Hey >> yo. Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, welcome to the June 2nd meeting of council. This is the ninth meeting of council this session. Uh I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement. Uh we are we acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek Honok and Adawandron peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the trees that are specific to this area. The two row wamp and belt treaty of the hodnon confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the hodnoni nanfan treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790. The London township treaty of 1796. The heron track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnabek and Hoden. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipuis the temps first nation onida nation of the tempames and the myy delaware nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages cultures and customs. I also wanted to add that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda or 519-6612489 extension 2425. And now it's my pleasure to introduce uh the national anthem singer. Uh Kristen Renee is a country pop singer songwriter from right here in London, Ontario. This past March marked the 20th year of uh tuning, excuse me. This past March marked the 20th year of tuning turning real life experiences into relatable songs. Now entering a new chapter as an independent artist, she's back with new music and a fresh perspective. Her upcoming single Waves is set to roll in this summer make marking uh make sorry marking an exciting return to the studio. Kristen is also a past recipient of the contemporary singer songwriter award at the Forest City London Music Awards. Uh they kick off the Forest City London Music Week this Friday. Please rise and join me in welcoming Kristen who will now sing the national anthem for us. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patri love in love. With glowing hearts we see they rise the true north strong and free from far and wide. Oh Canada, we stand on God for thee. God keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Okay, we're going to move to disclosures of pecunary interest. I'll look for any disclosures. Go ahead, councelor Frank. Thank you. On the CAPS uh report item 8.2, item 5 2.4 uh Towns Valley District School Board in the city of London joint use of facilities agreement. I have an indirect uh conflict as my spouse is currently employed by the school board. Okay. Other uh sorry uh disclosures of pecular interest. Okay. Seeing none, uh I'm going to move to the podium for the first recognition. Uh and then uh I'll do second back here and then I'll look for any others after that. So just give me one sec. Okay. Um, I'm going to have going to have Jamie Lynn Easter and any loved ones you'd or friends you'd like to bring up with you to come up to the front. Sometimes I read it and then I bring it up afterwards, but I I want you to be up here while we say all these nice things about you. Uh, cuz today is a day that we get to present the Tim Hickman Award. Uh, and I want to stand here today in recognition of Jam Lester, uh, who is this year's recipient recipient of the Tim Hickman Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship. Uh Tim Hickman lost his life while serving his community at just 21 years old. The scholarship was established in 2006 to honor his memory by reinforcing the importance of health and safety in every workplace throughout our community. As mayor, you're not just a public representative. You're the head of an organization that employs thousands of people. So I know that there is no greater responsibility than ensuring that each of our people return home safely at the end of each workday. Tim's legacy is ensures that we make that commitment matter and matter with meaning. We must continue to build a culture of health and safety which are always a priority and this year's recipient truly em embodies everything that that means. Jaime Lin Easter recently graduated from the Bachelor of Science and Nursing program at the University of Windsor and brings experience across a wide range of healthcare settings including medical surgical care, uh, maternal newborn health, mental health, and community care. Inspired by her nursing education and experiences as a mother, Jaime has a strong interest in injury prevention, health promotion, particularly for children and other vulnerable members of our community. Her commitment to building knowledge and taking practical action reflects the kind of leadership and dedication that this scholarship was made for. Jamie, thank you for the work that you've already done and for the impact you will continue to have throughout your career. Our community will be stronger and safer because of people like you. I also want to thank QP Local 107 and the Hickman family for their ongoing support of this scholarship. So Tim's memory continues to educate future generations and build a safer London for all. Congratulations Jamie and congratulations to everyone who has helped make this scholarship possible, not just this year, but over all of the years. And Jamie, I don't know if you wanted to share a few words. I didn't put you on the spot. I asked ahead of time. So you want to share a couple thoughts? >> I just want to say >> right right up here. So people >> Hi. I just want to say thank you guys for choosing me as this year's recipient. I truly enjoyed learning more and more about Tim and uh developing the arena safety education program and I'm excited to see how far we can take this. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> We're looking for a picture here. So, Okay, thank you. In case you're wondering, she got her check earlier. So, um, we took care of that. It's might already be in the bank. So, all right, I'll return to my station here. Okay, colleagues, I have two other uh recognitions to do and then I'll look for any other members of council who'd like to do one. Uh two of them relate to um June 6th, which is uh this coming weekend. This is the closest council meeting to that date. And the first recognition I want to do is for uh D-Day. Uh we know if you've been in city hall and you've traveled to the the first floor, um our city has a deep history of military service. Um we have uh multiple active military branches uh in our city today. Uh we have many vibrant veterans community and legions across the city. And each year on D-Day, we recognize those who sacrificed and gave the greatest sacrifice to help liberate Europe in one of the greatest battles that the world has ever seen. Um, the force was relentless. The courage was unimaginable. and for the men and women who served on that day. We cannot thank them enough for turning the tide of the war and leading to the widespread um democratic freedoms and countries that live freely and openly across the globe today who uh are able to do so. I think as we reflect on those sorts of days, each of us have this great honor to serve in this chamber in public office and we get to cast votes and we get to make decisions as we will today at council. And we have to always pause and remember that our free and open democracy that we practice right here in this council chambers uh is earned uh with the sacrifice of those who serve uh our military branches, those who support them and those who have contributed over decades and generations uh of protecting this country and this democracy. So, uh, I wanted to, um, I want to recognize, uh, that today because it's coming up this weekend. The other significant recognition in our community, uh, is for our London family. Uh, and this is the fifth anniversary of the tragic terrorist attack that happened, uh, in the northwest corner