<A>

 

Council

MINUTES

8TH Meeting

 

 

May 1 and 2, 2012

 

The Council meets in Regular Session in the Council Chambers this day at 5:04 PM

 

PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White and C. Saunders (City Clerk).

 

ALSO PRESENT:  J. Braam, M. Hayward, R. Armistead, J.P. Barber, J.M. Fleming, E. Gamble, G.T. Hopcroft, T.A. Johnson, G. Kotsifas, B. Kritchker, B. Henry, D. Huggins, I. Listar, V. McAlea Major, E. Mogck, D. Mounteer, J. Page, L.M. Rowe, R. Sharpe, M. Turner, B. Warner and B. Westlake-Power.

 

At the beginning of the Meeting all Members are present, except for Councillors N. Branscombe and D. Brown.

 

Councillor N. Brancombe enters the meeting at 5:09 PM.

 

Councillor D. Brown enters the meeting at 5:10 PM.

 

I

RECOGNITIONS

 

1.

The El Sistema Aeolian Orchestra performed for Council in recognition of National Youth Arts Week

 

2.

His Worship the Mayor presented a plaque for "London's Featured Company" to Edge Automation Inc.

 

3.

His Worship the Mayor recognized Safety Patroller Ross Jones of Sir George Etienne Cartier Public School for his remarkable achievement and leadership

 

4.

His Worship the Mayor acknowledged that "The Million Tree Challenge" website is an Official Honouree of the 16th Annual Webby Awards

 

II

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of the 13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, having to do with the 2011 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, by indicating that he is the Executive Director of one of the social services agencies listed which has a purchase service agreement with the City of London.

 

 

VIII

REPORTS

 

 

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that, pursuant to section to section 7.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business be changed as follows:

 

a)            to permit consideration of clauses 5  and 9 of the 13th report of Finance and Administrative Services Committee, having to do with an Agreement between The City of London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, respectively,  to be heard prior to the 6th Report of the Community Services Committee;

 

b)            to permit consideration of the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with an Application by Ayerswood Development Corp. re property located at 940 Springbank Drive,  to be heard at 5:30 p.m.; and,

 

 

c)            to permit the consideration of clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with Drinking Water Fluoridation in London, to be heard  at 7:30 p.m.

 

Motion Passed

 

13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee

                       Councillor P. Hubert presents.

 

5.

Agreement Between The City of London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve that, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to:

 

a)         approve an amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (City) and  Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology (Fanshawe), attached as Schedule “A” to the by-law; and

 

b)         authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amending agreement approved in a), above. (2012-L15-01/L03-00)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)

 

NAYS: W.J. Armstrong, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown (3)

 

9.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve that the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CETA) so it can determine whether or not to support the Agreement in future, based upon an assessment of how the Agreement would affect this municipality; it being noted that the Finance and Administrative Services Committee received a report dated April 16, 2012, from the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, with respect to this matter. (2012-M16-00)

 

At 5:37 PM His Worship the Mayor places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

 

At 5:44 PM His Worship the Mayor returns to the Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Amend by deleting clause 9 in its entirety and replacing it with the following new clause 9:

 

That the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CETA) in order to determine whether or not to support the Agreement in future, based upon an assessment of how the Agreement would affect this municipality, which would take into consideration:

 

a)            a sector-by-sector analysis by the Government of Canada, in collaboration with FCM, of the potential impacts on municipal functions and powers of the procurement regime that the European Union is seeking;

 

b)            timely and objective assessments of both the costs and benefits of the CETA agenda to municipalities, also to be provided by the Government of Canada;

 

c)            details provided by the Government of Canada and the Province as to which sectors are most likely to be the principal beneficiaries of CETA and how the benefits of CETA will be distributed;

 

and noting that the City would also expect:

 

d)         the Government of Canada and the Province to consult with municipalities with the above-referenced analyses in hand before any Agreement is finalized with the EU; and;

 

e)         the Government of Canada and the Province to solicit comments from all the parties that will potentially be affected by the proposed Agreement before finalizing any such Agreement;

 

it being noted that the Finance and Administrative Services Committee received a report dated April 16, 2012, from the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, with respect to this matter.  (2012-M16-00)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (10)

 

NAYS: J.F. Fontana, S. Orser, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (5)

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clause 9, as amended.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (10)

 

NAYS: J.F. Fontana, S. Orser, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher (5)

 

Clause 9, as amended reads as follows:

 

That the Federal and Provincial Governments BE ADVISED that The Corporation of the City of London wishes to “opt out” of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union (CETA) in order to determine whether or not to support the Agreement in future, based upon an assessment of how the Agreement would affect this municipality, which would take into consideration:

 

a)         a sector-by-sector analysis by the Government of Canada, in collaboration with FCM, of the potential impacts on municipal functions and powers of the procurement regime that the European Union is seeking;

 

b)         timely and objective assessments of both the costs and benefits of the CETA agenda to municipalities, also to be provided by the Government of Canada;

 

c)         details provided by the Government of Canada and the Province as to which sectors are most likely to be the principal beneficiaries of CETA and how the benefits of CETA will be distributed;

 

and noting that the City would also expect:

 

d)         the Government of Canada and the Province to consult with municipalities with the above-referenced analyses in hand before any Agreement is finalized with the EU; and;

 

e)         the Government of Canada and the Province to solicit comments from all the parties that will potentially be affected by the proposed Agreement before finalizing any such Agreement;

 

it being noted that the Finance and Administrative Services Committee received a report dated April 16, 2012, from the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, with respect to this matter.  (2012-M16-00)

 

 

 

11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

                        Councillor B. Polhill presents.

 

2.

Property located at 940 Springbank Drive

 

Motion made Councillor P. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive:

a)         the attached development agreement and schedules for a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units BE RECEIVED for final approval;

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the applicant to discuss the potential for the purchase of the land or the potential for a land swap, prior to the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012; and,

 

c)         the applicant BE REQUIRED to accept the risks and costs of the risk management aspects of the project, such as slope stability;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

 

·                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services;

·                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and,

·                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012;

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

·                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and,

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:

 

·                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application

·                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office).

·                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application.

·                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left.

·                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it.

·                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected.

·                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on.

·                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept.

·                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises.

·                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else.

·                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning.

 

·                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years.

·                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue.

·                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application.

·                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London.

·                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights.

·                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development.

·                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development.

·                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house.

·                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea.

·                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building.

·                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill.   (2012-D25-00)

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Amend clause 2 by deleting the clause in its entirety and replacing it with the following new clause 2:

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be take with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive:

 

a)            the plans  attached as Schedule “A”  for the development of a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units, BE APPROVED;

 

b)         that the Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services BE DIRECTED to formalize the approval, including the execution of, the development agreement, substantially in the form attached as Schedule “B”, that includes a requirement that the owner accept the risks and costs of the development, including slope stability;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

 

·                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services;

·                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and,

·                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012;

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

·                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and,

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:

 

·                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application

·                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office).

·                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application.

·                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left.

·                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it.

·                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected.

·                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on.

·                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept.

·                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises.

·                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else.

·                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning.

·                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years.

·                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue.

·                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application.

·                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London.

·                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights.

·                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development.

·                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development.

·                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house.

·                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea.

·                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building.

·                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill. 

 

c)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to meet with the applicant to discuss the potential for the purchase of the land or the potential for a land swap, prior to the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012. (2012-D25-00)

XIII

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera for the purpose of considering a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to the site plan application for the property located at 940 Springbank Drive.

 

Motion Passed

 

The Council rises and goes into the Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 6:30 PM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.

 

The Committee of the Whole rises and Council resumes at 7:16 PM.

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve that part c) of clause 2 be referred to later in the meeting to provide for an opportunity to receive further information from the Civic Administration with respect to the discussion related to the potential for the purchase or the land or the potential for a land swap.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended.

