certainly rebut their points in debate and discussion, but we’ll do so through the chair, not turning directly to a colleague and speaking at them referencing their name. Okay, other speakers. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. As this came through the last term of council, and absolutely, this is back before us within the calendar year, as it is a new council, my stance hasn’t changed since 2018. I’m still not in favor of this business, though grateful for the opportunity to meet on site with them and discuss their business model, their operations and their staffing. I still have the concerns I’ve always had, and it’s animal welfare. It’s not where my moral values lie. And that is one of the discussions and the conversations we do have here at council. For me, this isn’t a business that I’m interested in as potentially one of their target audiences as a younger family of five and doing many community events myself as a volunteer. The motion before us to bring back a staff report, I don’t anticipate that I’ll be swayed any by any ways, but not knowing where colleagues lie on this issue, I certainly would like to get more information back that if, in my opinion, is still potentially she is in the foot that I at least know the repercussions of doing so. I’m worried about the business model. Yes, they’re already $2 million into their builds, but they started building when they already knew where this city and the council the day stood. And now they’re back before us, hoping that there’s enough change in seats on council that they could have their way.

[2:01:03] And the councilor who spoke is correct that last night, St. Catherine’s said, no, thank you. And it’s the question for me of, are we going to say no, thank you too, that we have other business plans. I do sit on the tourism board. If you’d like a note from their board of where the board officially stands, you can certainly reach out and ask for it. It has been discussed. And I have not seen anything coming formally of the great tourism benefits that’s going to have, especially if they’re saturating or trying to saturate neighboring markets. The tourists won’t all come to London because they’ll be one closer to their home city as well. And the added communications for you today is a letter that was on the added from the Lenin Humane Society and raising their concerns with animal welfare and things that might change in our city, recognizing the St. Catherine’s Humane Society raised similar concerns. So there are concerns. I am listening to them. I’m hearing from more neighboring residents, including residents in West Mounts about their concerns.

[2:02:04] And I do recognize the business impact it can have. They do plan on opening. They can certainly open the provincial license with native local species that they already have and work that way for now. So for me, I’ll support the report coming back only because I’m more fearful that if we don’t have the information before us, that we won’t be prepared at all should this pass a counsel. Other speakers? Councillor Vaiemer, Bergen. Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to say the committee meeting I thought was well-run. I could have easily gone off the rails. So I congratulate the chair. And I think the ultimate motion that came forward is a reasonable one. We’re asking our staff to go back, prepare a report. Now we’re going to actually append previous reports as well. And they’ve got until the end of January to come back. And I think that’s more than reasonable. Many of us are now very familiar with Reptilia. I have to admit, when I first heard of it back in, I think it was 2018, I wasn’t sure. I didn’t, to be honest, I didn’t know much about Reptilia. But it’s in the heart of my ward. And I learned very quickly what a class organization this truly is. From the owner right down to the handlers, down to the people that sweep the floors, maintain the premises, these individuals know what they’re doing. And I have to pay special attention to Dr. Robert Murphy, who is the director of animal welfare for Reptilia. Dr. Murphy is the now-retired curator of the Royal Ontario Museum, Reptology and Reptile exhibits. He’s also in the faculty of the University of Toronto in reptile biology. He’s considered to be one of the world’s leading experts on reptiles.

[2:04:30] And here he is, in his retirement, working of his own volition with Reptilia, because he has that much respect and faith in the organization. That speaks volumes. Dr. Murphy has time for any of us who wish to contact them directly, perhaps see the facility as it’s being constructed, ask him questions. They’re more than open for any of us to do that. This is an important decision for us, because we’re looking at the creation of a destination for London Ontario. The creation of the and the opportunity to actually have visitors from around the region come to London to see this, this 35,000 square foot exhibit and conservation area for themselves. And clearly, many will stay overnight, make it a weekend, go to the restaurants in London, stay in a hotel.