of our city. Um uh I know many members of council will be there um this weekend uh to reflect, to memorialize, and to think about uh our London family and the family members that we lost. A family who was simply going for a walk down the street crossing South Carriage Road in Hyde Park. A family who enjoyed gardening. A family who we've recognized multiple years. and a community that is greatly impacted by the loss of those members. Not just because of the onslaught of Islamophobia and hate that that act of terrorism represented, but the loss of caring, valuable, committed community members who made so many contributions to this community in so many ways. There are murals in this city. There are gardens. there are there are impacts on lives in that neighborhood um that ended on that horrific day. Um I was the word counselor um at the time and I remember the great impact that it had on the neighborhood. You know, people people were shocked that this kind of thing could have happened just down the road from where people live and people play near a municipal park. Um it it had such a a profound wide impact that it quickly spread nationally for the impacts that that that had. And we've seen acts of hate again and again in this country and other parts of the world. And I think June 6, especially a significant um recognition like the fifth year, is a chance for us to recommmit to stomping out hate in all of its forms, whether it's Islamophobia, anti-semitism, uh bigotry, sexism, those sorts of things have no place in a community like London. And we have so many things to be proud of because the way the community came together in the aftermath of that, the way the multiffaith community came together is something that inspired many people not just in this city but across this nation. And so um I just want everybody I'm going to ask for actually a moment of silence for the family members we lost and we can add that to the moment of silence for um D-Day as well. But um we'll take a moment of silence and I know that it'll be a somber a somber weekend for for us here in the four cities. Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Are there any other recognitions? Okay, I just want to recognize a number of colleagues have joined us online as well. Uh we have councelor Ferrer, uh deputy mayor Lewis, councelor Pelosa, and councelor Hillier as well. Um so they'll be participating uh remotely today. Uh appreciate uh appreciate their presence uh if not in the chambers but virtually. Uh okay we'll work through the uh agenda today which means we're on to um item three review of confidential matters be considered in public. There are none. That brings us to council and close session. There are three matters for which we need to go into close session for. I'll look for a motion to go into close session for colleagues. Councelor Van Mayer Bergen seconded by councelor Hopkins. Any discussion on close session? Okay, we'll open that for voting. >> Trusso votes yes. Noted. Thank you. >> Councelor Frank votes yes. >> Noted. Councelor Lewis. Second call for councelor Lewis. >> Working on it for Eastcribe, but councelor Lewis will vote yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Okay. Uh we'll go to committee room 5 for those members of the public. Um we'll return uh shortly after we're done in camera session. Okay, please be seated. Okay, that concludes our inc camera session. We're on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes. We have the minutes from the 8th meeting which was held on May 12th, 2026. I'll look for a mover. Councelor Virburg and seconded by councelor McAllister. Any discussion on the minutes? >> Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Councelor Lewis, councelor Trusso, >> I'm still having problems with the scribe. Councelor Lewis votes yes. >> Yes, me too. Um, uh, councelor Traso votes yes. Councelor Traso. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 14 to zero. >> Okay, that's on to communications and petitions. Uh, you'll see we have five items before us. The first two relate to um expropriation of lands. So, we're going to deal with those two first and then we can move to a motion to refer the other items into the relevant sections of the agenda. Okay, colleagues. Um so we're going to uh go through the expropriation uh process which means we'll um first consider a motion that council convene as the approving authority pursuant to the provisions of the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 as amended for the purpose of considering communication number two from the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with respect to the appropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway project civil works-phase 2. So this is the motion. I'm going to look for a mover and a seconder for us to sit uh and convene as the approving authority. Councelor Cuddy seconded by councelor Frank. We'll open that for voting. >> Trust votes yes. Close on the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. Okay. Uh I now I'm going to ask for a mover and a seconder for the following motion and then there is a delegation that's been requested uh on the matter. Uh so I'll read the motion out and then I'll look for a mover in a seconder. uh that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment infra and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as Wellington gateway project the following actions be taken. A the council of the corporation of city of London as the approving authority pursuant to the appropriations act RSO 1990 section E26 as amended hereby approves the proposed expropriation of lands as described in schedule A attached here too in the city of London County of Middle Sex. It being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows. Um I subject lands are required by the corporation of the city of London for the Wellington Gateway project. I I the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor and I I the design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for the Wellington gateway uh project approved by municipal council at its meeting held May 21st 2019 and b subject to the approval of a above certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in the prescribed form. It being noted that a request for a hearing of necessity in relations to parts 5,67 and 8 on plan 33R 22025 and part 9 on plan 33R22025 was received and a hearing was conducted on April 8th and 9th 2026. The findings and opinion of the inquiry officer are attached hereto as schedule B. I'll look for a mover and a seconder for that motion. Councelor Frank, seconded by Councelor Trussau. So with that uh motion on the floor, um I can uh turn it over to hear the delegation on the matter. Uh and I believe they're joining us virtually. And so if you could you could introduce yourselves and then uh we will hear the delegation on the matter. So go ahead. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Can you hear me? >> Absolutely. You're coming through loud and clear. >> Excellent. Thank you. My name is Brendan O' Callahan and I'm a partner here at Erin Burles. Um I represent Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings which is the owner of the mall located at 387 and 401 uh Wellington Road in the city. I'm an expropriation litigation lawyer and I've been uh involved in this file now with city staff and others for over a year. I've submitted a letter. It's on your agenda and if you haven't read it yet, I I commend it to you. I'm going to touch on a couple of the highlights in that letter. Um the central issue that my client has uh Mr. Mayor is that in the process of the expropriation um staff have made the determination that they would like to eliminate what my client currently enjoys in terms of access onto Wellington Road. My client currently has a full movements access onto Wellington Road, which as you know means that cars can make a left or a right in and a left or a right out. Staff are proposing in the context of the expropriation to take away that existing uh full moves access and replace it with a right in right out only, which is very significant uh to my client. And I want to I want to start off as well by being very clear with you and the members of council that my client is not in any way opposed to the BRT project. The BRT project is a is necessary and important project. We're not trying to slow it down or change it. All we are looking for, Mr. Mayor, in the process is the opportunity to retain our existing full movements access. And the change is significant as proposed by staff because it will set up a very very substantial injurious affection claim. The expropriations act allows a number of different types of damages to be sought against the expropriating authority in this case the city of London. And in this circumstance the injurious affection claim is very dramatic. Um what injurious affection means is is not the market value of the lands that are expropriated which in this circumstance are not are not that extensive but the the loss to the remaining lands that are of the mall that are not expropriated is dramatic. My client has retained both an appraiser and uh a transportation consultant to estimate that amount. The amount has been identified in the letter as being a minimum of $12 million, which is very significant. And the way that we have calculated that is that the loss of access will discourage customers, tenants, and their patrons from coming to and from the mall. Mall patrons have choices. And if they can't access my client's property, they will go to a different mall. They will find a different source. And that will result over the long term of a loss of tenants. It will result in a lower tier of tenants. It will result in longer vacancy periods of tenencies. It will result in lower percentage rents. And those ultimately add up to uh something in excess of $12 million, which is what we would have to claim for if the city is going to pursue the elimination of the full turning movements uh uh expropriation. And so the other the other component that I'll just point out with regard to the injurious affection claim, sir, is that um that's just my client, which is the mall owner. Every one of the 20 tenants would also have the right to bring a claim uh if they lost business as well against the municipality. And of course, that burden has to fall on the taxpayers. The appropriations act is very generous. It the definition of owner actually includes a tenant. And so all of the tenants uh could also bring their own claims. And so what I'm here to ask, sir, is that uh you take what in my respectful submission is a relatively easy and inexpensive uh avenue out, which is to allow my client to keep the full moves. My client is not interested in a large windfall in the term in the form of an injurious affection claim. My client genuinely wants to keep the full turning movement access that it currently enjoys. We have consistently asked staff to formalize the full turning movements access in the form of a signalized intersection in or about the location of the current full movements onto Wellington. Um staff are not inclined to do that. Uh but it is a simple and cost-effective solution. uh a signalized intersection costs less than a half a million dollars. And we have our uh transportation consultants have furthermore determined that the impact of a signalized intersection and a full moves access where my client currently enjoys a full move access will not impact the functioning of the BRT once it's up and running. And so in my respectful submission, that is a win-win for both parties. My client does not want to have to bring a large claim. They want to keep what they already enjoy, which is that full movement access. And again, we're not looking to frustrate the BRT. We just want to keep what we already have and not lose anything and not be forced to bring a large claim. So, I'm I'm simply asking that council direct staff to work with my client to uh formalize the existing full moves access and institute a signalized intersection where we currently enjoy full movements. So, those are my submissions to you today. Uh Mr. mayor and I thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone may have. >> Okay. Thank you. Just give me one second. Okay, I'll see if there's uh any uh questions or debate from any members of council. Councelor Troau. Um thank you through through the chair. Could could staff very briefly uh reiterate in a nutshell the reason why you're not happy with the with the full in out and that you want to limit it. Have have there been accidents? Have we had reports of complaints from motorists or danger to pedestrians? What why are we taking this position? >> So I just before we do that I want to go to the solicitor because I understand the council wants to ask questions about uh signalized intersection. the we're sitting is the approving authority on whether or not under municipal purpose to expropriate a property. So I just want to um I just want to see from the solicitor if that's within the appropriate scope of the approving authority or is that a discussion that's held by municipal council not sitting as the approval authority at a standing committee. >> Uh thank you and through the chair. Uh, I think the approval authority could ask some general questions about um the the reasoning if it assists in uh making the decision. >> Perfect. I just like to double check first to make sure everything's good. So, council has got the question. I'll go to our staff for the answer. >> Go ahead, Miss Dan. >> Thank you. And through the chair. Um, we agree that the Skyline Plaza is an important retail destination in the city. Um, access management is a standard part of designing major arterial and rapid transit corridors. Uh, signalized intersections are typically reserved for major public streets and consolidated access points rather than individual driveway locations. And this approach for rapid transit and for larger arterial corridors is not uh is not unique to London and uh especially used on rapid transit corridors across Ontario and Canadian cities. Uh the key considerations for corridor are corridor function, safety, and transit reliability. Uh these factors guide where full movement access can and cannot be accommodated. In this case, the property will be continued to be served with protected turning movements to access the property at the signalized intersections at both baseline and commissioner road. Over time, users will adjust to new traffic patterns when there's clear signalized access options available. So I can answer any further more detailed questions if needed. Councelor Tro. >> Yes. Well, I thank you for the chair. I think that's a very reasonable response and I don't it it doesn't sound to me as if anything unusual is happening here. I I would be more comfortable if I had a little bit more information about the dangers and perils that are that are being uh presented with the with the full turn. And I'm sure that that must have informed the staff's decision on this. If you're not comfortable giving that, that's that's fine. But basically, we're being we're being threatened with I think it's fair to say we're being threatened with litigation if we don't back down from something that in in in the opinion of our staff is a standard safety feature. And I'm just wondering if there's anything else that could be put on the record to um make