March 19, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Items 2.1 to 2.3 and 2.5 to 2.12 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   SS-2024-090 Single Source Contract - Telematics Services

2024-03-19 SR SS-2024-090 Single Source Contract - Telematics Services

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Single Source Contract for Telematics Services (SS-2024-090):

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the single source provisions of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy under sections 14.4 (d) and (g) to contract with AdvantageOne Technology Inc. for the supply and delivery of telematic services for a two (2) year contract with an option to renew for two (2) additional two (2) year periods;

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

c)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2024-V01)

Motion Passed

2.2   Award of Consulting Engineering Services for Detailed Design, Tendering Assistance, Construction Oversight and Contract Administration for Expansion of Landfill Gas Collection System W12A Landfill Site 

2024-03-19 SR Expansion of Landfill Gas Collection System - W12A Landfill Site - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Award of Consulting Engineering Services for Detailed Design, Tendering Assistance, Construction Oversight and Contract Administration for Expansion of Landfill Gas Collection System W12A Landfill Site:

a)    Comcor Environmental Ltd. BE APPOINTED to carry out detailed design, tendering assistance, construction oversight, and contract administration consulting services for the expansion of the landfill gas collection system at the W12A Landfill site, in the total amount of $176,640, including a contingency of $23,040 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the work identified in (a), above, BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)    the Mayor and the  City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

2.3   W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund - Glanworth Tennis Court 

2024-03-19 SR W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund - Glanworth Tennis Court

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and based on the approved motion of the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee, funding of $35,000 BE APPROVED from the W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund for the Glanworth Tennis Court Improvement Project. (2024-F11)

Motion Passed

2.5   Contract Price Increase - Victoria Bridge Replacement Consulting Services 

2024-03-19 SR Contract Price Increase - Victoria Bridge Replacement - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to a Contract Increase for Victoria Bridge Replacement Consulting Services:

a)    the Victoria Bridge Replacement contract for resident inspection and contract administration with AECOM Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $225,000 to $1,965,991 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

2.6   2024 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award

2024-03-19 SR 2024 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the 2024 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award:

a)    the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $6,282,196.17 (excluding HST) for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is the second year of a five year contract submitted by Fer Pal Construction Ltd. and where unit prices were carried over from the original tendered contract plus an increase in line with the Consumer Price Index;

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

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

2.7   Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

2024-03-19 SR Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)     The following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2024 Infrastructure Renewal Program Leonard Street and Second Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $358,072.00, including 10% contingency (excluding HST); and,

ii)    Spriet Associates London Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration, including a detailed design fee increase, for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Charles Street, West Lions Park and Paul Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $606,032.90, including 10% contingency (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.8   Contract Award-RFT 2024-700 - 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Cavendish Crescent, Riverside Park and Mitchell A. Baran Park

2024-03-19 SR 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Cavendish Cres, Riverside Park and Mitchell A. Baran Park - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to Contract Award RFT 2024-700 for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program for Cavendish Crescent, Riverside Park and Mitchell A. Baran Park:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited at its tendered price of $7,264,752.80 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating Limited was the lowest of nine bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2024-700); and,

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.9   Contract Award RFT-2023-265 - 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 - York Street and Wellington Street

2024-03-19 SR 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program - Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to Contract Award RFT-2023-265 for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program for the Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 for York Street and Wellington Street:

a)    the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $15,630,086.52 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Limited, BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2024-2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Downtown Sewer Separation Phase 4 project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,418,789.00, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2023-265); and,

f)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

2.10   Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

2024-03-19 SR Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114). (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

2.11   2023 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-Law

2024-03-19 SR 2023 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 19, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) with respect to the 2023 Administrative Amendments. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

2.12   Vendor of Record Contract Award - Rapid Transit Shelters Amenities - Request for Proposal Submissions - RFP-2023-271 Station Lighting, RFP-2023-272 Obelisks and RFP-2023-273 Station Furniture