 

Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to Clause 2 of the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

Motion to Approve Parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended, is put.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, S.E. White (10)

 

NAYS: J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, J.P. Bryant (5)

 

Parts a) and b) of clause 2, as amended, read as follows:

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services, the following actions be take with respect to the site plan approval application of Ayerswood Development Corp. relating to the property located at 940 Springbank Drive:

 

a)            the plans  attached as Schedule “A”  for the development of a twelve-storey apartment building with 165 units, BE APPROVED;

 

b)         that the Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services BE DIRECTED to formalize the approval, including the execution of, the development agreement, substantially in the form attached as Schedule “B”, that includes a requirement that the owner accept the risks and costs of the development, including slope stability;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

 

·                    an information report from the Acting Executive Director of Planning, Environmental & Engineering Services;

·                    A. Papmehl, dated April 23, 2012; and,

·                     W. Dickinson, The Woodfield Community Association, dated March 19, 2012;

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 11 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

·                     S. Shillington, dated April 22, 2012; and,

(Secretary's Note: A petition signed by approximately 382 people is on file and available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office.);

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:

 

·                     Alan R. Patton, Solicitor for Ayerswood Development Corporation – introducing John Camara, Manager, Ayerswood Construction and Richard Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; reading page 5, paragraph three of the Conclusion section of the staff report; noting that it is a concise and accurate summary; reading lines from the top of page 5 of the staff report; advising that the map (that was placed on the screen during the meeting) shows the height limit of the building at 40 metres; noting that the building can only contain 165 units; advising that the proposed building has more underground and surface parking than is required; indicating that there has been more public consultation on this file than any he has heard of in 30 years of practice; indicating that the Civic Administration has repeatedly met with the neighbours; indicating that Zelinka Priamo Ltd. has also met with the neighbours and kept them informed every step of the process; advising of the public dialogue that the building must be the same size as one of the two originally proposed buildings in the application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2000; advising that in March, 2010, an appeal to the site plan was taken to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that Mr. J.P. Barber advocated for one building, the same size as one of the original buildings; noting that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that one apartment building does not align with the facts of the Rosenberg decision; noting that the decision does not use the words “revise” or “amend”, but uses the word “new”; indicating that the Ayerswood proposal has merit; reading from a “Save Reservoir Hill” flyer; advising that the “Save Reservoir Hill” group hoped to make the building uneconomical to build; advising that the applicant has followed the Planning Act process, a basic fundamental proposition, which meets the rule of the law; noting that the site plan by-law is a matter of law; advising that staff has followed through; advising that staff has been more rigorous on this application than any other application; requesting that the site plan application be approved; advising that Rosenberg had every opportunity to reduce the footprint of the building; advising that the setbacks from the Hopkins and Howells property is in excess of the R7-9 Zone; advising that the building could be larger and that they are saving a lot of the trees; advising that there is no confusion on the Rosenberg decision; advising that the differences between the Snezak decision and this site plan are that the first site plan had a different slope, with a proposal for terraced areas for the residents to use and that the cut line was different; advising that the application is geotechnically sound; advising that Rosenberg did not set out parameters; advising that the building has not moved and that the footprint is still the same; and noting that the Urban Design Panel concurs with this application

·                     Paul Wilton, 84 Summerside Crescent – see attached presentation. (Secretary’s Note:  A petition signed by approximately 630 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office).

·                     Anna Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – providing the attached communication to Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; indicating that she has been involved in the process since 1999; advising that she requested that the February 1, 2001 Ontario Municipal Board decision be provided to the Members of the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that she was told that the City needs to abide by the Ontario Municipal Board decision; advising that one building, in the middle of the five acre site, is what was approved; indicating that every effort should be made to reduce the impact on the two neighbours; advising that the City fought for no building to be built on that site; noting that the City took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; advising that the developer submitted a site plan application in 2004 and when the City refused it, he went to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the developer needed to review the site plan; advising that the proposed building in the 2009 site plan was 40% larger; noting that the City went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that the application did not meet the requirements of the Rosenberg decision; advising that the current proposed building is 47% larger and that the building is now closer to their property; advising that this would have a similar impact to the two buildings that the Ontario Municipal Board turned down; advising that if the developer is not satisfied with the City’s decision, he can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; noting that the residents can not; advising that their concerns are many and their fears are great; and encouraging the Council Members to refuse the site plan application.

·                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – indicating that in one decision, reference was made to the building being 65 x 125; advising that if he understood Mr. Patton’s comments, the proposed building is larger; enquiring as to whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board decision entails a 1.8 metre privacy fence for the adjacent neighbours; indicating that the staff report makes reference to the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports prepared by Golder; however, it does not make it clear whether or not the reports were peer reviewed by TerraProbe; indicating that, with the current site plan, it will take the trees 20 to 25 years until they are fully grown and become part of the canopy; enquiring as to whether or not the other trees are within the tree preservation zone; and advising that job creation is not the only screen; noting that 10 years ago, the City decided not to take Toronto’s garbage and the City’s landfill now has twelve years of capacity left.

·                     Rosemary Dickinson, 1118 St. Anthony Road – expressing appreciation to the Council Members who are not on the Planning and Environment Committee for being at the meeting tonight; advising that there have been a lot of good comments made to reject the site plan; advising that the Councillors can vote to reject the site plan even though they made a motion to accept it last year; advising that an argument against the supersizing of the building was made to the Ontario Municipal Board; advising that the applicant was requested to submit a site plan that is smaller than the original application; and advising that the Ontario Municipal Board got us into this situation, but that Council could get us out of it.

·                     Gavin Moore, 58 Blackburn Street – enquiring as to whether or not ecological studies have been done as there are endangered species living in the area; and enquiring as to how the endangered species will be affected.

·                     Kristina White, 828 Commissioners Road West – enquiring as to where the springwater is located; enquiring as to how this development will affect the well water in the area; and enquiring as to which property it is on.

·                     Beverley McCall, 106 Chalet Crescent – advising that she is new to this process; advising that she is here on an emotional appeal; indicating that she has taken her daughter to the park every year to watch the changes of the seasons; enquiring as to why London cannot keep its parks; advising that there used to be cows on the property behind them and now they have houses; advising that it is 2012 and all anyone talks about is development; and requesting that parks be kept.

·                     Gwen Doddy, 18 Wyndhurst Place – expressing appreciation to everyone who attended the meeting tonight; advising that they pay the Councillors salaries; advising that Mr. Graat had vacant land on Windsor Avenue and he wanted to build a high-rise; advising that the community had to come out to these meetings; advising that in the end, Mr. Graat did not get his  way and did not get to build his awful high rises with people looking down at you; and advising that in the United States, they are refurbishing old buildings for people to move into instead of building new high rises.

·                     Anne Papmehl, 3 Southfield Crescent – advising that Mr. Patton seemed irked that this application has taken so long; advising that the public has never supported this application; indicating that the neighbours would prefer not to see a building at this site; advising that there are many negative impacts such as privacy, aesthetics, noise, dust from construction and water run-off; advising that there is the potential for flooding or for the hill to collapse; and advising that she has no objection if the builder chooses to build somewhere else.

·                     Richard Licastro, 369 Griffith Street – advising that the hydrogeological and geotechnical reports have been discussed, but the issue of whether or not this is proper planning has not been discussed; advising that environmental, aesthetics and slope issues have not been discussed; and enquiring as to whether or not this is good land use planning.

·                     Dr. Helen Polatajko-Howell, 929 Commissioners Road West – advising that she has never gone by the name Mrs. Howell; indicating that this is an emotional time as her husband suddenly passed away last November; advising that this issue was dear to her husband, who was a smart man, who spent many hours looking at slopes and plans; advising that a peer review of the issues of water and slope by TerraProbe was asked for; indicating that she was advised that the issues are not real; advising that it was recommended that the City conduct a one-year investigation with three bore holes; advising that she is nervous that she may one day be living at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill; and advising that the Municipal Council has changed its position in the last ten years.

·                     Bill Hopkins, 928 Springbank Drive – indicating that he has learned so much over the last 12 years; indicating that he has met some great people; advising that City staff are doing their jobs; advising that he is appalled that the approval authority was ripped out of staff’s hands; advising that with enough money, you can build whatever you want at the top of the hill, including the CN Tower; advising that the form and fit are not suitable for the location; indicating that most of the previous speakers have spoken to points he wanted to voice; acknowledging that being a Councillor is a difficult and frustrating job; expressing that this is obviously a strong issue, making front page news and receiving CTV news coverage; advising that he has been here from square one; advising that he assumed they would win the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing hands down as they had a leading London historian, environmental representatives and Wayne Gretzky’s uncle, who found shells from a re-enactment of the War of 1812; advising that he loves the area, which is why he moved there; indicating that he has worked hard to be able to afford to live where he does; advising that the shade study was ignored; advising that there is public misconception and a statement by the Mayor, that if they don’t like the decision, they can go to the Ontario Municipal Board; however, he can not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, only the developer can; indicating that he can only speculate as to why they lost the first Ontario Municipal Board hearing; indicating that, with all due respect to the fluoride issue, which has received a lot of debate, this is a different issue; noting that he gathered petitions for one building in the middle, not for no building; advising that he did not receive any objections from people to sign the petition; indicating that this is a strong consensus for not wanting this to happen; stating that another misconception is that the developer is going to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board if the City turns down the application; advising that the last proposal was larger and closer to his property; wondering if the developer is going to purchase the little garage and build another apartment building; advising that people from all over the City have signed the petition; advising that their Ward Councillor has voted for this application in previous decisions so the area residents are on their own, without the support of their Ward Councillor; and indicating that he was advised by a Toronto professor that red flags would go up if Councillors received two to five e-mails or calls on an issue.

·                     Steve Shellington, 504 Griffth Street – advising that most of his points have been covered; advising that there is some misunderstanding as many people don’t realize the history; advising that Mr. Graat purchased the property knowing it was zoned Open Space; expressing no sympathy for the developer; advising that the 2010 Ontario Municipal Board decision is clear; advising that the Rosenberg decision was not specific enough; advising that he is hard pressed  by the horrible idea to put the building there; enquiring as to why the developer should get more consideration; expressing curiosity as to why the Municipal Council reversed its last vote; advising that they have every reason to stick to what they believe is right; advising that their online petition has over 400 signatures on it; enquiring as to why this application has to keep coming back with a proposal for a larger building to be built on it; advising that TerraProbe was hired by the Civic Administration to review the Golder report; expressing confusion over what was ultimately approved; advising that the issues have not been addressed and encouraging the Council to refuse this application.

