Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, welcome
to the June 2nd meeting of councils in the 9th
meeting of council of this session. I'm going to
start with land acknowledgement. We are, we
acknowledge that we are gathered today on the
traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenos
aunee, Lani Paywalk, and Haudenosaunee peoples. We
honor 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 Wampum Bell Treaty of the Haudenosaun
ee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver
Hunting
Grounds of the Haudenosaunee and Fan Treaty of 17
01, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London
Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty
of 1827 with the Anishinaabek and the Dish
With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaab
ek and Haudenosaunee.
Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to
London are the Chippewas of the Thames
First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and
the Muncie Delaware Nation 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 519-661-2489, extension 2425.
And now it's my pleasure to introduce the
National Anthem Singer.
Kirsten Renee is a country pop singer-songwriter
from right here in London, Ontario.
This past March marked the 20th year of 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, marking an exciting return
to the studio. Kristin is also a past recipient
of the contemporary singer/songwriter award,
the Forest City London Music Awards. They kick
off the Forest City London Music Week this
Friday. Please rise and join me in welcoming
Kristin who will now sing the National Anthem
for us.
♪ O Canada, our native land ♪
♪ True patriot love ♪
♪ In the glowing heart ♪
♪ We see the rise ♪
♪ The true north strong and free ♪
♪ For Canada ♪
♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪
♪ Keep our larry, we stand on guard ♪
♪ For thee, we stand on guard ♪
- We're gonna move to disclosures of pecuniary
interest.
I'll look for any closures.
Head, Councillor Frank.
- Thank you on the CAHPS report.
I am 8.2, item five, 2.4.
Tans Valley District School Board in the City
of London Joint Use of Facilities Agreement.
I have an indirect conflict as my spouse
is currently employed by the school board.
- Okay, other, sorry, disclosures of your
interest.
Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna move to the podium
for the first recognition, and then I'll do
second back here,
and then I'll look for any others after that,
so just give me one second.
Okay, I'm gonna 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 want you to be up here,
will we say all these nice things about you
because today is a day that we get
to present the Tim Hickman Award and I want to
stand here today in recognition
of Jamie Lynn Easter who is this year's recipient
recipient of the Tim Hickman
Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship. Tim Hick
man 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
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 work day.
Tim's legacy ensures that we make that commitment
a 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 embodies
everything that that means.
Jamie Ann 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,
maternal newborn health, mental health, and
community care.
Inspired by her nursing education and experiences
as a mother, Jamie 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
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 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 developing the reading
safety education program and I'm
excited to see how far we can take this so thank
you thank you very much we're
we're looking for a picture here, so thank you.
In case you're wondering, she got her check
earlier,
so we took care of that.
It might already be in the bank,
so all right, I'll return to my station here.
Okay colleagues, I have two other recognitions to
do,
and then I'll look for any other members
of council who would like to do one.
Two of them relate to June 6th, which is this
coming weekend.
This is the closest council meeting to that date,
And the first recognition I want to do is for D-
Day.
We know, if you've been in City Hall
and you've traveled to the first floor,
our city has a deep history of military service.
We have multiple active military branches in our
city today.
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.
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 democratic freedoms
and countries that live freely and openly across
the globe
today who 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
is earned with the sacrifice of those
who serve our military branches, those who
support them,
and those who have contributed over decades
and generations protecting this country and this
democracy.
So I wanted to recognize that today
because it's coming up this weekend.
The other significant recognition in our
community
is for our London family.
And this is the fifth anniversary
of the tragic terrorist attack
that happened in the northwest corner of our city
.
I know many members of council will be there this
weekend
to reflect, to memorialize, and to think about
our London
family and the family members that we lost.
Family who was simply going for a walk down the
street
crossing South carriage road in Hyde Park.
Family who enjoyed gardening.
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 impacts on lives in that neighborhood
that ended on that horrific day.
I was the word counselor at the time
and I remember the great impact
that it had on the neighborhood.
people were shocked that this kind of thing could
have happened just down the road from
where people live and people play in your
municipal park. It had such a profound wide
impact that it quickly spread nationally for the
impacts that that had. And we've seen
acts of hate again and again in this country and
in other parts of the world. And I think
June 6, especially a significant recognition like
the 5th year, is a chance for us to recommit
to stomping out hate in all of its forms.