2024-03-19 SR Rapid Transit Shelters Amenities

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to Vendor of Record Contract Award for Rapid Transit Shelters Amenities and Request for Proposal Submissions – RFP-2023-271 Station Lighting, RFP-2023-272 Obelisks and RFP-2023-273 Station Furniture:

a)    with respect to the following rapid transit shelter amenity request for proposal submissions:

i)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Excavating of $683,896.22 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Station Lighting (RFP-2023-271) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by J-AAR Excavating was the highest scoring of two (2) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

ii)    the bid submitted by Enseicom of $882,461.00 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply, and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Obelisks (RFP-2023-272) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by Enseicom was the highest scoring of two (2) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas; and,

iii)    the bid submitted by Enseicom of $430,033.00 (excluding HST), for the future design completion, supply and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Station Furniture (RFP-2023-273) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by Enseicom was the highest scoring of three (3) proposal submissions received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to appoint J-AAR Excavating and Enseicom as Vendors of Record for the supply and installation of shelter amenities in connection with these purchases for a period three (3) years with the option of four (4) one (1) year periods for renewal based on positive performance and cost noting cost escalation may be negotiable;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all additional administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

2.4   2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2023 Review

2024-03-19 SR 2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2023 Review

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 19, 2024, related to the 2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction Program and 2023 Review:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide options for ongoing traffic diversion for Dundas Place between Wellington St. and Ridout St., and to report back to Civic Works with an operational plan in Q4 2024. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part a) of the motion.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to approve part b) of the motion.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3rd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2024-02-21 ITCAC Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from the meeting held on February 21, 2024:

a)    the above-noted 3rd Report of the ITCAC BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the four recommendations contained within the ITCAC Last Term (2022-2023) Report, as appended to the above noted 3rd Report of the ITCAC, BE FORWARDED to the Governance Working Group for review and consideration;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from T. Khan, Chair, ITCAC, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2024-03-06 ESACAC Report

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on March 6, 2024:

a)    the expenditure of $1,000 from the 2024 Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee Budget BE ALLOCATED to printing the attached yard signs for naturalized lawns;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Tree Protection By-law:

i)    the Civic Administration BE ASKED to review opportunities to enforce the Tree By-law within the Provincial Offenses Act window of enforcement; and,

ii)    this matter BE INCLUDED on the appropriate Standing Committee Deferred List;

c)    the Committee Clerk BE REQUESTED to add the following matters to future Agendas:

i)    the Tree Protection By-law related to aerial mapping; and,

ii)    Neighbourhood Decision Making Grants related to climate related projects; it being noted that a Sub-Committee consisting of B. Samuels, A. Hames and M.A. Hodge was created to discuss these matters; and

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, ESACAC, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Harris Park Shoreline Reconstruction - A.M. Valastro - REQUEST FOR DELEGATION STATUS

2024-03-19 Sub. Harris Park Shoreline Reconstruction - A. Valastro - Request for Delegation

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to Harris Park Shoreline Reconstruction, BE RECEIVED. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to approve the delegation request from A.M. Valastro, to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:11 AM.

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 (1 hour, 55 minutes)

Good morning, everyone. I think it’s 9.30. We’ve got quorum, so we’ll get started. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupin Naiwok, and the Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse, indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Moving on to 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 cwc@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension-2425. So we’ll move along to disclosures of particular interest.

See none, we’ll move on to the consent items. There are a number of consent items. I’m going to ask committee members if there are any that they would like pulled. Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, Chair. I’d like to pull the renew London item. That’s 2.4, that’s 2.4. So that will be moved to the end of the agenda than any other items to be pulled?

See none, so moving on. I am, there’s a number of consent items. I’m going to go through them one at a time. So any questions on 2.1?

See none. Maybe the better way will be then to put all the consent items with the exception of 2.4. On the floor, Councillor Frank and Councillor Preble moving the motion and a seconder. We’ll put all the consent items and then I will go to the committee and ask for any questions.

So moving through the agenda, I’ll go to anyone who has questions. Councillor Trussell. I would like to just ask a couple of procedural questions about amendments to the traffic and parking. By-law under, it’s under 2.10 and 2.11.

I don’t have a motion to change this. But my understanding from reading these two items and also reading the by-law is that changes to the by-law for things like adding a stop sign, adding a yield sign, prohibiting left turns, prohibiting right turns, prohibiting right turns on red are things that all would require what would be a minor amendment to the by-law and they would have to be put forward through this committee in order to be implemented. Is that correct? Just before I go to staff, I just want to make sure these are just questions if you want to make motions or have items.

Okay, question to staff then. Yeah, through to the chair of the process to amend the traffic and parking by-law was changed in 2021 as per council direction to facilitate a quicker customer service interaction for minor items. So obvious one that comes to mind is changes to on street parking limits within residential neighborhoods. It’s really council delegated the ability for administration to make those minor changes items such as speed limits and the ones, the types of items that are included in item 2.10.