·                     Jan Shellington, 504 Griffith Street – advising that the traffic is constantly backed up at the corner of North Street and Base Line Road; indicating that when they were out on the street with their signs about tonight’s meeting, they received a lot of thumbs up and horns honking in support; requesting the Council Members to please listen to them; advising that she realizes that a building has been approved on this site but they are doing what they can to not make it happen; advising that Facebook is their recourse; and advising that if you travel to the top of Reservoir Hill in the evening, it is the most beautiful sight in London.

·                     Ray Callestine – advising that valid points have been raised; indicating that the geotechnical reports are not final; advising that the outstanding environmental and traffic issues are serious and complex; indicating that the stretch of Commissioners Road from Springbank Drive to Boler Road, with the exception of one high rise, are all four or five storey apartment buildings; and indicating that this development should fit in with the lower apartment building heights.

·                     Gerry Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that John Carroll was killed on the slopes of Reservoir Hill; indicating that he was fighting for Canada, even if he did not know it at the time; and asking the audience to raise their arms if they are opposed to the proposed development.

·                     Tim Quinlan, 128 Raywood Avenue – advising that he grew up in the area; enquiring as to whether or not the possibility of a land swap has been discussed; if so, when and to what extent; advising that it is apparent why the developer would want the land and indicating there is significant opposition to the development.

·                     Elsa Lobos, 38 Tobin Court – advising that her house is on approximately the same level as the proposed apartment building; indicating that she is pro-development; and advising that the developer had to go down 30 feet to find stable ground to build her house.

·                     Betsy Odegaard, 462 Jarvis Street – expressing curiosity as to what is happening with the enquiries that have been raised tonight; advising that  Springbank is the jewel in London’s crown; advising that the Hopkins’ and Howells’ have accepted that a building is to be built on the property but have fought the developer to get the development to the right size; advising that traffic is horrendous, with the most traffic in the morning and evening rush hours; enquiring as to the effect of people trying to get onto Springbank Drive; requesting that a new solution be contemplated; asking if negotiations could happen; and indicating that a land swap is a great idea.

·                     Jason DeShane – enquiring as to why the open space parcel is not donated to the City if it is not to be used for future building.

·                     Margaret Lynch, 32 Four Winds Road – advising that Reservoir Hill is the only place in London where a historic battle was fought; indicating that the Americans were lying in wait; advising that this is a historical site; indicating that she has completed a lot of research on this site; and advising that Mr. John Carroll’s widow received a pension from his death on Reservoir Hill. 

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that Council recess.

 

Motion Passed

 

The Council recesses at 7:55 PM and reconvenes at 8:45 PM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.

 

 

7th Report of the Civic Works Committee

Councillor H.L. Usher presents.

 

3.

Drinking Water Fluoridation in London

 

Motion made by Councillor Councillor H. L. Usher to Approve clause 3.

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor P. Hubert be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.

 

Motion  Passed

 

Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.L. Baechler be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

At 9:50 PM His Worship the Mayor places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Mayor J.F. Fontana be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

At 10:02 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.

 

Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor H.L. Usher be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

The motion to Approve Clause 3 is put.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, S.E. White (10)

 

NAYS: S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, D.G. Henderson, J.P. Bryant (5)

 

Clause 3 reads as follows:

 

That, the report dated April 23, 2012, from the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, with respect to drinking water fluoridation in the City of London BE RECEIVED for information, and the following resolution BE APPROVED:

 

WHEREAS at the municipal election of 1966, a plebiscite was conducted and Londoners voted in favour of fluoridation of the public water supply of the City;

 

AND WHEREAS the City of London’s drinking water has been fluoridated since September, 1967, as per City of London By-law No. A.-3694-18, as authorized by the Fluoridation Act, and as regulated by the Ministry of the Environment;

 

AND WHEREAS at the Global Consultation on Oral Health Through Fluoride (2006), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Dental Federation and the International Association for Dental Research reaffirmed the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the daily use of optimal fluoride, and confirmed that universal access to fluoride for dental health is a part of the basic human right to health;

 

AND WHEREAS more than 90 national and international public health agencies have endorsed the use of fluoride at recommended levels to prevent tooth decay;

 

AND WHEREAS the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared fluoridation of drinking water to be one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century;

 

AND WHEREAS in June of 2011, Health Canada released the results of a multi-year, systematic review of the health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water and concluded that “The weight of evidence from all currently available studies does not support a link between exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 1.5 mg/L and any adverse health effects…;

 

AND WHEREAS the aforementioned Health Canada review also stated that “… the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water for dental health has been determined to be 0.7 mg/L for communities who wish to fluoridate. This concentration provides optimal dental health benefits and is well below the MAC (Maximum Acceptable Concentration of 1.5 mg/L) to protect against adverse effect”;

 

AND WHEREAS in April of 2011, Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a statement expressing concern about the loss of fluoridated drinking water in certain communities in spite of consistent evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective”;

 

            AND WHEREAS in February of 2011, the Board of Health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit unanimously supported the recommendation of Dr. Graham Pollett, Medical Officer of Health to “support the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s drinking water supply as a measure to achieve optimal dental/oral health for all residents, which is an important component of total health”; and,

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Corporation of the City of London affirms its confidence in the integrity and recommendations of the World Health Organization, Health Canada, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, and the Medical Officer of Health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit, and thus supports the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s drinking water;

 

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee received a petition related to discontinuing the use of fluoridation in the City’s drinking water, signed by approximately 1,442 individuals, which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office; and,

 

it being further noted that the Civic Works Committee heard a verbal delegation from Dr. G. Pollett, Middlesex-London Health Unit and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

 

·         M. Malek, 1450 Kirkpatrick Way, dated April 22, 2012;

·         C. Bennett, 11 Constable Street, dated April 22, 2012;

·         S. Keating, 491 Oxford Street, dated April 22, 2012;

·         M. Millar, 7334 Longwoods Road, dated April 22, 2012;

·         C. Gupta, 919 Plantation Road, dated April 23, 2012;

·         F. Andrighetti, 40 Concord Crescent, dated April 21, 2012;

·         B. Whitby, 703-95 Ridout Street South, dated April 22, 2012;

·         N. Warren, 239 Riverside Drive, dated April 22, 2012;

·         R. Hudon,1385 Matheson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, dated April 22, 2012;

·         M. Burden, 316 Griffith Street, dated April 21, 2012;

·         A. Demelo, 1629 Sharon Drive, dated April 20, 2012;

·         E. Kooistra, 1185 Guildwood Boulevard, dated April 22, 2012;

·         B. Dundas, 90 Ridout Street South, Suite 1, dated April 20, 2012;

·         K. Miller, 19-925 Lawson Road;

·         C. Lewis, 838 Dufferin Avenue, dated April 21, 2012;

·         M. van Holst, by e-mail, dated April 23, 2012;

·         K. Klassen, 88 Becher Street, dated April 23, 2012;

·         J. Hofer, 15-55 Fiddlers Green Road, dated April 23, 2012;

·         N. Greenhow, 70 Cottonwood Crescent, dated April 22, 2012; and,

·        K. Deyong, by e-mail, dated April 21, 2012.  (2012-W13-00)

 

Motion made by Councillor W.J. Armstrong and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that clause 3, be amended by adding the following part b):

 

b)         that the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to undertake legislative changes to assume the responsibility for determining drinking water fluoridation, so as to ensure a uniformed Provincial approach.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, S.E. White (9)

 

NAYS: S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, D.G. Henderson, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (6)

 

Motion made by Councillor W.J. Armstrong and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve  that clause 3 be further amended by adding the following part c):

 

c)         that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide updates with respect to fluoride levels in the City of London’s water. (2012-W13-00)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: S. Orser, H.L. Usher (2)

 

Clause 3, as amended, reads as follows:

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to drinking water fluoridation in the City of London:

 

a)            that the Report dated April 23, 2012, from the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and the City Engineer, with respect to drinking water fluoridation in the City of London BE RECEIVED for information, and the following resolution BE APPROVED:

 

WHEREAS at the municipal election of 1966, a plebiscite was conducted and Londoners voted in favour of fluoridation of the public water supply of the City;

 

AND WHEREAS the City of London’s drinking water has been fluoridated since September, 1967, as per City of London By-law No. A.-3694-18, as authorized by the Fluoridation Act, and as regulated by the Ministry of the Environment;

 

AND WHEREAS at the Global Consultation on Oral Health Through Fluoride (2006), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Dental Federation and the International Association for Dental Research reaffirmed the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the daily use of optimal fluoride, and confirmed that universal access to fluoride for dental health is a part of the basic human right to health;

 

AND WHEREAS more than 90 national and international public health agencies have endorsed the use of fluoride at recommended levels to prevent tooth decay;

 

AND WHEREAS the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared fluoridation of drinking water to be one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century;

 

   AND WHEREAS in June of 2011, Health Canada released the results of a multi-year, systematic review of the health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water and concluded that “The weight of evidence from all currently available studies does not support a link between exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 1.5 mg/L and any adverse health effects…;

 

  AND WHEREAS the aforementioned Health Canada review also stated that “… the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water for dental health has been determined to be 0.7 mg/L for communities who wish to fluoridate. This concentration provides optimal dental health benefits and is well below the MAC (Maximum Acceptable Concentration of 1.5 mg/L) to protect against adverse effect”;