Whether it's Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, 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 multi-faith community came together
is something that inspired many people,
not just in this city, but across this nation.
And so, I just want everybody,
I'm gonna ask for actually a moment of silence
for the family members we lost,
and we can add that to the moment of silence
for D-Day as well, but we'll take a moment of
silence
and I know that it'll be a somber weekend
for us here in the four cities.
So thank you, please be seated.
Are there any other recognitions?
I just wanna recognize a number of colleagues
have joined us online as well.
We have Councillor Ferrera, Deputy Mayor Lewis,
Councillor Palosa, and Councillor Hillier as well
.
So they'll be participating remotely today.
Appreciate their presence, if not in the chambers
,
go ahead virtually.
Okay, we'll work through the agenda today,
which means we're on to item three review
of confidential matters because there are none.
That brings us to council and closed session.
There are three matters for which we need
to go into closed session four.
I look for a motion to go into closed session
for colleagues, Councillor Vameira-Bergens,
seconded by Councillor Hopkins.
Any discussion on closed session?
Can't we open that for voting?
- So votes yes.
- No to thank you.
- So frank votes yes.
- No to the Lewis.
That can call for Councillor Lewis.
working on it though for e-scribe,
but Councilor Luz will vote yes.
- No to thank you, closing the vote.
Motion carries 14 to zero.
- Okay, we'll go to committee room five
for those members of the public.
We'll return shortly after we're done our in-
camera session.
Okay, please be seated.
Okay, that concludes our in-camera session.
We're on to confirmation and signing
of the previous minutes.
We have the minutes from the eighth meeting,
which was held on May 12th, 2026.
I'll look for a mover, Councilor Vamereberg
and seconded by Councilor McAllister.
Any discussion on the minutes?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Mr. Lewis, Councillor Trussell.
- I'm still having problems with these.
Councillor Lewis votes yes.
- Yes, me too.
Councillor Trussell votes yes.
- No to thank you, closing the vote.
Motion carries 14-0.
- Okay, that's on to communications and petitions
.
You'll see we have five items before us.
The first two relate to expropriation of lands.
So we're gonna 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.
So we're gonna go through the expropriation
process,
which means we'll first consider a motion
that council convene as the approving authority
pursuant
to the provisions of the expropriations act, RSO,
1990 CE 26 as amended for the purpose
of considering communication number two
from the deputy city manager environment and
infrastructure
with respect to the expropriation of lands
that may be required for the project known
as the Wellington Gateway Project civil works
dash phase two.
So this is the motion.
I'm gonna look for a mover and a seconder for us
to sit
and convene as the approving authority.
Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Frank.
We'll open that for voting.
- Councillor votes yes.
- Those on the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- By now I'm gonna ask for a mover and a seconder
for the following motion and then there is a
delegation
that's been requested on the matter.
So I'll read the motion out
and then I'll look for mover and a seconder.
That on the recommendation of the deputy city
manager
environment infrastructure with the concurrence
of the director of construction and
infrastructure services
on the advice of the director of realty 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, Council of the Corporation of City of London
as the approving authority pursuant
to the expropriations act, RSO 1990 section E26,
as amended, hereby approves the proposed expropri
ation
lands as described in Schedule A attached to your
two in the City of London County of Middlesex,
it being noted that the reasons for making this
decision are as follows. I subject lands are
required by the Corporation of the City of London
for the Wellington Gateway Project,
II. The design of the project will address the
current and future transportation demands along
the corridor, and II. The design is in accordance
with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Study Recommendations for the Wellington Gateway
Project approved by Municipal Council at its
It's 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 five, six, seven and eight
on plan 33R 22025 and part nine on plan 33R 22025
was received and a hearing was conducted
on April 8th and 9th, 2026.
The findings and opinion of the inquiry officer
are attached here to as schedule.
I look for a mover and a seconder for that motion
.
Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Troso.
So with that motion on the floor,
I can turn it over to hear the delegation on the
matter.
And I believe they're joining us virtually.
And so if you could, you could introduce
yourselves
and then 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 Ayrton Burles.
I represent Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings,
which is the owner of the mall
located at 387 and 401 Wellington Road in the
city.
I'm an expropriation litigation lawyer
and I've been 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 commend it to
you.
I'm going to touch on a couple of the highlights
in that letter.