[2:05:51] So the economic spinoffs, as has been mentioned earlier, are obvious and frankly quite significant. We only have to look at the bond facility. Last year alone, they had almost 400,000 visits in bond. They had 200 class visits. So, I mean, clearly, well, on so many levels, let’s just take the education component for a moment. How else can children and families get to see these types of animals, these types of reptiles, and be able to do it within their own city? I was fascinated by the fact that at the committee, two of the members, so there’s only five committee members, two of the members visited Reptilia in Vaughan. They both thought it was outstanding. And they’re both supportive of the direction London’s heading now to have our own Reptilia. Why should Londoners have to travel two and a half hours to Vaughan and then two and a half hours back to see something that’s being offered for us right here in London, Ontario?

[2:07:11] On so many levels, this is a win, win, win. There’s just no doubt about it. And we only have to look at the testimonies and the written endorsements that we’ve all received by email, including a BC Conservation Officers course on how to handle dangerous reptiles and amphibians. And it was a course presented by Reptilia. And when you see the write-ups of the reviews, they were all outstanding. They were basically all excellent. That was BC Conservation Officers. Then we look at the economic development at the City of Vaughan. They’re saying the City of Vaughan is happy to attest to the high level of corporate citizenship demonstrated by Reptilia and its founder, Brian Childs, since its founding in 1996. That’s a long time. They go on to say some of the highlights of Reptilia’s corporate citizenship include taking scores of animals from Vaughan and New York Region, which have been abandoned by their owners. They also go on to say that they help local animal services when called upon to manage reptile related issues while also training York Region first responders. I mean, this, again, speaks volumes of the quality and the first-class nature of the organization that we’re speaking of. The Town of Whippy, a letter of support to whom it may concern as a senior manager of the Town of Whippy Economic Development Department. I am pleased to offer a letter of support since opening in 2018. Reptilia has made a very positive impact on our community. Reptilia is a great corporate citizen and would be a welcome addition to any community.

[2:09:01] Even the provincial government, the Director of Investment and Development Office, which is part of the Ministry of Heritage Sport, Tourism and Culture, is endorsing Reptilia to be an attraction in downtown Toronto. So these other communities around Ontario are embracing and have embraced Reptilia. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t do the same in London, Ontario, given, again, the win-win-win. It’s our job as councillors to work for the greater good of all in London. It’s not just about West Mount, it’s not just about West Mount Mall, it’s about the entire city, it’s about all of us. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s vote in favour of this motion. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship, and just following up on my colleagues’ comments about the greater good for the City of London, I’m all for that. I’m all for supporting a music city. I’m all for supporting revitalization for downtown, supporting our sports leagues, majors and the nights, the Grand Theatre. I’m all about economic development. The fact that I’m not supporting Reptilia in their development of exotic animals, supporting them, they can set up under the provincial license that they have at West Mount.

[2:10:36] I’m supportive of that. I’m supportive of schools. Having reptiles come into our schools, native species, when my kids were younger, that was quite common. We had the snake lady out in the West End who would go to the schools, talk about native species, garter snakes and frogs. That education is really important. There’s nothing at all in this exemption to allow for an animal by-law, to allow for exotic animals, is precluding all that. I want to address a couple comments that I heard here this afternoon. A comment being around where will the reptiles go? Well, I know they’re not going to go to St. Catharines. It was unanimous last night that they did not support a staff recommendation to allow for an exemption in a consent item. I know they’re not going to go to St. Catharines. Abattoirs were mentioned and to me, health, safety and risks to the public is what I as a counselor take very seriously. When it comes to abattoirs, common rules for abattoirs for me processing, sanitation, exclusion of pest, storage of materials, temperatures, record keeping, inspections, licenses, personnel labeling and legal sale of meat and meat produce.