 

AND WHEREAS in April of 2011, Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a statement expressing concern about the loss of fluoridated drinking water in certain communities in spite of consistent evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective”;

 

AND WHEREAS in February of 2011, the Board of Health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit unanimously supported the recommendation of Dr. Graham Pollett, Medical Officer of Health to “support the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s drinking water supply as a measure to achieve optimal dental/oral health for all residents, which is an important component of total health”; and,

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Corporation of the City of London affirms its confidence in the integrity and recommendations of the World Health Organization, Health Canada, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, and the Medical Officer of Health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit, and thus supports the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s drinking water;

 

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee received a petition related to discontinuing the use of fluoridation in the City’s drinking water, signed by approximately 1,442 individuals, which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office; and,

 

it being further noted that the Civic Works Committee heard a verbal delegation from Dr. G. Pollett, Middlesex-London Health Unit and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

 

·                    M. Malek, 1450 Kirkpatrick Way, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    C. Bennett, 11 Constable Street, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    S. Keating, 491 Oxford Street, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    M. Millar, 7334 Longwoods Road, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    C. Gupta, 919 Plantation Road, dated April 23, 2012;

·                    F. Andrighetti, 40 Concord Crescent, dated April 21, 2012;

·                    B. Whitby, 703-95 Ridout Street South, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    N. Warren, 239 Riverside Drive, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    R. Hudon,1385 Matheson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    M. Burden, 316 Griffith Street, dated April 21, 2012;

·                    A. Demelo, 1629 Sharon Drive, dated April 20, 2012;

·                    E. Kooistra, 1185 Guildwood Boulevard, dated April 22, 2012;

·                    B. Dundas, 90 Ridout Street South, Suite 1, dated April 20, 2012;

·                    K. Miller, 19-925 Lawson Road;

·                    C. Lewis, 838 Dufferin Avenue, dated April 21, 2012;

·                    M. van Holst, by e-mail, dated April 23, 2012;

·                    K. Klassen, 88 Becher Street, dated April 23, 2012;

·                    J. Hofer, 15-55 Fiddlers Green Road, dated April 23, 2012;

·                    N. Greenhow, 70 Cottonwood Crescent, dated April 22, 2012; and,

·                    K. Deyong, by e-mail, dated April 21, 2012; 

 

b)          that the Province of Ontario BE REQUESTED to undertake legislative changes to assume the responsibility for determining drinking water fluoridation, so as to ensure a uniformed Provincial approach; and,

 

c)         that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide updates with respect to fluoride levels in the City of London’s water. (2012-W13-00)

 

Motion made by Councillor J. Baechler and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve that pursuant to section 2.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, section 11.10 of the said by-law be suspended for the purpose of permitting the meeting to proceed beyond 11:00 PM.

 

Motion Passed

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve that Council recess.

 

Motion Passed

 

Council recesses at 10:37 PM and reconvenes at 10:45 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members Present except Councillors B. Polhill, S. Orser and S.E. White.

 

III

CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING HELD ON APRIL 10 AND 11, 2012

 

Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve the Minutes of the Seventh Meeting held on April 10 and 11, 2012.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)

 

IV

REVIEW OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

 

None.

 

At 10:47 PM Councillor Polhill enters the meeting.

 

V

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

 

 

Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Receive the following communications:   B. Dennison, 3380 Georgeheriot Lane; G.W. Cooper, People for Safe Drinking Water; H. Gingerich, University of Guelph, S. Thomas, Clean Water Legacy; C. Gupta, 919 Plantation Road; K. Miller, 19-925 Lawson Road; M. Burden, 316 Griffith Street and R.J. Fleming, President, Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation (all relating to Clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee;  S. Craig, 281 Blackacres Boulevard (relating to Clause 19 of the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee); M. Barlow, National Chairperson, The Council of Canadians (relating to Clause 9 of the 13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee;  and B. Barnes, 425 Griffith Street (relating to Clause 1 of the 11th Report of Planning and Environment Committee).

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)

 

VI

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

 

None.

 

VII

ADDED REPORTS

 

1.

12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2.

7th Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII

REPORTS (CONTINUED)

 

 

6th Report of the Community Services Committee

                        Councillor M. Brown presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)

 

Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, read as follows:

 

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

No pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

 

2.

3rd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee

 

That the 3rd Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 11, 2012, BE RECEIVED.

 

3.

Goodwill Project Update

 

That the presentation from M. Quintyn, CEO, Goodwill Industries, with respect to the City’s investment in the new Horton Street facility, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that an invitation to the official opening of the new facility on May 11, 2012, was extended to all Members of the City Council.

 

4.

Middlesex London Health Unit Orientation

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the orientation presentation by Dr. G. Pollett, Medical Officer of Health, Middlesex-London Health Unit:

 

a)         the Mayor BE REQUESTED to liaise with the Middlesex-London Board of Health and the County of Middlesex with respect to exploring the feasibility and benefits of potential Board of Health amalgamations in the area, particularly in consideration of the Capacity Review Committee report following SARS, and the recent Drummond Report, both of which suggested the amalgamation of various Boards of Health; and,

 

b)         the presentation, including the attached additional funding information, BE RECEIVED. 

 

 

5.

2nd Report of the Child Care Advisory Committee

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Child Care Advisory Committee (CCAC) from its meeting held on March 28, 2012:

 

a)         the Partners Promoting Importance of Early Childhood Education BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Community Services Committee (CSC), to provide information on the initiatives being undertaken to educate the public on the importance of early childhood education and the benefits of licensed child care;

 

b)        the request for Civic Administration to consult with the CCAC with respect to the 2012 City website update BE REFERRED to Corporate Communications; it being understood by the CSC that such consultation was already being undertaken, and there was some potential for duplication; and,

 

c)         clauses 3 to 6, inclusive, of the Report BE RECEIVED.

 

6.

London & Middlesex Housing Corporation Annual General Meeting (AGM)

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation:

 

a)         the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as part of the Municipal Council meeting on June 12, 2012, for the  purpose of receiving the report from the Board of the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

 

b)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2011 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Middlesex Housing Corporation and to invite the Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of London Middlesex Housing Corporation to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Shareholder Declaration.

 

 

 

12th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee

                        Councillor P. Hubert presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve Clause 1.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

No Pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)

 

 

13th Report of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee (Continued)

                        Councillor P. Hubert presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve clause 4.  

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)

 

RECUSED: P. Hubert (1)

 

Clause 4 reads as follows:

 

4.

2011 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

 

That the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer’s 2011 Compliance Report, in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for report back at a future meeting.

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (13)

 

Clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 read as follows:

 

1.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that Councillor Hubert disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of this Report having to do with the 2011 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy by indicating that he is the Executive Director of one of the social services agencies listed which has a purchase of service agreement with the City of London.

 

 

 

 

2.

Green Municipal fund - Combined Loan and Grant Agreement Update

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the Green Municipal Fund Combined Loan and Grant Agreement;

 

a)         the issue of a twenty (20)-year amortizing debenture for $2,000,000, reflecting an expected offering yield of 2.00% to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), as Trustee of the Green Municipal Fund, to close on May 15, 2012, BE CONFIRMED; and

 

b)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of May 1, 2012 for three readings to authorize the borrowing upon amortizing debentures for a 20-year term in the amount of $2,000,000.00 towards the cost of the North London Community Facility Project of The Corporation of the City of London.

 

3.

City Initiated Assessment Appeals

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to City-initiated assessment appeals:

 

a)         City staff BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with appeals under the Assessment Act for the properties as set out in Schedule “A” to this report; and

 

b)         the information presented on internally and externally-initiated assessment appeals BE RECEIVED for information.

 

6.

Land Acquisition from Old Oak Properties Inc. for Sugar Creek Park

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken regarding a land acquisition from Old Oak Incorporated to complete Sugar Creek Park:

 

a)         the offer from Old Oak Properties Incorporated to sell 0.109 Ha of land, designated as Part 14 on Plan 33R-17797, to the City to complete Sugar Creek Park at a purchase price of $79,685.00 BE ACCEPTED subject to the following conditions:

 

i)          the purchase price being made up of a cash payment of $40,401.00 and a “gift in kind” donation receipt in the amount of $39,284.00; and

 

ii)         the City granting an easement to the Vendor for existing storm and sanitary sewers crossing Sugar Creek Park over Part 14 and adjacent parkland;

 

b)         a gift in kind donation receipt BE PROVIDED to the vendor in the amount of $39,284.00;

 

c)         the Sources of Financing BE APPROVED as detailed in Appendix “C” of the associated staff report dated April 16, 2012; and

 

d)         the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “D”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to approve this acquisition and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.

 

7.

1st Quarter Report - Information Technology Strategy: Enabling Growth and Service Excellence

 

That, on the recommendation of the Chief Technology Officer, the report dated April 16, 2012 with respect to the 1st Quarter Report for the City of London’s Information Technology Strategy BE RECEIVED for information.

 

8.

Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Annual General Meeting, Conference and Trade Show 2014

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Intergovernmental and Community Liaison, the  report dated April 16, 2012 with respect to the AMO Annual General Meeting, Conference and Trade Show for 2014 BE RECEIVED for information.

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clauses 10 to 18, inclusive.

 

 

Pursuant to section 17.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor D. Brown calls for a separate vote on clause 12.

 

At 10:53 PM Councillor S. Orser enters the meeting.

 

At 11:00 PM Councillor S.E. White enters the meeting.

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clauses 10 to 18, except clause 12.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS:  J.F. Fontana, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

Clauses 10 to 18, except clause 12, read as follows:

 

10.

Amendments to Council Procedure By-law

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the attached revised proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May 1, 2012 for the purpose of amending By-law No. A-41 entitled “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London” as it relates to reconsideration of matters, conduct of public at meetings, scheduling of Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee meetings and a housekeeping change to properly reflect the committee responsible for recommending the appointment of Chairs for standing committees; it being pointed out that the following individuals made oral submissions at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter:

 

·         Oliver Hobson, 45 Evergreen Avenue – indicating that the suggested measures related to public conduct are excessive; stating there is a need to allow public views to be expressed; and expressing concern over the lack of notice given with regard to the proposed changes.

·         Vicki Van Linden, 431 Ridgewood Crescent – indicating strong disagreement with the proposed changes relating to public conduct; saying that she hopes her position on this does not negatively impact her relationship with Council Members; noting that it’s not always the public who behave badly, some Council Members have behaved badly and decorum starts with the Council Members; suggesting that anyone running for office should sign a document which acknowledges that not every person will agree with them, but every person can speak their views loudly and clearly; and noting that this is “our” City, the Municipal Council is our leader but not our boss.

·         Maureen Temme, 66 Palmer Street – indicating that this is the first time she has carried a sign; noting that she finds there are less disruptions in the gallery than there are on the Council floor; and suggesting that section 15.1.5 be deleted as there is a fine line between simply expressing one’s views and being seen as being disrespectful.

·         Kevin Van Lierop, 55 Carfrae Street – noting there are some positive amendments and some that are “over the top”; and suggesting that the City of London needs to create its own rules and not just look at what other cities do.

·         Sean Quigley, 59 Pennybrook Crescent – noting there is a need to balance engagement with decorum, which is not an easy task; not suggesting one over the other, but rather a balance in order to allow engagement.

·         David Dimitrie, 1128 Adelaide Street – noting that issues of security are valid for people gaining unauthorized access, however the way the matter was brought forward was wrong; and noting that he would never disrespect the Council and he doesn’t think most other people would either.

·         Cathy Klee, 75 Fiddlers Green Road – suggesting that these changes will provoke a response; and pointing out that some Council Members are as entertaining as the gallery.

·         Derrick McBurney, 4-466 South Street – indicating that this is a matter of decorum; suggesting that a code of conduct be put on agendas or posted by meeting rooms; and stating that people who disrupt a meeting are the antithesis of engagement.

·         Jared Zaifman, 605-836 Ridout Street – enquiring as to what municipalities were canvassed; expressing disappointment that this matter was being heard at a 1 PM meeting on a Monday, making it difficult for a lot of members of the public to come and express their views; noting that the changes are really “caretaking” and “entrenching” existing practices; suggesting that 15.1.1 and 15.1.3 seem redundant; stating that 15.1.2 is silly if we are trying to address quiet as signs are a quiet means of expressing views; expressing concern about a ban on food and drink given that some meetings go on for several hours so it’s difficult for people to not have any food or drink; suggesting that the requirement to silence electronic devices is a fair expectation so the inclusion of this requirement is redundant; and suggesting that there should be a warning before someone is ejected from the Chambers.

·         Gary Brown, Council of Canadians, 59 Ridout Street – the issues at hand relate to freedom of speech and citizen engagement; suggesting that we are trying to legislate common sense; noting that we are trying to engage youth and if we don’t let them use signs, this could curtail their involvement, citing the use of signs by youth in the bottled water debate.

·         Rebecca Growden, 389 Salisbury Street – stating if these rules are approved, people may as well attend meetings with tape over their mouths; and asking that Council not approve these changes.

·         Patrick Rumsey, 85 Fiddlers Green – noting that it is the 30th Anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; stating that Mark Emery put signs on utility poles and the Supreme Court upheld the placement of signs on public property and that there was another case in Chatham where the wearing of t-shirts was upheld by the constitution; suggesting as a Ward 8 taxpayer that the City cannot not include these prohibitions.

·       Sandy Levin, 54 Longbow Road – noting that lots of good things have been said by the delegations; suggesting that signage assisting the public needs to be more easily seen; asking that applause, t-shirts and signs not be banned as these are all means of public engagement, and public engagement should be supported; and stating that democracy is messy.  (2012-G05-00/G06-00)

 

11.

Tax Adjustment Agenda

 

That the recommendations in the Tax Adjustment Agenda dated April 16, 2012 BE APPROVED; it being noted that at the public hearing associated with these matters there were no members of the public in attendance to speak to the Finance and Administrative Services Committee.

 

13.

Request for Delegation Status with Respect to Funding for the Argyle Business Improvement Association

 

That the request of the Argyle Business Improvement Association (ABIA) for funding in the amount of $55,240 BE REFERRED to the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer to review and report back on whether or not a suitable funding agreement could be put in place to accommodate the request. (2012-F12-00)

 

 

14.

Request for Designation of Fall Fest as a Municipally Significant Event

 

That the Fall Fest to be held August 31 – September 3, 2012 in Victoria Park BE DESIGNATED a Municipally Significant Event in the City of London. (2012-M09-00)

 

15.

Report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities of Directors Meeting - Kitchener, Ontario - March 7-10, 2012

 

That the communication dated March 19, 2012 from Councillor H.L. Usher and Councillor J.L. Baechler regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors meeting held on March 7 – 10, 2012 in Kitchener, Ontario BE RECEIVED. (2012-A02-02)

 

 

16.

Complaints to the Ombudsman's Office

 

That the communication dated March 26, 2012, from Councillor J.B. Swan, regarding complaints to the Ombudsman’s Office BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, to which the Ombudsman is being invited to discuss the role of his office.

 

17.

Food and Beverage Access for Public Attending Council and Committee Meetings

 

That the City Clerk BE REQUESTED to look at alternatives for providing access to “Grab and Go” food and drink for members of the public who are attending Council and Committee meetings over the dinner hour, and to report back on this matter.

 

18.

Input Regarding Notice Provisions by Community Engagement Task Force

 

That the Director of Corporate Communications, in consultation with the City Clerk, BE REQUESTED to seek the input of the Community Engagement Task Force with respect to the City of London’s public notice provisions.

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Refer clause 12 with respect to the Council Service London Team back to the Governance Working Group for further review.

 

Motion Failed

 

YEAS:  P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (4)

 

NAYS:  J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, S.E. White (11)

 

The motion to Approve clause 12 is put.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS:  J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, S.E. White (11)

 

NAYS:  P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (4)

 

Clause 12 reads as follows:

 

12.

8th Report of the Governance Working Group

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th report of the Governance Working Group:

 

a)         that, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with the concurrence of the interim City Manager, the attached Three-Year Implementation Plan (Appendix A) to establish a Council Service London Team to enhance support to Members of Council BE ENDORSED subject to the submission and approval of the following matters:

 

i)          a protocol with respect to communications support;

ii)          job descriptions for the Council Service London Team;

iii)        a protocol with respect to the utilization of the Council Service London Team, after normal working hours;

iv)        a protocol with respect to the sharing of co-op students;

v)         an understanding on how technical students from Fanshawe College can be utilized;

vi)        the establishment of a central email account for Councillors; and,

vii)        an evaluation of the Plan, six months after implementation;

 

it being noted that the attached Plan will be incorporated into the broader Service London implementation plan to be presented to the Finance and Administrative Services Committee in Spring 2012;

 

it being further noted that the Governance Working Group received the attached presentation from T. Dobbie and K. Graham, with respect to this matter.

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on potential models that could be established to assist with conflict resolution between Members of Council.

 

c)         clauses 1 through 5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED.

 

 

7th Report of the Civic Works Committee (continued)

                        Councillor H.L. Usher presents

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher   to Approve clauses 1 to 10, except clause 3.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Clauses 1 to 10, except clause 3, read as follows:

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

2.

5th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

 

That the 5th Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 3, 2012, BE RECEIVED. 

 

4.

Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law Related to Changes in the Various Fees and Charges By-law

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the attached proposed by-law (Appendix “A”), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111) with respect to parking fees.  (2012-S09-00)

 

5.

Hyde Park Road Closing

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the closing of part of the Hyde Park Road allowance between Lots 24 and 25 in Concession 5, and part of Lots 24 and 25 in Concession 5 in the geographic Township of London now in the City of London, being the triangular portion of land measuring approximately 80 metres long by 25 metres wide lying on the east side of the road immediately north of Firehall No. 14 at 2225 Hyde Park Road, BE APPROVED.  (2012-S06-00)

 

6.