The central issue that my client has, Mr. Mayor,
is that in the process of the expropriation,
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 movement's access
on to Wellington Road, which as you know,
means that cars can make a left or a right in
and the left or a right out.
Staff are proposing in the context of the exp
ropriation
to take away that existing full moves access
and replace it with a right in right out only,
which is very significant to my client.
And I wanna start off as well by being very clear
with you and the members of council
that my client is not in any way opposed
the BRT project. The BRT project is a 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. What injurious affection means is it's
not the market value of the lands that are exp
ropriated,
which in this circumstance are not that extensive
, but the loss to the remaining lands that are of
of the mall that are not expropriated is dramatic
.
My client has retained both in appraiser
and 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
tendencies.
It will result in lower percentage rents.
And those ultimately add up to 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 expropriation.
And so the other component that I'll just point
out
with regard to the injurious affection claim,
sir, is that that's just my client,
which is the mall owner.
Every one of the 2010s would also have the right
to bring a claim 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.
The definition of owner actually includes a
tenant,
and so all of the tenants could also bring their
own claims.
And so what I'm here to ask, sir,
is that you take what in my respectful submission
is a relatively easy and inexpensive avenue out,
which is to allow my client to keep the full
moves.
My client is not interested in a large windfall
the term in the form of an injury is 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 on a Wellington.
Staff are not inclined to do that, but it is a
simple and cost effective solution.
a signalized intersection costs less than a half
a million dollars and we have our transportation
consultants have furthermore determined that the
impact of a signalized intersection and a full
moves access where my client currently enjoys a
full movement 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 simply asking that
Council direct staff to work with my
client to 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, 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 any questions or debate
from any members of Council. Councilor Troso.
Thank you. Through the chair,
could staff very briefly reiterate in a nutshell
the reason why you're not happy with the full
in-out and that you want to limit it? Have there
been accidents? Have we had reports of complaints
from motorists or danger to pedestrians.
Why are we taking this position?
- So, I just, before we do that,
I wanna go to the solicitor,
because I understand the council wants to ask
questions
about signalized intersection.
The, we're sitting as the approving authority
on whether or not under municipal purpose
to expropriate a property.
So I just wanna, I just wanna 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
.
- Thank you and through the chair.
I think the approval authority could ask
some general questions about the reasoning
if it assists in making the decision.
- Perfect, I'd just like to double check first
to make sure everything's good.
So Councilor Trozos has got the question
or go to our staff for the answer.
Go ahead Ms. Dan.
- Thank you and through the chair.
We agree that the skyline plazas
an important retail destination in the city.
Access management is a standard part
of designing major arterial and rapid transit
corridors.
Signalized intersections are typically reserved
for major public streets and consolidated access
points
rather than individual driveway locations.
This approach for rapid transit
and for larger arterial corridors is not unique
to London
and especially used on rapid transit corridors
across Ontario and Canadian cities.
The key considerations for our corridor function,
safety
and transit reliability.
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 commissioners 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.
- That's what shows up.
- Yes, well, thank you for the chair.
think that's a very reasonable response and I don
't it doesn't sound to me as if anything unusual
is happening here. I would be more comfortable if
I had a little bit more information about the
dangers and perils that are that are being
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 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 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 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 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 including in response to requests received
from Skyline and its
representatives. At each stage of the review the
conclusion remained
consistent that a signalized intersection at this
location was not
supported. 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. Our access
management guidelines
and spacing guidelines for a divided arterial
roadway call for a desired spacing of 800 meters
and a minimum spacing of 400 meters. So this
would create signal spacing well below that.
Secondly, a mid-block traffic signal
wouldn't operate in isolation.
So at this location, it would be necessary
to operate this as almost like 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 existing signalized intersections
at commissioners and baseline.
Those will include pedestrian-focused design
features
like refuge islands in the center, stage
crossings,
adding a new mid-block 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,
We looked to protect our access points,
consolidate them,
and at this point, we will look to prioritize
the broader objectives of safety, traffic
operations,
and transit reliability.
- Councilor Troso.
- Thank you, that answers my question.
I have one final question,
and I'm gonna frame it very, very carefully,
'cause I don't wanna be asked to go back
into another closed session,
so I'm gonna keep this very general.
Should we agree to allow the full turning?
And there'll be accidents.
Accidents is probably the wrong word.
But there'll be incidents where people are
injured or killed.
I would imagine there would be litigation against
the city.