[2:12:09] That are those are normal regulations. In Ontario, when it comes to abattoirs, we have stronger regulations. I really think when we talk about areas of health and concerns that we really get our facts straight, I’m concerned about where this conversation is going. I was disappointed that if we are going to change the direction of where the city is going when it comes to zoos, that we don’t want all the information. We don’t want to burden staff. Frankly, that is part of their job to give us information, not asking the information to go out and do the research like other municipalities have done, but give us more facts. But it bothers me that this conversation that we’re having here this afternoon is almost addressing what we’re going to have coming down the road where we’re going to stand on this item. And with that, that bothers me because we’re not open. We’re not open to getting information, to understanding what exactly this exemption is going to do. And for that, I will not be supporting it. And I think it will pass and I’m glad it will pass that you’ll receive more information and do your due diligence. But I would like to, I haven’t even heard from lenders, if we’re going to change complete direction on our policy and where we stand is zoos in this city, that we are going to become the zoo capital of Ontario.

[2:13:41] I have not heard that from the public at all, that this is what they want. And I have great concerns that this conversation is taking us in that direction. So I will be consistent with my voting record, not supporting the exemption, supporting reptile if they want to open up at Westmount. That’s great. If they want to educate, conserve all that wonderful stuff, they can go forward with that. But I am not at all supporting an exemption to the animal bylaw to allow for exotic pets. Just as a clarification, the exemption is not on the floor today, as you know, Councillor, it’s the motion that has been amended now. And I do need to check actually because we did amend it, just to make sure that both you and Councillor Ferrer are still willing to move in second the motion that we have before us today. The motion that we have with the going forward, I won’t be supporting it. I’m going to take a minute. Okay, colleagues, so based on the advice from the clerk, the motion is in the possession of Council because we’ve amended it. However, I do need an actual mover and a seconder for the motion, for those who are supportive of it. This is the motion to get additional information. This is the committee’s recommendation as amended. So are there, is there a Councillor or two, one to move and one to second this that I can make sure we have on this? So have Councillor Van Merberg and Councillor Stevenson. Okay, good. So the motion is on the floor. We’ve had discussion and debate on this. I’m going to put myself on the speaker’s list. I don’t know if there’s too many people left, but I’ll hand the chair over to Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, recognizing Mayor Morgan. Okay, I’m going to make some brief comments on this. So I am going to support the motion that’s before us today, which is not a motion to make a decision, but a motion to get the actual details of how an exemption would be considered. And I’m not going to say whether or not at this point I’m going to support that. But I do support the discussion of committee and I did listen and watch the video at committee. And what happened was there was a number of Councillors who had very strong opinions on this both ways on what to do about Reptilia. And then I think the committee did something very smart and very reasonable and said a number of community members came together who have opposite views on this and said if we’re going to move forward in this way, responsible thing to do is to ensure we understand how an exemption to a by-law would be crafted so that we can still have some time to just debate and discuss that, to consider it, to see it before us, before we make a final decision. And I think that’s a responsible way to go. And that’s why I’m going to support what the committee did. And I think the committee did good work on this to move forward. And I think we’ll all have a chance to do all of this again when that report comes back at the committee level, hopefully for the most part, where you can have that information before you. And I want to just make a couple of comments based on some of the debate today. I think for the whole that the debate was good. I did have to interject a few times, but I don’t think anybody here is not open to information. And I don’t think that you necessarily have to have every piece of information on the committee agenda. As you know, in your work as Councillors, and you will have seen by there now for the new ones, the information on the agenda is just one piece of the information you consider when you make a decision. You get constituent feedback. There’s other things you can do. You can do your own research. You have people forward research to you. There is a wealth of correspondence that comes in, all of which should be considered in the decision. You get staff recommendations. You get debate and advice from perspective from your colleagues on how to analyze and think about the information before us. And all of that rolls into the decision making. So I for one think that the process we’re going through is reasonable. It’s expected. But I don’t want Councillors to get hung up on having to have every single piece of information on a committee agenda. As Councillor Lewis said, if you feel that there’s something of importance to have on the public agenda before the committee, so that the public can see it too, there’s a process. You can have it added before the added agenda deadline on a matter that is circulated. And if you have any questions on how to do that, I would encourage you to approach the clerks so that you can do that. But for today, and for the matter before us, I am supportive because I do think it’s a responsible process to know exactly what we would be looking at if we were to consider an exemption. And the reason why I think that’s prudent is if you start to listen to people’s dialogue and a lot of people are speaking on the matter itself, this is a relatively divided issue on this council. There’s a lot of, I don’t know if it’s 8/7 or that close, but it’s close enough that it’s probably thoughtful of us to ensure that we have all the details before us on how we would proceed if indeed you want to go that direction. And that will rest. That decision will rest with us when it comes back should this motion pass. And I think that that allows for thoughtful deliberation a little bit more time and a little bit more information before us before we make the final decision. So I’ll be supporting the motion before us today so that we can get that information back. I’ll be reserving my opinion on the main matter until after I’ve reviewed exactly what it’s looked like. Looks like. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