us counselors feel more comfortable that we're making the right decision here. I can go back to our engineering staff if they have anything to add based on the council's comments. >> Yes. And through the chair. Uh so the concept of a signalized full movement intersection at this location was considered both during our TPAP environmental assessment and reviewed again through detailed design um including in response to requests received from Skyline and its representatives. Um at each stage of the review the conclusion remained consistent that a signalized intersection at this location was not supported. Um some of the key reasoning behind that one of them is signalized spacing. So the proposed location would result in a signal spacing of approximately 200 meters between the intersections of commissioners and with baseline. Um, our access management guidelines and spacing guidelines for a divided arterial roadway call for a desired spacing of 800 m and a minimum spacing of 400 m. So this would create signal spacing well below that. Uh secondly, a midblock traffic signal wouldn't operate in isolation. So at this location, it would be necessary to um operate this as almost a three signal system between commissioners and baseline. And so essentially adding a third signal doesn't create capacity. It actually divides the available green time amongst the movements and it reduces the efficiency of the entire corridor. It also reduces the efficiency and the effectiveness of transit signal priority which is necessary to support rapid transit along this corridor. And then lastly, pedestrians are best served by using the existing signalized intersections at commissioners and baseline. Um those will include pedestrian focused design features like refuge islands in the center, staged crossings. Adding a new midblock signal in this location would actually require additional pedestrian crossing time without those features and further reduce the signal efficiency of the entire corridor. So these are just some of the main reasons why when we reviewed this situation in each of the design stages um we looked to protect our our access points, consolidate them and uh at this point uh we will look to prioritize the broader objectives of saf safety, traffic operations and transit reliability. >> Councelor Troau, >> thank you. That answers my question. And I have one final question and I'm going to frame it very very carefully because I don't want to be asked to go back into another closed session. So I'm going to keep this very general. Um should should should we agree to allow the full the full turning and there be um accidents accidents is probably the wrong word. Um but there be incidents where people are injured or killed. I would imagine there would be litigation against the city. And I'm not going to ask what the likelihood of that success would be because I don't want to go back into a close session. But I guess my my question is would the mall be willing to um un underwrite um sort of the the defense and payment of any such claims. So the city um would be held harmless and that risk would be absorbed by the uh by the um internal uh mall. >> Council, I I just need to know who you're asking what question to because you made some comments and you asked a question. Just if you could clearly let me know who you're asking what. >> I I I don't think our staff can answer that. So if it would not be out of order, I guess what I'm asking in legal terms is uh is is is is the mall prepared to identify the city for liability and costs resulting from uh their preferred course of action. >> So I'm assuming that question is to me, Mr. Mayor. Um and I'm happy to uh respond to that if that's uh acceptable to you. >> Sure. Yes. Yeah. No, I'm I'm happy to have you respond to that and uh as part of this process um you can be asked questions and so I'll take that as a question from the counselor to you and your willingness to respond. I'll let you respond. I'll just let you know, Mr. O' Callahan, as part of the process, too. I'm not going to allow you to jump in preemptively. We'll let you be asked questions, but I will give you an opportunity at the end to uh provide a summary or or context for anything uh that was said or discussed before we have our vote. So, I just wanted to let you know that that that will be a opportunity afforded to you uh in addition to any questions you're asked. So, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I I will respond to councelor Tuso's question. Um just to be to be very clear, um my client currently enjoys the full turning movements. Um and so that is a right that they that they have today. It is the city that is proposing to take something away. So my client can't possibly be asked to indemnify the city for something that the city is proposing to do to my client. With all due respect, and the other the other point I'd like to make, Mr. Mayor, that you know, I I'm not here uh threatening as as the counselor has suggested. On the contrary, my client um has every right to be fully compensated pursuant to the terms of the appropriations act, whether it be by by money or otherwise. But I've already been very clear that it is my client is not looking for financial compensation. On the contrary, my client just wants to keep what it already has. And I've heard what the city staff have said and I respect the city staff's opinion. Um our own traffic analysis, however, has been that um the impact of maintaining a full turning movement through a signalized intersection where it uh the full turns movements it currently exists would not negatively impact the timing of the BRT. And I understand that is close to a different signal. Um but that is not uncommon in in urban centers. So those are my responses. Uh Mr. Mayor and thank you for the opportunity. >> Yeah. With >> Thank you, Councelor Trrosau. Go ahead. >> With with that, mayor, I my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. Thank you to the staff for for very very clear and I think persuasive uh evidence. I I don't think there's a right, as rights go, to engage in unsafe uh turning practices, and I think it's the obligation of the staff and the city to try to amilarate those. So, I I would applaud you for your work, and I uh I'm not going to disturb this decision. >> Any other comments or questions? Councelor Hopkins. >> Um yes, through you uh to staff. I just want to confirm the access that is being proposed to this development. Are the three accesses still going to be in place uh two off uh Wellington and one off a commissioner? I just would like to have a better understanding. I did hear you say as well that it's going to be a right in and right out but just wanted to have a better understanding what will be or what will be proposed. >> Go ahead. Yes. And through the chair. So, in terms of the existing accesses, there's currently a full access on Commissioner's Road for this property. Um, that is remaining a full access. However, the the standard design element of a rapid transit corridor is the center median. And so, that by installing that essentially takes what is now an unsalized full movement on Wellington and creates it as a now rights in writes out restricted access. However, there are offsets that are coming through the rapid transit design. So, one of the elements that we have is at both baseline and commissioners where both those locations and intersections are served by a full rapid transit shelter and like transit service. Also, as part of that design, there is a protected left turn U-turn movement that will be happening in those locations. So, folks that previously would have been traveling northbound on Wellington looking to make a left turn into what is now a full access on Wellington, will have two options. They can use that protected safe turning movement to turn onto commissioners and then make a right turn into the plaza or they can continue northbound and make a protected U-turn at the baseline intersection and then work their way back southbound and enter rights into the Wellington rights in rights out. So while it's different from what's there today, we are still providing protective safe turning opportunities for folks looking to access that uh plaza. >> Councelor Hopkins Okay, any other speakers questions? I had one colleague ask me why I'm not making people stand. Um that we're sitting as the approval authority, which means there aren't any time limits and there aren't uh there's different set of procedural rules. So, um >> well, I that's why I wait a G-spoke counselor. I'm just kidding. Um so, uh are there any other questions though? Okay. Uh Michelle Callahan, I'm I'm going to let you uh summarize or uh provide any sort of uh context you'd like to before we before we make a decision. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh very briefly, I just reiterate the request. It in my respectful submission, it is a very very simple and cost-effective solution to simply allow my client to keep what it it already has um so that the the mall can continue to function and serve the people of London. Um, so I I do reiterate the request that staff be directed to uh work with us on the full retaining the full turning movements through a signalized intersection. Um, and it is certainly our preference not to have to uh commence a claim pursuant to the expropriations act. So thank you for your time, sir. >> Okay, with that um we've had discussion uh we've asked questions, we've heard from the delegation, we've allowed a summary. Uh at this point there's a moved and seconded uh motion as the approving authority before us. I'm going to open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1. Okay. And now I need to adjourn. A motion to adjurnn as the approving authority and reconvene as municipal council. Look for a motion. Councelor Hopkins, seconded by councelor Van Mirburgen. And this is that the meeting of the approval authority be adjourned and that council reconvene in regular session. Any discussion? Okay, I'm going to call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Okay. And now sitting as municipal counsel um I'm going to look for mover and a seconder of the following recommendation uh which has been made to us uh from the expropriation uh authority or approving authority that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director of construction infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required to the project known as the Wellington gateway project the following actions be taken. A the proposed bylaw attached as appendix A being a bylaw to expropriate lands in the city of London in the county of Middle Sex uh the Wellington Gateway project be introduced at municipal council meeting to be held on June 2nd 2026. B. The civic administration be directed to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing expropriated lands and to register such plans or plans in the appropriate registry uh or land titles offices pursuant to the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 within 3 months of the approving authority granting approval and set of set expropriation. See that the mayor and clerk be authorized to sign on behalf of the expropriating authority the plan or plans uh signed by an Ontario land surveyor showing the expropriated lands and d the mayor and clerk be authorized and directed to execute and serve notices of expropriation required by the expropriations act RSO 1990 C26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the expropriated lands justice not mayor city clerk. >> Oh, sorry. D is just the city clerk. C was the mayor and city clerk. I don't have to do D. Um, so D is just the city clerk. Sorry, I misread that. Okay. And that's the full extent of the motion. I'll look for a mover and a second from council on that matter. I see councelor Troa, seconded by councelor Cuddy. Any discussion on the motion before us? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 131. Okay, that concludes 61 and 62. I have a motion for 6 3 4 and 5 to be distributed to various parts of the agenda uh as reflected on the the matters before us. So, a motion a mover and second for that. Uh, councelor Ramen, seconded by councelor Pribble. Any discussion on moving those items? Okay, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, that concludes six. On to seven motions of which notice is given. There are none. On to reports. 8.1 is the eighth report of the planning and environment committee. Uh and we have six items before us. I'll turn it over to the chair to present the committee report. >> Thank you, mayor. I'm pleased to put the ETH report of planning environment committee on the floor. I've been asked to pull uh item number five. >> Okay. We'll deal with five separate. Anything else separate from colleagues aside from five? Okay. See none, I'll go back to you chair for a motion. >> Thank you. So I will move items 1 through four and number six. >> Okay. 1 through four and six are on the floor. Any discussion on those matters? Okay. Seeing none, we'll open those for voting. Closing the vote. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 140. >> Go ahead, Chair. >> Thank you. And uh I'll uh put item number five uh on the floor. Councelor Hopkins requested that be pulled. >> Okay. Item five is on the floor. I'll look for any discussion. Councelor Hopkins, would you like to go first? >> Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you uh your worship uh for allowing me to speak to this. Um there is a referral from the committee to refer this application to a future planning and environment committee to allow the applicant to consider the consolidation of additional lands to the subject property. I'm going to be asking council not to support the referral and if it is supported I will be putting on staff's recommendation which is to refuse it. And the reasons why I would encourage council uh not to support the referral is this has come to us a second time. The first referral was uh the application was for a 12th story. The referral was sent back. came back to us for a ninth story and now it's being referred back and I would like to say that this is a substantial change to this application. Uh we really do not know the extent of what this even means if the devel if the developer is going to be able to purchase the property. uh but it is very substantial and I'd like to address two main reasons why it should not be referred back. It's been a long time since a decision on this application has been made. We open ourselves to as a corporation being vulnerable for a non-decision. I understand that probably won't happen, but the reality is we have a responsibility to make sure that we make uh decisions at a in a timely manner. Second reason I would like to uh share with you is that if this is referred and given it's a substantial change in the application there will be costs borne not by the applicant if it's referred back but by the taxpayer and with and I I I reached out to staff to get some numbers and without taking into account staff's time and the consideration of many uh studies to be made uh with this application there the mailing list because it's going to be a revised it's going to go to a greater area of the community uh sign removal uh sign production and installations again this is a referral not a new application it's going to be born by the taxpayer, I would encourage the applicant to withdraw this application