And I'm not gonna ask what the likelihood
of that success would be 'cause I don't wanna go
back
into a closed session.
But I guess my question is, would the ball be
willing
to underwrite sort of the defense and payment
of any such claims.
So the city would be held harmless
and that risk would be absorbed by the internal
mall.
- Councillor, I just need to know who you're
asking
question to 'cause you made some comments
and you asked a question.
If you'd clearly let me know who you're asking
what?
- 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 the mall prepared to identify the city for
liability
and costs resulting from their preferred course
of action.
- So I'm assuming that question is to me, Mr.
Mayor,
and I'm happy to respond to that if that's
acceptable to you.
- Sure, yes, I'm happy to have you respond to
that.
And as part of this process, you can be asked
questions.
And so I'll take that as a question from the
councilor to you
and your willingness to respond, I'll let you
respond.
I'll just let you know, Mr. O'Callaghan,
as part of the process too,
I'm not gonna allow you to jump in preemptively.
We'll let you be asked questions,
but I will give you an opportunity at the end
to provide a summary or context for anything
that was said or discussed before we have our
vote.
So I just wanted to let you know
that that will be an opportunity afforded to you
in addition to any questions you're asked.
So go ahead.
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
So I will respond to Councillor Toussault's
question,
just to be very clear,
my client currently enjoys the full turning
movements.
And so that is a right 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
or something that the city is proposing to do to
my client
with all due respect.
And the other point I'd like to make, Mr. Mayor,
that I'm not here threatening as the counselor
has suggested on the contrary.
My client has every right to be fully compensated
pursuant to the terms of the Appropriations Act,
whether it be by money or otherwise.
But I've already been very clear that 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.
our own traffic analysis, however,
has been that the impact of maintaining a full
turning
movements through a signalized intersection
where the full turns movements currently exists
would not negatively impact the timing of the BRT
.
And I understand that it's close to a different
signal,
but that is not uncommon in urban centers.
So those are my responses, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you for the opportunity.
- Yeah, with thank you, Councillor Trostow.
Go ahead.
- With that, Mayor, my questions have been
answered
to my satisfaction.
Thank you to the staff for very, very clear
and I think persuasive evidence.
I don't think there's a right as rights go
to engage in unsafe turning practices
and I think it's the obligation of the staff and
the city
to try to ameliorate those.
So I would applaud you for your work
and I'm not going to disturb this decision.
- Any other comments or questions, Councillor
Hopkins?
- Yes, through you to staff,
I just wanna confirm the access that is being
proposed
to this development.
Are the three accesses still gonna be in place?
Two offer, Wellington and one offer commissioner.
I just would like to have a better understanding.
I did hear you say as well that it's gonna be a
write-in
and write-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 access,
is there's currently a full access on
Commissioner's Road
for this property.
That is remaining a full access.
However, 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 unsignalized full movement on
Wellington
and creates it as a now rights and rights 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 and
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 plaza.
- Councilor Hawkins, get any other speakers'
questions?
I'd one colleague asked me why I'm not making
people stand.
We're sitting as the approval authority,
which means there aren't any time limits
and there's a different set of procedural rules.
So, well, that's why way to GSpoke Councilor, I'm
just kidding.
So, are there any other questions though?
Okay, Mr. O'Callaghan, I'm gonna let you
summarize
or provide any sort of context that you'd like to
before we make a decision.
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Very briefly, I just reiterate the request.
In my respectful submission, it is a very, very
simple
and cost-effective solution to simply allow my
client
to keep what it already has so that the mall can
continue
to function and serve the people of London.
So I do reiterate your request that staff be
directed
to work with us on retaining the full attorney
movements
through a signalized intersection.
And certainly our preference not to have to
commence a claim
pursuant to the expropriation sect.
So thank you for your time, sir.
- Okay, with that, we've had discussion,
we've asked questions, we've heard from the
delegation,
we've allowed a summary at this point.
There's a moved and seconded motion
as the approving authority before us.
I'm gonna open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- Okay, and now I need to adjourn.
A motion to adjourn as the approving authority
and reconvene as municipal council.
Look for motion, Councillor Hopkins,
seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen.
And this is that the meeting of the approval
of authority be adjourned
and that council reconvene in regular session.
Any discussion?