Water Technology Centre Pre-Design and Design Consultant Appointment

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to appointing the pre-design and design components of the Southern Ontario Water Consortium (SOWC) London Wastewater Facility (LWF) (ES1721) to Stantec Consulting, under section 15.2(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

 

a)         the proposal submitted by Stantec Consulting for engineering services, totaling $497,320, excluding H.S.T., BE ACCEPTED;

 

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2012-A03-00/W10-00)

 

7.

Highway 401 / Wonderland Road Interchange - Ministry of Transportation Provincial Class Environmental Assessment

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the technical aspects of the Provincial Transportation Environmental Study Report for the New Interchange at Highway 401 and Wonderland Road South, BE ENDORSED.

 

8.

Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension - Environmental Assessment Consultant Assignment Scope Change (TS1325)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the approval of additional engineering fees for the Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension Environmental Assessment Study (TS1325), to increase the scope of work to include preliminary design:

 

a)         the value of the McCormick Rankin Corporation assignment for the environmental assessment BE INCREASED by $316,292 to $606,142, excluding H.S.T., for the said project; it being noted that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is committed to funding 100% of this cost increase; and,

 

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012.

 

9.

2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3: Centre Street / Centre Crescent Reconstruction (Tender No. T12-09)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3, for Centre Street and Centre Crescent reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3765-12):

 

a)         the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Limited (Bre-Ex), 247 Exeter Road, London Ontario, N6L 1A5, at its corrected tendered price of $1,481,873.15, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #3 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex was the lowest of ten (10) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         R.V. Anderson Associates (RVA), 557 Southdale Road E., Ste. 200, London, Ontario, N6E 1A2, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $161,491.00, excluding H.S.T.; it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

 

c)         minor future additional annual operating costs of $250.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Wastewater and Treatment operating budgets;

 

d)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

f)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-09); and,

 

g)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.  (2012-S07-00)

 

10.

2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #1: Maitland Street North Reconstruction (Tender No. T12-10)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #1, for the Maitland Street North reconstruction project (ES2464-12, EW3765-11):

 

a)         the bid submitted by 291 Construction Ltd., 2675 Elgin Road, Dorchester Ontario, N0L 1E6, at its corrected tendered price of $2,188,501.66, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #1 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by 291 Construction Ltd. was the lowest of nine (9) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         Development Engineering (London) Ltd., #71 – 41 Adelaide Street North, London, Ontario, N6B 3P4, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $136,684.35, excluding H.S.T.; it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

 

c)         minor future additional annual operating costs of $100.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Wastewater and Treatment operating budgets;

 

d)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

f)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-10); and,

 

g)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.  (2012-S07-00)

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clauses 11 to 20, except clause 19.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS:  J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Clauses 11 to 20, except clause 19, read as follows:

 

11.

Replacement of Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter and Hot Mix Asphalt (Tender 12-21)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award the replacement of sidewalks, curb and gutter and hot mix asphalt:

 

a)         the bid submitted by Coco Paving Inc., 1865 Clarke Road, London, Ontario, N5X3Z6, at its tendered price of $3,728,382.50, excluding H.S.T., BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Coco Paving Inc. was the lowest of five (5) bids and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Finance Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

 

d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to these matters of this approval.

 

12.

Fanshawe Park Road and Highbury Avenue Intersection Widening (Tender No. 12-28)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the Fanshawe Park Road and Highbury Avenue intersection widening (TS1475):

 

a)         the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited, 31 Exeter Road, London, Ontario, N6L 1B6, at its modified tendered price of $7,281,047.30, excluding H.S.T., for the Fanshawe Park Road and Highbury Avenue intersection widening project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         Delcan Corporation, 1069 Wellington Road South, Suite 214, London, Ontario, N6E 2H6, BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers for the contract administration and resident supervision of the said project in the amount of $432,608, excluding H.S.T., in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

 

c)         the consulting fee for the project identified in (b), above, which is in accordance with the estimate on file, and which is based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers BE APPROVED;

 

d)         future additional Transportation annual operating costs of $12,550, Water annual operating costs of $1,800, and Sewer annual operating costs of $1,000 BE APPROVED, as a first priority commitment from available assessment growth in 2013, subject to final budget approval;

 

e)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

g)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract and issuing purchase order(s) for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-28);

 

h)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to the above recommendations.  (2012-S09-02)

 

13.

2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5: Talbot and Barton Streets Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-33)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5, for the Talbot Street and Barton Street reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3787-11, TS1446-12, TS4067-12):

 

a)         the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Limited (Bre-Ex), 247 Exeter Road, London, Ontario, N6L 1A5, at its corrected tendered price of $3,021,916.27, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #5 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex was the lowest of eight (8) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         Spriet Associates London Limited, 155 York Street, London, Ontario, N6A 1A8, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the remainder of design and to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $267,399.00, excluding H.S.T., it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

 

c)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

e)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-33); 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. (2012-S07-00)

 

14.

A.J. Tyler Water and Sewer Building Interior Fit Out - Project No. TS6200-12/ES2071/ES5164/EW3105 (Tender No. 12-34)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Assets and the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the A.J. Tyler water and sewer building interior fit out project:

 

a)         the bid submitted by Cobrell Company Ltd., 4837 White Oak Road, London, Ontario, N6E 3V7, at its tendered price of $1,007,588.00, excluding H.S.T., for the A.J. Tyler water and sewer building interior fit out BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Cobrell Company Ltd., was the lowest of six (6) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the contractor for the work; and,

 

e)         future additional annual operating costs of $22,000 BE CONSIDERED as a first priority from available assessment growth in 2013 subject to final budget approval.  (2012-A09-00)

 

15.

2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9: Burnside Drive Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-49)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9, for the Burnside Drive reconstruction project (ES2414-12, EW3765-11, TS3014-12 & TS3037-12):

 

a)         the bid submitted by Robuck Contracting, 2326 Fanshawe Park Road East, London Ontario, N5X 4A2, at its tendered price of $1,480,000.00, excluding H.S.T., for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Contract #9 project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Robuck Contracting was the lowest of eight (8) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

d)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-49); 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. 2012-S07-00)

 

16.

2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, Phase ll Horton Reconstruction (Tender No. 12-29)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Executive Director, Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the 2012 Infrastructure Lifecycle Renewal Program, for Phase II of the Horton Street reconstruction project (TS1446-12, TS1444, ES2464-11, ES2414-12, EW3787-12):

 

a)            the bid submitted by Tri-Con Excavating Incorporated (Tri-Con), 113-4023 Meadowbrook Drive, London, Ontario, N6L 1E7, at its tendered price of $4,675,170.55, excluding H.S.T., for Phase II of the Horton Street reconstruction project, BE ACCEPTED; it being pointed out that the bid submitted by Tri-Con was the lowest of seven (7) bids received and meets the City's specifications and requirements in all areas;

 

b)            Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Limited (AGM), 3514 White Oak Road, London Ontario, N6E 2Z9, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $413,820.00, excluding H.S.T.; it being noted that this firm completed the engineering design, based upon the Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, recommended by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

 

c)         minor future additional annual operating costs of $1,100.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Wastewater and Treatment operating budgets;

 

d)         future additional annual operating costs of $37,000.00 BE RECOGNIZED as a result of this project; it being noted that these costs are a result of new infrastructure installation and will be considered and accommodated within future Parks Operations operating budgets;

 

e)         the SoHo Community Improvement Plan recommendations for streetscape improvements on Horton Street BE APPROVED for implementation with this infrastructure project; it being noted that on June 20, 2011, the Municipal Council resolved that streetscape enhancements, consistent with the SoHo Community Improvement Plan, be included in the scope of the pending Horton Street reconstruction project and that funding enhancements given a high priority for approval;

 

f)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report included as Appendix "A" to the associated staff report, dated April 23, 2012;

 

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

 

h)         the approval hereby BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (Tender 12-29); and,

 

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

 

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee heard the attached presentation from J. Yanchula, Manager, Community Planning and Urban Design, M. Tomazincic, Planner II and U. DeCandido, Environmental Service Engineer, and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

 

  • W. Russell, 285 Simcoe Street, dated April 19, 2012;
  • M. D. Woodward, 142 Waterloo Street, dated April 20, 2012;
  • E. Innes, Simcoe Street, dated April 20, 2012;
  • A. Gibb, 19-374 Simcoe Street, dated April 22, 2012;
  • N. Hamm, by e-mail, dated April 20, 2012; and,
  • J. Verdam-Woodward, 142 Waterloo Street, dated April 23, 2012. (2012-S07-00)

 

17.

Solid Waste Management Updates

 

That the report dated April 23, 2012, from the Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, with respect to solid waste management updates BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Civic Works Committee heard the attached presentation from the Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, with respect to this matter.

 

18.

Request for Annual General Meeting

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

 

a)         the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as part of the Municipal Council meeting on May 22, 2012, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

 

b)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2011 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc., and to invite the Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Shareholder Declaration; and,

 

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 13, 2012, from P. C. Johnson, Chair, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

 

20.

Central Thames Subwatershed Study Update

 

That a verbal report from B. Krichker, Manager, Stormwater, with respect to the schedule for a water resource and slope stability component of the Central Thames Subwatershed Study’s area, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the assignment of the Consultant for this matter will go to the Planning and Environment Committee on May 28, 2012.

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clause 19.

 

19.