and put forward a new application where the fees for a new application would be covered by the developer. So, uh again, I I I did share some responses from residents that were at the public participation meeting with council members. I hope you took into consider Asian that uh each time the community has come to speak to this application. Referrals have been made. They take precedence. The community has not been even able to um speak to these applications or to be heard specifically. So um with that, I'm asking for your consideration to have this um not supported. >> Okay. Any other speakers? Go ahead, councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, worship, and through you. Um, I was the um I was the one who uh moved the motion for the referral. And the reason I did was because the information that came through from the applicant, your worship, was that he purchased property adjoining the the land that was uh that was uh applied for for the uh for the development. And um without putting words in in staff's mouth, I believe that they that we all agreed that this was actually a new application your worship that this wasn't the old application that they had applied with the new information that had come forward. So it only seemed reasonable at the time to ask for referral because again it wasn't the same application that was applied for. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? Councelor Troap. >> Um, thank you um to to the chair. Exactly. Exactly. It's it's a different parcel of land. And and I think that you can only stretch you can only stretch the the purpose of a referral so far. And that would be where you're dealing with the same application. You're dealing with the same land. you have a few issues that you need to work out and you think that you can do that expeditiously within within the time. Um staying within the time limits is always a a a perilous danger for us unless we have something very um airtight. In my view, this is substantially a new application in that the um the parcels of land are not contiguous land use land use planning applications are based on properties and this is a different property albeit overlap but it's it's a different property and I and I think to um to use to use the office of a uh referral would be would be overcharging it quite a bit. So, at this point, I would be very comfortable voting down this application, which will totally remove any risk of uh of of a time issue. This, of course, is without prejudice to the uh to the owner coming back on on uh for a new application, which includes different lands. And uh we'll we'll take it we'll take it from there. From there, I'm I'm often in favor of doing referrals so long as they can uh be be done with without a time factor risk, but I think in this case it's it's too remote in light of the fact that uh it's an entirely it would be a really substantially different and new um application. So, I can't I can't support referring this. I I want to let the residents of the community uh and the the broader public know um where this stands and I think it would be a fiction to think that we could uh uh come to some type of agreement through through through through the process of a referral. So, um I'll just be voting no uh as Councelor Hopkins suggested. Thank you very much. >> Uh Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh thank you worship. Um I will be supporting the referral. Uh I respectfully uh need to say that twice now community members have had an opportunity to speak to the applications. Contrary to what councelor Hopkins indicated, there have been two PPMs posted at planning and environment committee on both the initial and at the last planning and environment committee on the revised application. So it is not accurate to say that that the community has not had a chance to speak to the applications. They have both through PPM and through written correspondence. Um I agree with councelor Trussau that timing is something that's always a bit perilous for us. Um when we decide to refer without uh the applicant in agreement in this case the applicant has actually asked for the referral. Uh so there's not uh to my mind any danger of a an appeal for non-decision. It doesn't exactly put them on strong footing going to the OOLT and saying the city didn't make a decision when they asked for uh the deferral themselves. Uh and finally uh to the point that councelor Trussau made the land actually is contiguous. The new land that is being acquired uh abuts the existing property. Uh so it is contiguous and uh often when these things happen as we've seen in other planning applications uh what happens is while you have two separate addresses uh when the application for a ZBA comes in uh once zoning is approved they get merged on title because it's under single ownership. And so um the not contiguous argument is one that I I I don't accept nor do I accept that the public hasn't had an opportunity to speak. Uh I do agree that there are some changes here by adding more land to the area that's proposed to be developed. But I think we would be doing the public a disservice to to defeat this today uh and say there nothing's happening here because something is going to be developed there. And I think saying that this will give the community peace of mind knowing that this isn't happening, it's actually false. It sets up a false expectation in my view. Uh because something is going to be developed. It's a question of what uh is appropriate in size and in density and use between residential and commercial there. Um but nothing is not going to be the outcome either way. So I think if we just uh allow this to play itself out through the referral process, um we will see a revised application come forward with the new lands added assuming the properties acquired in that manner. And we'll see when when that comes forward whether that's acceptable or not. Any other speakers? Go ahead, councelor Ramen. Uh, >> thank you and through you. Um, so first I'll start by saying yes, I agree with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Something will be built there. Um, but that doesn't mean that a referral is a necessary next step to do so. A new application can come forward to do exactly that. Um, one of the challenges, uh, I feel with the referral that's on the floor is that it creates more precedent setting opportunities where now we're not fully able to go through what would be our normal process to uh to go through an application. Um, now we're uh treating applications as add-ons, negotiations, and waiting for sales to happen in order for that to to go on. It makes the process harder for the public to understand. Um they are uh in some cases used to our process. Sometimes they're just learning. But uh to have to even as a word counselor explain this process now um I think makes it challenging. So out of respect for the community, I'm going to be voting no. >> Any other speakers? Okay. Uh, we're going to open this for voting. This is the committee's recommendation that we're voting on. Closing the vote. Motion fails. on a ties 77. >> Councelor Hopkins, you I'd like to uh put the staff's recommendation on the floor, which is to uh refuse the um uh the application, and I'd like to if I can speak to the reasons why I'm supporting it. >> Yeah, I need to just need to get a secondary, which I certain won't be a problem with. Council Ramen's willing to second. Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. First of all, thank you uh to council for understanding um the uh situation and the changes that um have been going on with this application. Uh the community spoke um basically on a number of issues uh of intensification, the way it fits into the community. My concerns were basically this is on a neighborhood connector street. The nine stories is three times what is allowed on uh West Elborne. So uh I would uh uh ask that uh council uh support staff's refusal. >> Other speakers to the motion on the floor. I just was just checking to make sure we had all the things we needed to do to make that decision today. So, I can actually engage with the speakers list on this. Any other speakers to this? >> You worship? >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. I my apologies. I've just got to let the clerk alert me um to when you're you've got your hand up. I can't see on my screen. Go ahead. >> Uh no problem. Um, so, uh, I supported the referral, but, uh, if we're not going to refer it, I I'm going to, uh, support the refusal here. Uh, we do have to dispense with the application in some way, shape, or form. Uh, and so if we're not doing the referral, I think that that's the this is the, uh, next appropriate step. So, uh, I wanted to share that, uh, while I supported the referral. Um, given that that failed, I would support, uh, the refusal. Um, I will caution, however, uh, because I heard councelor Hopkins say, um, it's a neighborhood connector and it's only allowed three stories. The zoning only allows three stories on it. Currently, the neighborhood connector classification of street actually does, uh, allow for higher stories. Uh, four stories in some cases, fourtory stack towns, for example, are allowed on neighborhood connectors um throughout. So, I don't want to set the expectation that whatever comes back is only going to be three stories. And depending on merging on title of of multiple properties, uh that could change the zoning classification as well if they have intersection access. So, uh I just want to caution that three stories is not necessarily going to be the limit. Uh that is the current zoning, but of course a zoning bylaw amendment can come in and given other things like the London plan heights review, uh it could be more than three stories. So, want to underline that and uh I will leave it at that. >> Okay. Any other speakers? The motion on the floor. >> Okay. It's up in Eastcribe if you need to read it. Uh we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Go ahead, chair. >> Thank you, mayor. That concludes J3 reporting environment. Okay, we're on to the community and protective services committee. I'll have chair ramen present. >> Thank you. And through you, this is the eighth report of the community and protective services committee. Uh I've been asked to deal with item five separately. Otherwise, I have all items to put on the floor. >> Okay. Does anybody want anything else dealt with separately? No. Go ahead and make a motion. >> Thank you. I will put items 1 through four and six on the floor. >> Okay. 1 through four and six are on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Councelor Pelosa. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And three to staff. Uh Miss Feffer had um provided me behind the scenes with a reply, had a conversation at committee in regards to item three being 2.2, the protection of animals left unattended vehicles. um was just verifying with staff if the officer attending would have at their discretion if there was three vehicle uh three lives of animals in the vehicle, if they would just be one bylaw infraction or if they would have the jurisdiction to interpret it as three different fines. Just wanted uh to hear from staff for that information be shared with all council prior to the vote. >> Mr. Mathers >> uh through your worship. Yes, we were able to confirm that they would be up to the at the officer's discretion that if there was multiple animals in the vehicle that there could be multiple offenses related uh to that situation. >> Councelor Clo. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh and just thank you for staff to have checked with legal to make sure that uh that was clarified for the public and uh staff knew what our interpretation was before voting. Thank you. >> Great. Any other speakers to the items before us? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Go ahead, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. I'll look to put item five on the floor. All >> right. Item five is on the floor. Is there any speakers item five? Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with one recusal. >> Council Ramen, >> that concludes my report. >> That's great work. And guess what? So good that uh we're on to SPC and I believe you're presenting that report, too. So you can uh you can present the next one. Thank you. I stayed standing. Okay. Uh with that, I'll present the seventh report of SPC. Uh I'll look to put items 1 through 11, excuse me, 13 and 14 on the floor. Um I've just been asked by one counselor to pull item 12. >> Okay. Is there any any other items people are looking to pull? Okay. So, you just mentioned you'd put 1 through 11, 13 or 14 on the floor. Okay. So, we'll consider that on the floor. Any discussion on those those items? Go ahead, councelor Pribble. >> Thank you. I would like to discuss sorry I'm looking at the the 52.4 strategic implementation plan. I did talk about it during our SPC meeting. I just want to reiterate again when I look when we started three years ago and it was a lengthy process we did and every single step our council we have approved and I have to say the staff in terms of the progress in terms of the timelines in terms of the uh delivered results uh I really think it's been really incredibly positive uh I do think that there's always room for improvement uh the dashboard that's on the internet is absolutely amazing Uh I do think though that uh what I would like to uh I will discuss this with our legal department and with our finance as well. I'm really struggling with both our council and ABCs to have uh financials and strategic plans which are for 99% of corporations worldwide two most important documents to be in the consent agenda. So therefore if no one I really believe that it should be uh it should be in uh under direction it should be going through the detail. I know we do have a great uh uh we have a great advantage 88% of our revenues come from property tax and from higher levels of government so we don't have to stress as much about the revenues but on the other hand we are still very accountable. I do want to thank I do agree that it's on a heavy side but on the other hand if I look at London we do have what I call or what we call quite a few silos and I really think that this could be developed as well with different organization currently I think there are something like 15 18 of them that we can take it further and diminish this silos and work together for the half a million of Londoners so I think I'm just trying to think if I made all my points uh I don't have anything else to add to it thank All right. Thanks, Councelor Prible. Any other speakers to this grouping of items? Okay. See none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> All right. Council Ramen. >> Thank you. Thank you. I'll look to put item 12, the review of the London Middle Sex Community Housing Master Regeneration Plan on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Councelor Troa. >> Uh, thank you. And through the chair, I I think I went through my objections to this in some great detail at the committee. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I did have some uh thoughts of presenting some amendments today, but I think in the interest of um sort of uh keeping our uh record today as being a very efficient and uh short short meeting, I'm just going to say um my my comments can wait and my comments about the deficiencies in uh in this plan can can wait for the shareholders meeting and I'll bring them up at that point. So, I'm not going to uh take time getting into procedural wrangling here today. I just want to say I want to just reiterate um I believe that this plan would have been complete and it would have been uh a really good plan if it followed through on the outline that was in it. It it missed one of several areas and I'm not making any comments about the other areas, which I'm I'm not opposing any of those. These are these are great things that we need to be um considering. I just think that we have to and I'll leave it with this. We have to be paying more attention to the current situation in terms of the condition uh of uh of the current buildings particularly as they bear on the living conditions of the tenants and uh the the uh living living conditions of people in the area. So, I'll be voting no on this and I'll be uh returning to this issue at the um shareholders meeting. Uh thank you very much. Okay. Any other speakers? >> Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Councelor Hillier. Second call. Councelor Hillier. Marking. Counselor is absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 12 to one. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Thank you. That concludes my report. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. We'll move on to 8.4, which is the 10th report of infrastructure and corporate services committee. I'll have councelor McCallister present. >> Uh, thank you and through the chair, I'm pleased to present the 10th report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. I've had no requests for any items to be pulled, but I will look to see if anything wants to be pulled separate. >> All right. Uh looking for anybody who would like something separate on these matters. Okay. Seeing none in chambers and I don't see any online. Okay. Then you can present a full report. >> Okay. I will put items 1 through 14 then on the floor. >> Okay. Those are on the floor and I will look to any discussion. Go ahead, councelor Mallister. >> Uh, thank you and through the chair. Uh, I just wanted to reiterate what I said at committee in terms of item eight, the hybrid avenue non-rine maintenance. Uh, I really do appreciate uh all the efforts that went into this. I know uh we rallied all the staff from different departments. Uh, it's greatly appreciated. Um, and when I brought this forward, my desire was um to ensure that um we we maintained hybrid to a to a level that's appropriate. It's a gateway to our city and I just wanted um you know uh to bring that forward and ensure that we clean it up in a timely fashion. So again appreciate staff and all the work and having the the extra cleaning I think will really help because um it it really um it's having that civic pride in terms of a gateway to our city. So it's just really appreciated and I just wanted to leave it there. So thanks again. >> Great. Thanks. Any other discussion on the matters within the report? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay, we're on the second report of the audit committee. I know councelor Blozza, you're remote, but looks like a one item thing. So, I'll flip it over to you uh to present that. >> Thank you. Putting the second report of the audit committee on the floor with no request to pull anything. >> I think it'd be odd if we did. So, um we'll uh we'll deal with that. Uh just one item report. Uh any I assume there's no comments on disclosures of pecunary interest for the audit committee. So, we're just going to open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> All right. Thanks, Councelor Poza. Uh, added reports. I will have councelor McAllister present the added report. Uh, thank you. Pleased to present the ninth report of council in closed session. Uh, this is your council and close session report. Item number one, acquisition buyback of industrial land from Thompson Food Incorporated here on Industrial Park C1. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of realy services with the concurrence of the director municipal housing and industrial development housing and community growth with respect to industrial land located in Hiron industrial park C1 containing an area of 1 acre being part of lot 4 concession 3 being part 11 in plan 33r 21778 in the geographic township of London city um township of London city of London County of Middle Sex as outlined find on the sketch attached as appendix C. The following actions be taken. Uh A, the agreement of the purchase and sale. The agreement attached as appendix B submitted by the corporation of the city of London. The purchaser to repurchase 1 acre of the subject property from Thompson Foods Incorporated. The vendor for the sum of 157,500 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. and B, the civic administration be directed to apply the financing for this procurement as set out in the source of financing report attached here to as appendix A. The progress was made with respect to items 4.2, 6.2 um/10C and 4.3, 6.1 uh 2 uh/ac as noted on the public agenda. Okay, that's uh moved by councelor McAllister. Any discussion on that? >> Okay, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> All right. Thanks, Councelor McAllister. We're on to deferred matters. There are none inquiries. Any inquiries? Okay, seeing none. Uh, emergent motions, we have none. Uh, we're on to bylaws. So, we are going to do bylaws in this way. 218 will be first. Councelor Frank, that's the one you declared an interest on. 235 will be second. That's the Wellington Gateway expropriation that uh C that we dealt with before. and then everything else plus the third reading of bill 19 which I believe is a drainage bylaw that we have to do third reading of. So we'll do it in three separate steps. Is there someone willing to move all of those? Councelor Cuddy and second all of them. Councelor Mallister. Um and uh Okay. So we'll start with the um the item that councilor Frank declared a punerary interest on. Uh we'll open that for first reading. Motion carries 13 to zero with one recusal >> and second reading. Uh moved and seconded. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 13 to zero with one accusal >> and third reading. Same mover and secondary. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 13 to zero with one recusal. >> Okay. Next, we will deal with the uh Wellington Gateway Expropriation uh bylaw. Uh we've got same over and secondary for this. I'll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to1. >> Okay. And second reading of the same bylaw. Any discussion? >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 13 to1 and third and final reading of that bylaw. We will open that for voting. >> Motion carries 13 to1. Okay, next will be all the other rem remaining items plus the added item that councelor Mallister uh presented coming out of close session. That'll be moved and seconded by the same two counselors and we'll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 14 to zero >> and second reading on uh that set of bylaws. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Uh third and final reading for that set of bylaws. and the third reading. >> Oh, and on this one, the third reading of bill 19, which is a drainage bylaw. So, same mover and seconder for all that plus the third reading of the other bylaw. Will open this final reading for voting. >> Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Okay, that's it. Um, that means I just need a motion to adjurnn. Uh, councelor McAllister, second by councelor Ramen. We can do this by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. >> Thank you. We're adjourned.