I'm going to call the vote closing the vote
motion carries 14 to 0 okay, and now sir of the
following
Recommendation which has been made to us
from the expropriation
Authority or approving authority that on the
recommendation of the deputy city manager
environment and infrastructure with the conc
urrence of the director of
Construction and infrastructure services on the
advice of the director of Realty services with
respect to the expropriation of lands that may be
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,
the county of Middlesex, the Wellington Gateway
Project,
B, introduced at Municipal Council meeting
to be held on June 2nd, 2026.
B, the civic administration, be directed
to take all necessary steps, prepare a plan
or plans showing expropriated lands and to
register
such plans are plans in the appropriate registry
or land titles offices pursuant to the
Appropriations Act
RSO 1990 CE26 within three 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
plan
or plans 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 1990C E26,
and such notices of possession that may be
required
to obtain possession of the expropriated lands.
Oh, sorry, D is just the city clerk.
C was the mayor and city clerk, I don't have to
do D.
So D is just the city clerk, sorry, I misread
that.
Okay, and that's the full extent of the motion.
I look for a mover and a seconder from council.
On that matter, I see Councillor Trostoff,
seconder by Councillor Cuddy.
Any discussion on the motion before us?
Okay, I've seen none, we'll open that for voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to one.
- Okay, that concludes six, one and six, two.
I have a motion for six, three, four and five
to be distributed to various parts of the agenda
as reflected on the matters before us.
So a motion, a mover and a seconder for that.
Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Pribble.
Any discussion on moving those items?
Okay, we'll open that for voting.
- Vote, motion carries 14 to zero.
Okay, that concludes six onto seven motions
of which notice is given there are none.
Onto reports, 8.1 is the eighth report
of the Planning and Environment Committee.
And we have six items before us.
I'll turn it over to the chair
to present the committee report.
- Thank you Mayor.
Please to put the eighth report
of the Planning and Environment Committee on the
floor.
I've been asked to pull item number five.
- Okay, we'll deal with five separate,
anything else separate from colleagues?
Aside from five.
Okay, seeing that, I'll go back to you chair for
a motion.
- Thank you.
So I will move items one through four and number
six.
- Okay, one through four and six are on the floor
.
Any discussion on those matters?
Keep seeing none, we'll open those for voting.
- Present the vote.
Motion carries 14-0.
- Go ahead, Chair.
- Thank you.
And I'll put item number five on the floor.
Councillor Hopkins requested that be pulled.
- Okay.
Item five is on the floor.
I'll look for any discussion.
Councillor Hopkins, would you like to go first?
- Yeah.
- Okay, go ahead.
- Yeah, thank you.
Your worship for allowing me to speak
to this, 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
not to support the referral is,
this has come to us a second time.
The first referral was the application was for a
12 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.
we really do not know the extent of what this
even means
if the developer is going to be able to purchase
the property,
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 the decision
on this application is being made.
We open ourselves to, as a corporation,
being vulnerable for a non-decision.
I understand that probably won't happen,
that the reality is we have a responsibility
to make sure that we make decisions in a timely
manner.
Secondary reason I would like to share with you
is that if this is referred,
and given it's a substantial change in the
application,
there will be costs born, not by the applicant,
if it's referred back, but by the taxpayer.
And I reached out to staff to get some numbers.
and without taking into account staff's time
and the consideration of many studies
to be made with this application.
They're the mailing list because it's gonna be
revised.
It's gonna go to a greater area of the community.
Sign removal, sign production and installations.
Again, this is a referral on a new application.
It's gonna be borne 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 again, I did share some responses from
residents
that were at the public participation meeting
with council members.
I hope you took into consideration
that 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 speak
to these applications or to be heard specifically
.
So with that, I'm asking for your consideration
to have this not supported.
- Okay, any other speakers?
Go ahead, Councillor Cuddy.
- Thank you, worshipping through you.
I was the one who 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 land that was applied for the development.
And without putting words in staff's mouth, I
believe 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?
Councillor Troisab.
- Thank you, through the chair, exactly, exactly.
It's a different parcel of land.
And I think that you can only stretch 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 the time.
Staying within the time limits is always a
perilous danger
for us unless we have something very airtight.
In my view, this is substantially a new
application
in that the parcels of land are not contiguous.
Land use planning applications are based on
properties.
And this is a different property, albeit overlap,
but it's a different property.
And I think to use the office of a referral
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 a time
issue.