Those are items that need to continue to get council approval. And hence, that’s why we have a periodic amendment report to council to approve those. Council? I get a lot of requests as you know, from my ward more particularly a particular part of my ward for all sorts of traffic items.

So since a by-law is required, is there any reason why a councilor could not at a meeting say I’d like to bring a proposed by-law forward to install a no turn on red sign at this particular intersection? I’ll go to staff on that one. Yes, certainly request like that staff are available. And the historical and preferred process is that technical changes to roadway operations get assessed first and just to ensure conformance with Ontario traffic manuals and policies and staff is available to assess those requests and liaise with residents as appropriate and make the necessary by-law amendments, whether they be administrative or via council approval.

My direct question though was whether councilors could bring forward proposed amendments which of course would have to be reviewed by staff. But there’s nothing precluding that, is there? Madam Chair, there’s nothing precluding councilors and bringing motions to change traffic controls. Whether those controls are ones that are currently under the purview of committee and council or ones that have been delegated to staff, we would of course advise, as Mr.

McCrae said, that we have time to review that and provide the committee with the advice of the impacts of making those changes. In my view, and again, correct me if I’m wrong, if it’s put on the agenda by a councilor, and of course if it passes and it would go to council, staff would have to look at it. But once it’s put on the agenda, members of the public would then be able to send in added communications which would be on the agenda. Because as things stand now, members of the public have reported difficulty having things put on added agendas if it’s not on the agenda.

I’ll go to staff. Madam Chair, I don’t like to clerk for clerks, but the short answer is yes, anything on the agenda would be subject to correspondence from the public prior to the deadline for the publication of the committee agenda. Okay, well, thank you very much, I appreciate that. And if I may, councilor just has a follow-up.

I do have a question back to staff. I know with a lot of these amendments, surveys and petitions are required. So would that have to be done first before a member of council would come with a recommendation? Yeah, Madam Chair, there are processes associated with some changes.

In particular, you think you’re probably referring to changes to on-street parking in residential neighborhoods. That is most often a neighborhood-driven initiative. So a survey is typically sent out to the residents to get the community consensus. But that is, if council chose to override and make a by-law amendment, that would still be at the council’s purview.

Okay, any further questions, councilor Tresault? I’ll go to visiting, Councilor Palosa, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, for welcoming me and recognizing me at your committee. Just here to speak briefly as the word counselor in regards to item 2.3, being the W-12A Landfield Community Mitogated Fund for the Glamor’s Tennis Courts was at this meeting as I have been attending the Public Liaison Committee meetings since becoming elected to council in 2018.

Glad that they came to a consensus for this wonderful project that would help enhance their area of the city. As you would see in the report, anything over $15,000 in expenses need to come to council for your approval. So looking for your full support here and at council for this, as they have adequate money to cover it, and this would allow for surface code of the tennis courts right to the run-out lines. They are looking forward to your support and seeing this facility upgraded and enhanced for not only their own enjoyment, but all city facilities are open to all Londoners.

So something to enhance the offerings for park and recreation. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. And thank you for your comments.

We’ll go to Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to speak to some of the consent items ‘cause a lot of them are touching within the ward for 2.7 for the West Lions work. I’ve been following that pretty closely and I did appreciate the information in the report there.

2.8 Cavendish work. I know there’s a lot of individuals who live along that area who are interested. So I’m appreciative of that and I’ll be sharing that report with them too. And the parking in Eagle Heights, that was a big one, just moving the parking to the other side of the street there just because of what the bus is off-loading.

We don’t want kids running across the street. So that was a big one. I really appreciate that. And I just wanted to say thank you for the great report.

This one was very, very informative. So much appreciated. Thank you, Councillor. There’s always lots of projects happening in the downtown area.

Moving on to Councillor Pribble. Just a reminder, 2.4 has been pulled. You can speak to that later on, but please proceed. Thank you, answer the chair to the staff.

First of all, I would just like to add on Councillor Palazzas. I’m really happy to see both 2.2 and 2.3 on the agenda and especially 2.2 as well. Because I do think that that’s very much needed with our progress of our city and certainly will be greatly appreciated by all the residents that they see that we are moving forward in this perspective. So thank you for that.

My first questions have to do with 2.5 and that’s the Victoria Bridge. And Victoria Bridge is covered in two sections. It’s also in the update 2023 renew. And I wanted to have clear understanding of in 2.5, we are being asked to approve the additional 225,000.

