June 2, 2026

Original link

Official minutes have not been published yet. A meeting transcript is available below.

Meeting Transcript

Duration: 2 hours, 10 minutes

Source: Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 10 minutes)

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.