This of course is without prejudice
to the owner coming back for a new application,
which includes different lands.
And we'll take it for there, from there.
I'm often in favor of doing referrals
so long as they can be done without a time factor
risk.
But I think in this case, it's too remote
in light of the fact that it's an entirely,
it would be a really substantially different
and new application.
So I can't support referring this.
I want to let the residents of the community
and the broader public know where this stands.
And I think it would be a fiction
to think that we could come to some type of
agreement
through the process of a referral.
So I'll just be voting no as Councillor Hopkins
suggested.
Thank you very much.
- Deputy Mayor Lewis.
- Thank you, worship.
I will be supporting the referral.
I respectfully need to say that twice now,
community members have had an opportunity
to speak to the applications
contrary to what Councilor 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 the community
does not have a chance to speak to the
applications they have
both through PPM and through written
correspondence.
I agree with councilor trust out that timing is
something
that's always a bit perilous for us when we
decide
to refer without the applicant in agreement.
In this case, the applicants has actually asked
for the referral, so there's not, to my mind,
any danger of an appeal for non-decision.
It doesn't exactly put them on strong footing
going
to the oil tea and saying the city didn't make a
decision
when they asked for the deferral themselves.
And finally, to the point that Councilor Trussow
made,
the land actually is contiguous.
The new land that is being acquired
abuts the existing property.
So it is contiguous.
And often when these things happen,
as we've seen in other planning applications,
what happens is while you have two separate
addresses
when the application for a ZBA comes in,
once zoning is approved, they get merged on title
because it's under single ownership.
And so the not-continuous argument is one that I
don't accept,
nor do I accept that the public hasn't had an
opportunity to speak.
I do agree that there's some changes here by
adding more land
to the area that's supposed to be developed.
But I think we'd be doing public disservice to
defeat this today
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
because something is going to be developed.
It's a question of what is appropriate in size
and in density and use between residential and
commercial there,
but nothing is not going to be the outcome either
way.
So I think if we just allow this to play itself
out through the referral process,
we will see a revised application come forward
with the new lands added,
assuming the property is acquired in that manner.
and we'll see when that comes forward,
whether that's accepted or not.
- Any other speakers?
Go ahead, Councillor Ramen.
- Thank you and through you.
So first I'll start by saying yes,
I agree with Deputy Mayor Lewis,
something will be built there.
But that doesn't mean that referral
is necessary next step to do so.
A new application can come forward to do exactly
that.
One of the challenges 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 go through an
application.
Now we're treating applications as add-ons
negotiations and waiting for sales to happen
in order for that to go on.
It makes the process harder for the public to
understand.
are in some cases used to our process sometimes
they're just learning but to
have to even as a word counselor explain this
process now I think makes it
challenging so out of respect for the community I
'm going to be voting no.
Any other speakers we're going to open this for
voting this is the committee's
recommendation that we're voting on losing the
vote motion fails on a tie seven
seven as are Hopkins you I'd like to put the
staff's recommendation on the floor
which is to refuse the application and I'd like
if I can speak to reasons why I'm supporting it.
I need to just need to get a seconder which I
sure won't be a problem with
Councillor ramen's willing to second. Okay go
ahead.
Yeah first of all thank you to council for
understanding the situation and the changes
that have been going on with this application.
The community spoke basically on a number
issues of intensification the way it fits into
the community. My concerns were
basically this is on in neighborhood Connector
Street. The nine stories is
three times what is allowed on West L. Borne. So
I would ask that council
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
?
Your worship? Yeah. Oh, sorry. My apologies. I've
just got to let the clerk alert me to when you're
you've got your hand up. I can't see on my screen
. Go ahead. No problem. So I supported the
referral,
but if we're not going to refer it, I'm going to
support the refusal here. We do have to dispense
with the application in some way, shape or form.
And so if we're not doing the referral, I think
that
but this is the next appropriate step.
So I wanted to share that while I supported the
referral,
given that that failed, I would support the
refusal.
I will caution, however, because I heard Councill
or Hopkins say
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 allow for higher stories.
four stories in some cases, four story stack
towns,
for example, are allowed on neighborhood
connectors
throughout, so I don't wanna set the expectation
that whatever comes back is only gonna be three
stories.
And depending on merging on title of multiple
properties,
that could change the zoning classification as
well
if they have intersection access.