[2:20:18] Sometimes I miss civic works. Returning the chair to you with no immediate speakers with their hands raised. Does anybody who hasn’t spoken yet on this matter, would you like to speak? I’m going to ask you to just review the motion as it is before us. This is the motion that came out of committee with the amended part to it, which was the addition of adding including any related previous recommendations to come forward with that staff report, which will essentially be the same as the committee’s recommendation with that piece. So that is what is before us today. It’s moved and seconded.

[2:21:00] It looks like there’s no more speakers, so I’m going to open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 13-2. Okay. Thank you, colleagues. Good. The good news is we get to do all that again. We’ve got a future meeting. Is that it for your agenda? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:21:40] And that concludes the first meeting of the community protective services committee. And it was a wonderful committee. And as you said, we found a way forward, even though we were divided. So thank you to committee and council for that discussion tonight. Excellent. We’ve been at this for about two and a half hours. I committed to taking reasonable breaks at reasonable times, so I’d like to ask for a motion for a 20-minute break. Councillor Trostav, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We’ll do this by hand. All those in favor of a 20-minute break? Thank you. Motion carries. So we’re back at 3-4 o’clock. Please be seated. Okay. We are now at item 8.4, which is the first report of the Civic Works Committee. I’ll go to Councillor Ramen. Thank you. I rise to present the Civic Works Committee from the first committee meeting of Civic Works of this term. I’d like to start by thanking Councillor McAllister for serving as vice chair of CWC and helping me out. Appreciate it. We had a great meeting. We talked about the items that are in front of you from the agenda.

[2:45:15] And I’ve not heard many Councillors looking to pull any items, looking around just in case. Would anybody like anything dealt with separately from the Civic Works report? It looks like you can put it all on the floor. Thank you. And with that, I’ll put it all on the floor. Thank you. Okay. The entire report is on the floor. Any discussion or comments? Seeing none, we are going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 14-0. Councillor. Thank you. And I want to thank staff for a great first meeting. We had a really good conversation around the Mobility Master Plan update and the guiding principles presented. They’re in looking forward to the next meeting in January. That’s all for now. Thanks.

[2:46:38] Thank you. Item 8.5 is the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I will have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that report. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you on your behalf. I’m happy to put the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the floor. That being said, we did have a divided vote on item 11. That’s 4.3 on the SPPC agenda. So we’ll pull that one so it can be voted on separately. That’s the only one I have a note on where we had a recorded vote that was divided. So I think otherwise, we can put the remainder of the report on the floor unless Council wishes anything else dealt with separately on the SPPC report, aside from item 11. Deputy Mayor, so I will put one through 10 on the floor. Okay, items one through 10 are on the floor. I need to debate or discussion or questions. That’s a privilege.