Traffic Concerns in the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens Area

 

That, the request for delegation status from S. Craig, 281 Blackacres Boulevard, with respect to the traffic safety concerns in the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Gardens area, BE DENIED; it being noted that the Civic Works Committee asked that the Civic Administration meet with Mr. Craig and the neighbourhood group to address this matter.  (2012-S09-00)

 

Motion Failed

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve that the Civic Works Committee BE REQUESTED to receive a delegation from Steven Craig on behalf of the Blackacres Boulevard and Yew Tree Garden neighbourhood at their meeting of May 14, 2012, with respect to traffic safety issues; it being noted that delegations shall speak no longer than a 5 minute period, without leave of the Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

10th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

                        Councillor B. Polhill presents

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clauses 1 to 11, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Clauses 1 to 11, inclusive, read as follows:

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

 

2.

2nd Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee

 

That, the 2nd Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 21, 2012 BE RECEIVED.

 

3.

Property located at 1878 Highbury Avenue North and 1411 Fanshawe Park Road East (H-8011)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner of Development Services, based on the application by Armoclan Engineering, (on behalf of Mac’s Convenience Stores Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1878 Highbury Avenue North & 1411 Fanshawe Park Road East, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (h-131*h-132*ASA5(4)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA5(4)) Zone, to remove the holding provision.  (2012-D11-01)

 

4.

Building Division Monthly Report for February 2012

 

That the Building Division Monthly Report for February 2012 BE RECEIVED.

 

5.

Emerald Ash Borer - Tobin Court

 

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the concerns raised by the Westmount Rate Payers Association with respect to London’s emerald ash borer strategy and implementation of the program:

 

a)         a moratorium BE PLACED on the cutting of ash trees, unless they pose a safety hazard, until such time as the Civic Administration reports back on the communications dated April 9, March 27 and April 16, 2012, from the Westmount Rate Payers Association; it being noted that the Civic Administration met with the Westmount Rate Payers Association on March 14, 2012 to discuss and respond to the issues and those comments will be included in the Civic Administration’s response back; and,

 

b)         a special meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE HELD on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, to receive a legal opinion on the proposed moratorium on tree cutting;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard the attached presentation and reviewed and received communications, dated April 9 and March 27, 2012, and the attached communication, dated April 16, 2012, from the Westmount Hills Residents Association, with respect to this matter.

 

6.

Northridge Village Phase II Subdivision (39T-11501)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Tridon Properties Limited, for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 10, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the west side of Stackhouse Avenue, on the north side of Fanshawe Park Road West, municipally referred to as 1100 Fanshawe Park Road East:

 

a)         the attached, revised, Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Tridon Properties Limited for the Northridge Village Phase 2 (39T-11501) BE APPROVED;

 

b)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated March 30, 2012;

 

c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the subject Subdivision Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions; and,

 

d)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘B’ to the associated staff report, dated March 30, 2012;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from P. Hine and D. De Jong, Tridon Properties Limited and J. Ross, 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East, with respect to this matter.   (2012-D26-06)

 

 

7.

Shaver-Brockley Coalition

 

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the request of the Shaver-Brockley Coalition for the implementation of a South Central Area Plan:

 

a)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, after meeting with the area residents, regarding the options available, either through a separate area study or as part of the Official Plan review, including the staff resources required to undertake the work; and,

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider options that can be brought forward as part of the Southwest Area Plan to address the community concerns raised by the residents of the Shaver-Brockley Coalition;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from Roma-Lynn Gillis and David Gillis, 2753 Dingman Drive and Alan Tipping, 2809 Dingman Drive and reviewed and received a communication, dated March 29, 2012, from the Shaver-Brockley Coalition, with respect to this matter. (D-012-D11-09)

 

8.

Properties located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street (OZ-7999)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Knutson Development Consultants Limited relating to the properties located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street:

 

a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend the Official Plan to change the existing “Low Density Residential” designation of the subject lands by ADDING a special policy in Chapter 10 - “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit a ‘rental and repair establishment’, including the repair, maintenance and provision of filters for HVAC equipment; and,

 

b)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the properties located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street FROM a Residential (R3-2) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, triplex dwellings, converted dwellings and fourplex dwellings TO a Residential/Light Industrial Special Provision (R3-2/LI8(  )) Zone, to recognize existing industrial uses and add ‘repair and rental establishment’ to the list of permitted uses;

 

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.   (2012-D11-04)

 

9.

Amend Section 4.14 of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (Z-7891)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change Zoning By-law Z.-1 Section 4.14 as follows:

 

a)         deleting the last paragraph of Section 4.14; and,

 

 

b)         inserting in its place, “In the case of a road widening dedication, the land that will be dedicated shall be included in any calculation for the purpose of determining lot area, coverage, height, parking, landscaped open space, floor area, floor area ratio and density provided any building or structure is located wholly within the boundary of the land remaining after the dedication”;

 

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.    (2012-D11-02)

 

10.

Properties located at 497-499 Central Avenue (Z-8008)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Filipe Abrantes and Daniel McFadden relating to the property located at 497-499 Central Avenue:

 

a)         the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 1, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, triplex dwellings, converted dwellings, and four-plex dwellings TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-2( )) Zone, to permit the above listed uses and add a multiple dwelling with a maximum of 5-dwelling units as a permitted use and regulations that:  limit the maximum number of bedrooms per unit to 3; permit a maximum of two, 3-bedroom dwelling units; permit a minimum lot area of 600m2; permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.0m; permit a minimum east exterior side yard of 3.6m; permit a minimum rear yard of 6.0m; permit a minimum west interior side yard of 3.0m; permit a minimum landscaped open space coverage of 30%; permit a maximum lot coverage of 44%; permit a maximum height of 12.0m; permit a maximum parking area coverage of 25%; limit the maximum setback from Central Avenue to 1.0m; with a minimum of 1 parking space per dwelling unit as a special provision to the zone;

 

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

 

i)          the construction of a specified building design which is in accordance with the illustrations included as Appendix “B”;

ii)          existing brick to be reused on proposed new building;

iii)         existing roof pitches to be replicated (with the exception of the existing front gables); and,

iv)        windows to be of a 6 over 6 design with a wood clad finish;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     Filipe Abrantes, co-owner – expressing support for the application; advising that the owners have worked closely with Mr. Wes Kinghorn, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage and D. Menard, Heritage Planner on this application; and that they are making the building use legal.

·                     Barry Francis, 503 Central Avenue – expressing concern with the number of units and the amount of parking; indicating that parking on lawns in this area is a frequent occurrence; and advising that there is not enough parking for the number of units in this building.

·                     Gord Hale, 66 Palace Street – advising that parking is a big deal; indicating that there are constantly vehicles parked all over the property; advising that it is an absolute mess; indicating that the property needs more than four parking spots.

·                     Wes Kinghorn, President, Woodfield Community Association – advising that Woodfield is in the top 8 of the best neighbourhoods in the country; advising that the house is a hazard; indicating that the saving of houses is a top priority of the Woodfield Community Association; advising that the developer worked with the community; advising that both sides have compromised; indicating that the owners will be using the brick from the current residence; advising that streetscapes are an important part of a Heritage Conservation District; indicating that East Woodfield is one of the best examples of Victorian architecture; indicating that the building is currently a fiveplex; advising that they achieved an answer that is profitable for the developer, satisfies the community and is a win-win situation for everyone.

·                     Admar, 555 York Street – indicating that they have five parking spots on the lot as they will be using the garage on the lot; advising that there are three-one bedroom units and two-two bedroom units.   (2012-D11-03)

 

11.

ReThink London

 

That the ReThink London event to be held on May 3, 2012 BE NOTED.

 

 

11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee (Continued)

                        Councillor B. Polhill presents

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

Motion made by Councill B. Polhill to Note that no pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

                        Councillor B. Polhill presents

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve Clauses 1 and 2.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

NAYS: J.L. Baechler (1)

 

Clauses 1 and 2, read as follows:

 

1.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

 

No pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

2.

Emerald Ash Borer Strategy and Issues Related to Tobin Court

 

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Westmount Hills Residents Association’s concerns relating to the emerald ash borer:

 

a)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue with the implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer Strategy that was adopted by the Municipal Council at its meeting held on October 3, 2011;

 

b)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to utilize a temporary signage program to advise neighbourhoods, in advance, that Emerald Ash Borer removal will be occurring in their neighbourhood and directing residents to the Emerald Ash Borer web site;

c)             

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to determine the legal and financial impact of property owners injecting infested trees on their properties, at their expense and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; and,

 

the attached presentation from the Westmount Hills Residents Association BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

 

7th Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee

                        Councillor J.B. Swan presents

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clauses 1 to 3, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (2)

 

Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, read as follows:

 

1.

No pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

No pecuniary interests are disclosed.

 

 

2.