So I just wanna caution that three stories
is not necessarily going to be the limit.
That is the current zoning,
but of course the zoning bylaw amendment can come
in
and given other things like the London Plan
Heights review,
it could be more than three stories.
So I wanna underline that and I will leave it at
that.
- Okay, any of the speakers with the motion on
the floor?
Okay, it's up and e-scribe if you need to read it
,
we're gonna open that for voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.
- Thank you, Mayor, that concludes the 0-3-4
planning environment committee.
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
the community and protective services committee.
I've been asked to deal with
item five separately, otherwise I have all items
to put on the floor. Okay, is
anybody want anything else dealt with separately?
Go ahead and make a motion.
Thank you. I will put items one through four and
six on the floor. Okay, one through
four and six are on the floor. I'll look for any
speakers. Councilor Palosa.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you to staff,
Ms. Pfeffer had provided me
behind the scenes within a reply had a
conversation at committee in regards to
item three being 2.2 the protection of animals
left on intended vehicles was
just verifying with staff if the officer
attending would have it their
discretion if there was three vehicle three lives
of animals in the vehicle if
they would just be one bylaw and fraction if they
would have the jurisdiction to
interpret those three different finds I just
wanted to hear from staff for that
information we share with all counsel prior to
the vote. Mr. Mathers. Through
- Your worship, yes, we were able to confirm
that they would be up to the officer's discretion
that if there was multiple animals in the vehicle
,
that there could be multiple offenses
related to that situation.
- Councillor Closell.
- Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and just thank you for
staff
to have checked with legal to make sure
that that was clarified for the public
and 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.
- Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.
- Go ahead, Councillor Ramen.
- Thank you, I'll look to put item five on the
floor.
- All right, item five's on the floor.
Is there any speakers to item five?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero
with one recusal.
- Councillor Ramen.
- That concludes my report.
- That's great work and guess what?
It's so good that we're onto SPPC
and I believe we're presenting that report too.
So you can present the next one.
- Thank you, I stayed standing.
Okay, with that, I'll present the seventh report
of SPPC.
I'll look to put items one through 11.
Excuse me, 13 and 14 on the floor.
I've just been asked by one counselor to pull
item 12.
- Okay, is there any other items people are
looking to pull?
Okay, so you just mentioned you'd put one through
11,
13 and 14 on the floor.
Okay, so we'll consider that on the floor,
any discussion on those items?
Go ahead, Councilor Privel.
- Thank you, I would like to discuss, sorry,
I'm looking at the five 2.4 strategic
implementation plan.
I did talk about it during our SPPC meeting.
I just want to reiterate again,
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 delivered results.
I really think it's been really incredibly
positive.
I do think that there's always room for
improvement.
the dashboard that's on the internet is
absolutely amazing.
I do think, though, that what I would like to--
I will discuss this with our legal department
and with our finance as well.
I'm really struggling with both our counsel and
ABCs
to have 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 under direction, it should
be going through the detail.
I know we do have a great, 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 the
heavy side, but on the other hand, if
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 sil
os
and work together for the half a million of
Londoners.
So I think I'm just trying to think,
if I made to all my points,
I don't have anything else to add to it.
Thank you.
- All right, thanks, Councillor Prigle.
Any other speakers to this grouping of items?
Okay, I've seen that roll up in that for voting.
- Opposed in the vote.
Motion carries 14 to zero.
- All right, Councilor Rowan.
- Thank you, I'll let you put item 12,
the review of the London Middlesex community
housing mastery generation plan on floor.
- Okay, that's on the floor.
I'll look for any speakers.
Councilor Trossa.
- Thank you and through the chair.
I think I went through my objections to this
and some great detail at the committee.
I'm not gonna repeat everything I said.
I did have some thoughts of presenting some
amendments today,
but I think in the interest of sort of keeping
our record today
as being a very efficient and short, short
meeting,
I'm just gonna say, my comments can wait.
And my comments about the deficiencies in this
plan
can wait for the shareholders meeting.
And I'll bring them up at that point.
So I'm not going to take time
getting into procedural wrangling here today.
I just want to say, I want to just reiterate.
I believe that this plan would have been complete
and it would have been a really good plan
if it followed through on the outline that was in
it.
It missed one of several areas
and I'm not making any comments about the other
areas,
which I'm not opposing any of those.