[2:47:41] Just a question regarding the correction of our Gal business. Do we need to address it before we move on? The clerk can speak to that. Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, that was a typographical error that has been corrected now and he described. So that will represent a London Downtown Business Association for item 2.4. So yes, there was a typo in the printed agenda. If you look through the motion when it comes up, it will be corrected. So what we’ll be voting on is the correct name for that association. Other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open items one through 10, I believe, for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Deputy Mayor, thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I will now put item 11 on the floor. This was 4.3 from the SPPC agenda. That is the application of the equity lens for citizen appointment process and that was a divided vote at committee. Okay, that is on the floor for consideration. Any discussion questions for debate? Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting as well. Opposed in the vote.

[2:49:40] Motion carries 13 to 1. Deputy Mayor, and that concludes the third report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. If Your Worship will allow, I will just very briefly comment that during the presentation of corporate services. I did not acknowledge, but I wish to acknowledge now that the committee did select Councilor Trust as our Vice Chair for that committee. Thank you. Okay, and now that we’ve gone through the committees, yes, thank you to everybody who was successful in serving as Vice Chair. It’s a good position to be and a good chance to learn a lot from the current chairs and move into the chair position, perhaps at a future date. We’re completed the committee reports now. We’re on to added reports. Item 9.1 is the second report of Council in closed session. I’m going to have Councillor Layman read this one out. And for colleagues, I think this is only the second time that we’ve done the report in closed session.