“Hire One” Initiative

 

That, on the recommendation of the Interim City Manager, the following actions  be taken with respect to the “Hire One” Initiative:

 

a)         the attached proposal presented to the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee at its meeting held March 5, 2012, entitled “Moving Londoners Forward: A Call to Active Opportunity”, BE ENDORSED;

 

b)         the Civic Administration and the London Economic Development Corporation BE DIRECTED to develop a Work Plan, including implementation, with respect to this Initiative; it being noted that this work can begin immediately;

 

c)         the Working Plan BE INTEGRATED into the overall Work Plan of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee;

 

d)         the Civic Administration, in developing the Work Plan, BE DIRECTED to  consider the role of community groups in this work, including, but not necessarily limited to London Economic Development Corporation, London Middlesex Immigrant Employment Council, Chamber of Commerce, Tech Alliance, Small Business Centre, Human Resource Professionals Association – London and District Chapter, Employment Sector Council – London-Middlesex, Pillar Not for Profit, Fanshawe  College and Western University;

 

e)         consideration BE GIVEN to convening a “What Works to Work” forum as part of the public input process being proposed by the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee;  and,

 

f)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee with respect to the feasibility of a Business Prosperity Centre;

 

it being noted that the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee heard a presentation from Councillor Hubert and received the attached communication from C. Stewart, Employment Sector Council London-Middlesex Job Developers Network with respect to this matter; it being further noted that the Hire One Initiative is a communications and marketing plan to connect business and service providers.

 

3.

Timelines - Expression of Interest - Economic Development Initiatives

 

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary arrangements to hold a Special Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee meeting on Saturday, June 9, 2012 to receive Expressions of Interest from the community with respect to economic prosperity initiatives.

 

IX

DEFERRED MATTERS

 

None.

 

X

ENQUIRIES

 

None.

 

XI

EMERGENT MOTIONS

 

1.

Councillor White and Councillor Swan - Review of Council and Standing Committee Schedule

 

 

Motion made by Councillor S.E. White and seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve that pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of an emergent motion with respect to the Council and Standing Committee schedule.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Councillor S.E. White and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the City Clerk, in consultation with the Senior Management Team, BE DIRECTED to review the current Standing Committee structure and current meeting schedule and provide possible options to address concerns with respect to the frequency and length of Council and Standing Committee meetings.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe (2)

 

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law leave be given for the introduction of an emergent motion with respect to the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to make the necessary arrangements for a Special Council Meeting at a date and time to be determined to deal with a matter pertaining to employee negotiations including personal information about identifiable individuals with respect to employment-related matters, advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

XII

BY-LAWS

 

BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME:

 

 

Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant and seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve 1st reading of Bills No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve 2nd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve 3rd reading of Bill No.’s 191 to 216, inclusive.

 

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

The following by-laws are passed and enacted as a by-law of The Corporation of the City of London:

 

Bill No. 191, By-law No. A.-

 

A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 1st day of May, 2012. (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 192, By-law No. A.-

 

A by-law to approve the Amending Agreement to the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Amending Agreement. (5/13/FASC)

 

Bill No. 193, By-law No. A.-

 

A by-law to authorize an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Old Oak Properties Inc,; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6/13/FASC)

 

Bill No. 194, By-law No. A.-5896(o)-

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-5896-233 entitled, “A by-law to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London.” (Manager of By-law Enforcement)

 

Bill No. 195, By-law No. A-41-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. A-41 entitled, “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London.” (10/13/FASC)

 

Bill No. 196, By-law No. C.P.-1284(sf)-

 

A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989, relating to 176 and 184 Rectory Street. (8/10/PEC)

 

Bill No. 197, By-law No. C.P.-

 

A by-law to exempt from Part Lot Control, lands located on the south side of Silverfox Crescent, at Denview Avenue, legally described as part of Block 80 in Registered Plan 33M-564, more particularly described as Parts 1-10 in Plan 33R18248 in the City of London and County of Middlesex. (8/8/BNEC-2011)

 

Bill No. 198, By-law No. D.-

 

A by-law to authorize the borrowing upon amortizing debentures in the principal amount of $2,000,000.00 towards the cost of certain capital works of The Corporation of the City of London. (2/13/FASC)

 

Bill No. 199, By-law No. PS-111-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law PS-111 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (4/7/CWC)

 

Bill No. 200, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to permit Fort Chicago District Energy Ltd. to maintain and use an encroachment over the easement registered as instrument number 925510Z. (City Solicitor)

 

 

 

Bill No. 201, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to permit the London Potters Guild to maintain and use an encroachment upon the road allowance for Dundas Street, City of London. (City Solicitor)

 

Bill No. 202, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (As widening to Fanshawe Park Road East, east of Highbury Avenue North) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 203, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (As widening to Glanworth Drive, east of Highbury Avenue South) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 204, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (For the purpose of a public walkway for pedestrian use only, north of Meadowsweet Rail; And for the purpose of a public walkway for pedestrian use only, south of Meadowsweet Trial) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 205, By-law No. S.-

 

A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Skyway Industrial Park – Phase 1; Plan No. 33M-530) (Director of Water Engineering and City Engineer)

 

Bill No. 206, By-law No. Z.-1-122101

 

A by-law to amend Section 4.14, the Lots Reduced by Public Acquisition of By-law No. Z.-1. (9/10/PEC)

 

Bill No. 207, By-law No. Z.-1-122102

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 176 and 184 Rectory Street. (8/10/PEC)

 

Bill No. 208, By-law No. Z.-1-122103

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to remove the holding provisions from the zoning for an area of land located at 1878 Highbury Avenue North & 1411 Fanshawe Park Road East. (3/10/PEC)

 

Bill No. 209, By-law No. Z.-1-122104

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area o land located at 497-499 Central Avenue. (10/10/PEC)

 

Bill No. 210, By-law No. A-1-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. A-1 entitled, “A by-law to provide for the Execution of certain documents.” (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 211, By-law No. B-1-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. B-1 entitled, “A by-law to provide for the Naming of Highways and the Numbering of Buildings and Lots.” (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 212, By-law No. CP-7-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. CP-7 entitled, ““A by-law to provide for the City of London and the London Consent Authority.” (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 213, By-law No. CP-17-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. CP-17 entitled, “A by-law to delegate certain portions of Council’s assigned authority with respect to approvals for plans of subdivision and condominium pursuant to the Planning Act.” (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 214, By-law No. C.P.-1363()-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. C.P.-1363-381 entitled, “A by-law to prohibit and regulate the placing or dumping of fill and the alteration of the grade of land in defined areas of the City of London.” (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 215, By-law No. C.P.-1455()-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. C.P.-1455-541 entitled, “A by-law to designate a site plan control area and to delegate Council's power under Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.” (City Clerk)

 

 

 

Bill No. 216, By-law No. C.P.-1470()-amend

 

A by-law to amend By-law. C.P.-1470-218 entitled, “A by-law to delegate the authority to require an applicant to provide information and material in support of the various Planning Act applications.” (City Clerk)

 

XIII

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA (continued)

 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera for the purpose of considering the following:

 

 

a)

A matter pertaining to personal matters, including information regarding identifiable individual(s), including municipal employees, with respect to employment-related matters, advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose.  (12/FASC)

 

b)

A matter pertaining to employee negotiations including personal information about identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to employment-related matters, advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.  (12/FASC)

 

c)

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose relating to the Corporation's association and unions.  (13/FASC)

 

d)

A matter pertaining to the purpose of instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition of land and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, as it relates to property located at 940 Springbank Drive.

 

e)

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, as it relates to property located at 940 Springbank Drive.

 

f)

A matter pertaining to legal advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with a legal opinion sought by the Planning and Environment Committee arising from a delegation by the Westmount Hills Residents Association.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

The Council rises and goes into Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 11:55 PM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.

 

The Committee of the Whole rises and Council resumes in public session at 12:29 AM.

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for purpose of considering a matter pertaining to legal advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with a legal opinion sought by the Planning and Environment Committee arising from a delegation by the Westmount Hills Residents.

 

Motion Passed

 

The Council rises and goes into Committee of the Whole, in camera at 12:30 AM with Mayor J. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present.

 

The Committee of the Whole rises and Council resumes into public session at 12:35 AM.

 

8th Report of the Committee of the Whole

                        Councillor D.G. Henderson presents

 

PRESENT:  Mayor J. Fontana, Councillors B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White and C. Saunders (City Clerk).

 

 

ALSO PRESENT (6:30 PM) J. Braam, M. Hayward, J.P. Barber, J.M. Fleming, B. Henry, G.T. Hopcroft, T.A. Johnson, G. Kotsifas, B. Kirchker, V. McAlea Major, E. Mogck, D. Mounteer, J. Page, L.M. Rowe, M. Turner, B. Warner and B. Westlake-Power.

 

ALSO PRESENT: (11:55 PM)  J. Braam, M. Hayward, J.P. Barber, J.M. Fleming, G.T. Hopcroft, T.A. Johnson, G. Kotsifas, V. McAlea Major, D. Mounteer, L.M. Rowe, B. Warner and B. Westlake-Power.

 

Motion moved by Councillor D.G. Henderson and seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that, as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

 

That, clause 2 of the 11th report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE AMENDED in part c) by replacing part c) in its entirety and replacing it with the following new part c):

 

c)   that NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to the potential for the purchase of the land or the potential for a land swap.

 

Motion Passed

 

XIV

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Adjourn.

 

Motion Passed

 

The Meeting adjourned at 12:40 AM on May 2, 2012.

 

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                          Joe Fontana, Mayor

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                          Catharine Saunders, City Clerk

 

No Item Selected