These are great things that we need to be
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 of the current
buildings,
particularly as they bear on the living
conditions
of the tenants and the living conditions of
people
in the area.
So I'll be voting no on this
and I'll be returning to this issue
at the shareholders meeting.
Thank you very much.
- Okay, any of the speakers?
Okay, seeing none, we're gonna open that for
voting.
- Councillor Hillier.
Second call, Councillor Hillier.
Marketing Councillor's absent,
closing the vote.
Motion carries 12 to one.
- Go ahead, Councillor.
- 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 Councillor McAllister present.
- 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'll look to see if anything
wants to be pulled separate.
- All right, looking for anybody who would like
something separate on these matters.
Okay, seeing none in chambers and seeing any
online.
Okay, then you can present a full report.
Okay, I'll put items one through 14 then on the
floor.
Okay, those are on the floor,
and I will look to any discussion.
Go ahead, Councilor McAllister.
Thank you and through the chair.
I just wanted to reiterate what I said at
committee
in terms of item eight, the hybrid avenue,
non-routine maintenance.
I really do appreciate all the efforts that went
into this.
You know, we rallied all the staff
different departments. It's greatly appreciated.
And when I brought this forward, my desire was
to ensure that we maintain hybrid to a level that
's appropriate. It's a gateway to our city and I
just wanted, you know, 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 extra cleaning I think will really
help
because it really 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 0.
Okay. We're on the second report of the Audit
Committee. I know Councillor Palose,
you're remote, but it looks like one item thing.
So I'll flip it over to you 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 we'll
we'll deal with that just one
item report any I assume there's no comments on
disclosures of pecuniary
interest for the audit committee so we'll just
gonna open night for voting
closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 thanks
council proposal added reports
I will have council McAllister present the added
report thank you please to
present the ninth report of council and closed
session this is your council
and closed 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 director of Re
alty Services
with the concurrence of the director,
municipal housing and industrial development,
housing and community growth,
with respect to industrial land located in here
on Industrial Park C1,
containing an area of one acre being part of lot
four,
concession three, being part 11 in plan 33R-2178,
in the geographic township of London,
township of London, city of London,
county of Middlesex, as outlined on the sketch
attached
as Appendix C, the following actions we've taken,
A, the agreement of the purchase and sale,
the agreement attached as Appendix B,
submitted by the corporation of the city of
London,
purchaser to repurchase one 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,
slash 10, slash IACSC,
and 4.3, 6.1, slash two, slash AC,
as noted on the public agenda.
- Okay, that's moved by Councillor McAllister.
Any discussion on that?
Okay, we'll open that for voting.
Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.
- All right, thanks, Councillor McAllister.
We're on to deferred matters.
There are none, inquiries, any inquiries?
Kept seeing none, emergent motions.
We have none, we're on to bylaws.
So, we are gonna do bylaws in this way.
218 will be first, Councillor Frank,
that's the one you declared an interest on.
235 will be second, that's the Wellington Gateway
expropriation that we dealt with before.
And then everything else plus the third reading
of Bill 19,
which I believe is a drainage by-law
that we have to do third reading up.
So we'll do it in three separate steps.
Is there someone willing to move all of those?
Councillor Cuddy and second all of them,
Councillor McAllister.
And okay, so we'll start with the item
that Councillor Frank declared a pecuniary
interest on.
We'll open that for first reading.
- Motion carries 13-0 with one recusal.
- And second reading moved and seconded.
Any discussion on second reading?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Motion carries 13-0 with one recusal.
- And third reading, same mover and seconder.
We'll open that for voting.
- Motion carries 13-0 with one recusal.
- Next we will deal with the Wellington Gateway
expropriation by-law.
We've got same mover and seconder for this.
I'll open first reading for voting.
- Motion carries 13-1.
- Okay, and second reading of the same by-law.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- It carries 13 to one.
- And third and final reading of that by-law,
we will open that for voting.
- It carries 13 to one.
- Okay, next will be all the other remaining
items
plus the added item that Councilor McAllister
presented coming out of closed 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 that set of by-laws,
any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
carries 14 to 0. Third and final reading for that
set of bylaws 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 0. Okay that's it that
means I just need a motion to adjourn. Councillor
McAllister seconded by
Councillor ramen we can use by hand all those in
favor of adjournment thank you
we're adjourned.