[2:50:44] These will be the items that we’ve made decisions on in closed sessions that are now being read out for vote in public session. Councillor Layman will go through them. Items related to land acquisition are often in this category. Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to report out in the second report of the Council in closed session. A number one uniform tentative agreement that on the recommendation of the city manager enterprise supports the memorandum of agreement dated September 27, 2022 and agreed to items dated June 21st and 22nd, 2022, concerning the 2022-2025 collective agreement for uniform be ratified. Number two, offer to purchase industrial land innovation park concept millwork corporation that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in innovation park phase one being composed of park block three plan 33m dash 544 more specifically shown as part one and part two plan 33r dash 2109 being part of pin zero eight one nine seven zero two nine one located in the city of London County of Middlesex as outlined on the sketch here to as appendix a agreement of purchase and sale the agreement as appendix be submitted by concept millwork corporation the purchaser to purchase 3.84 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $672,000 reflecting a sale price of $175,000 per acre be accepted subject to the conditions in terms set out in the agreement. Three acquisition buyback of industrial land from 2842 61 3 Ontario limited innovation industrial park phase two that on the recommendation of this deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director Realty services with respect to industrial land located in innovation industrial park phase two containing an area of six acres part of block one plan 33m dash 592 parts 14 and 17 plan 33r dash 2088 for located in the city of London County of Middlesex as outlined on the sketch here to as appendix c the following actions be taken a the agreement of purchase and sale the agreement as appendix b submitted by the corporation of the city of London the purchaser to repurchase six acres of the subject property from 2842 61 3 Ontario limited for the sum of three hundred and seventy eight thousand dollars be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and be the financing for the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing port here to as appendix a for property acquisition to Ken in place Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports for the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director Realty services with respect to the property located at two key in place further described as lot 10 plan 44 and fourth being all of pin zero eight three five seven dash zero zero two seven lt containing an area of approximately two thousand four and 75 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix b for the purpose of future road improvements taken or to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by Dana Mary Jeanette Hewitt the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of four hundred and thirty thousand five hundred dollars be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix c and b the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix a number five lease of city owned land for billboard advertising that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director Realty services with respect to the lease agreement between the corporation of the city of London and Paterson outdoor advertising LP by its general partner Paterson outdoor advertising limited for the lease of city owned lands for billboard advertising the lease amending agreement the lease as appendix a between the corporation of city of London and Paterson outdoor advertising LP by its general partner Paterson outdoor advertising limited for the lease of up to eight locations as detailed in the agreement be approved okay those items are moved by Councillor Layman look for a seconder Mr. Stevenson any discussion on the items before us? Councillor Vameer Bergen I’d just like to ask that I guess this number four to Ken and Place Wellington Gateway project if that could be called separately yes we can do that we’ll just make that adjustment so what we’ll do is with Councillor Layman’s permission he’s presenting these we’ll deal with that one after the others okay so what we will be dealing with is all items with the exception of the one related to the Wellington Gateway project any final opportunity for discussion on that okay seeing none that will open for voting momentarily just hold on we’re canceling that vote has everything except the matter you wanted separately Councillor Vameer Bergen and if colleagues this is where this is a very long series of votes so if it’s open and you can’t see your voting button at the bottom there’s a little chevron at the top in the middle if you scroll up they can condense it and you’ll see just the voting buttons Councillor for us closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 Councillor Layman I’ll put the remaining item on the floor any discussion on the remaining item related land acquisition along the Wellington Gateway okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 thanks Councillor that completes the added report section we have no deferred matters we have other any inquiries by Councillors okay there are no inquiries there are no emergent motions so we’re on to bylaws the way we’ll be handling bylaws is we have bills four through 23 from the regular agenda we have added bills 24 25 26 and 27 although I’m going to deal with added bill 26 which is related to the Wellington Gateway separately for Councillor Vameer Bergen so what we will put on the floor is a motion for bills four through 23 plus added bill 24 25 and 27 which is those three addeds are related to the items that just came out of out of our in-camera session I will look for a mover and a seconder for those bylaws Councillor McAllister seconded by Councillor Closa there is no debate on first reading of these bylaws so we will open the vote closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 okay second reading of the same set of bylaws I need a mover and a seconder Councillor Ferrera seconded by Councillor Layman any discussion on second reading see none okay we’ll open second reading for voting hold on one second okay I have had a request from a counselor to also pill bill number 10 be voted on separately and now it has passed first reading but it will go through second and third readings as a separate item bill number 10 is an amendment to the official plan relating to 952 Southdale Road West so this next vote then is going to be second reading of all of the bills that we just had first reading on but the exception of bill 10 which we pulled out okay that’ll open for voting now closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 okay third reading of bills four through 23 with the exception of bill 10 plus bills 25 20 24 25 and 27 look for a mover for that Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen there’s no discussion on third reading so we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 okay now we will deal with second reading of bill 10 which is the item related to 952 Southdale Road West I’ll need to move on a seconder for second reading of bill 10 Councillor Cuddy Councillor Lewis this is second reading so any any debate okay see none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 3 a third reading of bill number 10 I’ll need to move on a seconder Councillor Stevenson and Councillor DEPUTY MAYOR Lewis moved and seconded there’s no debate on third reading so we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 3 first reading of bill 26 which is an item related to land acquisition along the Wellington Gateway I’ll need a mover and a seconder for first reading Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Stevenson we’ll open that for voting Councillor Trassel thank you closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay second reading bill 26 moved by Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Layman any discussion on second reading okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay third and final reading of bill 26 I need to move on a seconder moved by Councillor Palosas seconded by Councillor DEPUTY MAYOR Lewis we’ll open final reading of bill 26 for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 okay that brings us to the end of bylaws which means there’s only one item um and that’s adjournment before I look for a motion to adjourn I just want to say this is our final council meeting before the holiday break and so I just wanted to wish all of the members of councils and your families and all of our staff at the City of London a great time over the next few weeks hopefully a lot of time with family and friends City Hall will be closed during this period from noon on December 23rd until January 3rd and our next set of committee meetings is not until January 9th also this year we will return to an in-person New Year’s Eve festivities so hopefully you can all make it out for that and we will share details with members of council and of course it’s already on the city’s website for members of the public who are interested in turning out again thank you so much for all the work that our staff have done through all of 2022 it was an exciting year for many of us well with the election and I know a very busy time for the clerks in the work that they do but you know at the end of the year it’s always nice to reflect on on you know the successes and the time that we shared together and I hope that you have a great couple of weeks and I look very forward to next year together and all the things that we will accomplish with that I will look for a motion to adjourn moved by Councillor Cutty seconded by Councillor Stevenson all those in favor of adjournment now motion carries we’re adjourned