And then if I go to the appendix, source of financing for the bridge’s major upgrade, it’s nine and a half million approved budget. And then in the renew 2023, the contract is $22.8 million. So I just want to know kind of if we are looking at $22.8 million and approved by just it’s 9.5, where is the rest kind of going to come from or if you can, if someone can explain me the financing of this one, please. Ms.

Dan, I’ll go to you. There are a number of numbers that have been mentioned, but I’ll leave it with you. Yes, through the chair, 22.8 million is the tender value for the contract. The value that you’re seeing in the source of financing report for item 2.5 is this year’s budget.

So that’s not the total life to date of that account. That is just what’s in the current 2024 budget, which we’re using to fund the contract increase. So that’s where you’re seeing a difference between those two numbers. That 22.8 was the tender value of the construction work for the Victoria Bridge project.

Okay, thank you for that. So as this is planned to be finished this year, so I would imagine the 22.8 minus 9.5 was budgeted for last year then. Yes, through the chair, this is a multi-year project. It was tender in 2022 and it’s been working through.

And so that’s why you don’t see all of the budget in this current budget year. Councilor? Okay, thank you for that. 2.6 and that has to be with the water main cleaning that we are going to be doing 3.9 kilometers.

And by the way, thank you. It is in my ward, so I’m very happy certainly to see that. I just want to ask if you are looking now and into a second year of this project and potentially this is gonna be awarded two to five years. The first year, was it done by the same company as currently will be doing it the second year?

Through the chair, thank you. Yes, it is, it was a multi-year contract. So this is awarding the second year of the contract to the same contractor, that’s what? Thank you.

And out of curiosity through the chair, always through the chair to the staff. And out of my curiosity and our kind of thinking strategy. We did during the last year, we did only one year, not with the option because of multi-year budget, or was there a different thinking that we did one year? And now we are doing two potentially five years with options.

Is there any reasoning behind that? Thank you through the chair. Generally, when we do a multi-year contract, such as this, it’s so that we can ensure performance on the contractor basis, so that if the contractor does not perform well, we run into issues with a year of a contract. We don’t necessarily have to extend at the following year.

We have that option. So it leaves it a little bit more flexible for staff. However, it does also give us the opportunity to carry prices forward and have certainty on future year’s prices if the contractor’s performance is good. Thank you for that.

And regarding this, I think I have the last question and pastings is one of the streets on this map. And we did an extensive renovation, which we just finished. And when we do this, this cleaning, this initiative, how disruptive is it both to the traffic and to the residents because we just finished a big project there? Thank you through the chair.

So one of the reasons we do the cleaning and lining program is because the disruption is significantly less than if we were to replace the water main and the cost is significantly less. So properties that are serviced by the water main that is being cleaned and lined will be put on temporary water. So there’s no disruption or only very, very short disruption as they’re being switched between the two systems. And it’s a fairly short duration.

So a much, much less disruptive than say, a full street reconstruction that would be required if we were replacing the water main. If any digging is required on the hindsight or would it be possible if we have such projects that we time it so it’s done before the entire construction is completed? Thank you. Through the chair, sometimes that’s possible but typically it’s a very different type of contractor that’s doing that work.

So oftentimes it is done separately so that we don’t run into health and safety issues by having two different contractors on the site at the same time, Councillor. Through this cleaning and the disinitiative, are we gonna be digging there on that road? So through the chair, this is what we refer to as a trenchless technology actually. So very, very minimal excavation.

Oftentimes there may be what we call a HydroX and so a very small excavation just to expose a part of the water main, but very, very minimal. Councillor? Okay, thank you for that. 2.7 and 2.7 has to do with the infrastructure renewal.

I have a question on this one and I just wanna make sure that our recommendation of approval is going with the financing. And the reason why I’m asking is if you look at page 63 in A1, we are asked to approve $358,000. And I do understand that in this one, there is no engineering, it just says admin and residential inspection. But if I go to page 65, it does say 294,000 for the design and 358 resident inspection.

And I could have missed it in the report, but I just don’t see anywhere where is the 294 covered in what we are approving. That’s, yes, if you can please answer that one to me. So I’ll just explain, I guess in our recommendation AI, we have two amounts, an II, 358,606 approximately. And you are referring these figures to the summary on page 65, I just wanna get clarification to staff.

Thank you, sir. So to chair to the staff. So actually, there was my next one. I didn’t wanna kind of confuse it with a lot of numbers.

So in I, it’s 358 and on page 65, when is the summary of the project assignments, the detailed design 294, I just don’t see that we are approving it. If you go to II, number two, it says in this paragraph, it does say all three areas. What I mean by that is the inspection, the contract, and also the design, but it’s 60603 to 606,000. But if I go on the summary of the project, it’s estimated at 891,000.

So both of them, if you can just explain to me, because the way, unless I missed it, we are approving lower amounts that are actually required. Yeah, if we can get clarification and please proceed. Sure, thank you through the chair. So what you’re seeing in table one is a breakdown of previously awarded design fees.

So that’s that 294,000 in the 442,000. So those fees were awarded, would have been awarded in 2023, I believe, so through a previous year’s budget, because the detailed design work is done previously. This report is to award the resident inspection contract administration fees, so that 358 and the 449. So that’s coming out of this year’s budget.

So we’ve shown both, so that we have a total project fee for transparency and the total amounts awarded to the contractor, or actually, sorry, in this case to the consultants, over the lifespan of the project. And what about II, the amount of 606,030 to 90 cents? Nope, I got it. Sorry, thank you, Chair.

Yeah, so there’s also a design fee increase that is included in that. And does that amount relate at all to the summary of project assignments on page 65? If I’ve got that right, Councillor? Yes.

And I do understand the explanation in terms of the design previous year’s date and I do understand that now. So my questions have been answered on that one. Thank you. Thank you.

2.9, which has to do with the renewal program of the separation phase four. And I do, I just want to make sure that this area sooner or later will have, I do believe that there’s gonna be huge developments across RBC. Now, London Free Press Building goes down, then City Plaza is gonna have huge developments as well sooner or later. And I do understand with the separation, it’s gonna ease an adapt, no doubt.

But on the other hand, are we really kind of considering in terms of the source, in terms of the infrastructure, all this area because it might be really hugely developed. So are we thinking about it? And are we, this is a big project, both financial and time wise, but truly satisfy our needs not in one 10, 20, 30 years. And I’m quite sure we thought about it, but I just want to know what you’re thinking.

Thank you. Thank you, and through to the chair. Yes, so the short answer is yes, absolutely. So although this is a sewer separation project, so by that means we’re already freeing up sanitary capacity by removing that sanitary flow, or the stormwater flow rather from the sanitary sewer.

But in addition to that, we are also increasing the size of the sanitary sewer, recognizing that we want to support and facilitate intensification in the downtown. So we are setting this sewer up to be able to take a lot more housing units, business and so on in the downtown area. Councillor? Thank you very much for that answer.

2.10 and there’s a very kind of a simple one. There is, by the way, by the way, thank you. There were a lot of, I’ll tell you right now, I did find in this report a lot of requests from my residents that they did ask for certain changes, and they have been addressed. So thank you very much for that.

I will soon talk more about the canvas way parking, but I’m not gonna delay it today. Just a quick question on the Dundas between right out in Wellington. We are taking it out from 30 to 20 kilometers an hour. The 20 kilometers is really, and I know this location quite well, and I certainly don’t want anyone to speed up, speed there, but on the other hand, from 30 to 20, was there a certain study there?

Or what is the recommendation to go this low? Thank you. Relating to the speed limit on Dundas? This recommendation is being made in conjunction with other initiatives and an ongoing operational review of Dundas Place.

And it’s part of how administration are working with the downtown BIA and the Dundas Place business owners on how best to help get Dundas Place to success in that it’s a flex street. It’s a unique street, and that’s intended to be an event gathering space. So we know we need to support those kind of gathering activities, and we also need to support the businesses. So included in this bylaw are a right-turn restriction removal, and that was out of feedback from a business interest and that they wanted, you know, they were flagging that access to businesses on Dundas Place could be made easier by that.

So we’re certainly intending to support the businesses on Dundas Place. The recommendation with respect to the speed limit reduction is recognizing all that, that it’s a very unique street. There is a lot going on, you know, both respect to like with all modes of travel, walking, cycling, motor vehicles, and like parking and business access, as well as the business interaction. Like patio is, for example.

And so that is the rationale for the recommendation of the lower speed limit. Councillor. Okay, thank you for the rationale behind it. I’m just saying, because 20 is really slow, but what we are saying certainly does make sense.

And as I said, I’m familiar with it, and for the patios, and there are quite a few of them, and bicyclists as well. So thank you for the answer, and thank you for the rationale behind it. Last one, I have 2.12, and I just want to make sure, we have again three bits that we went out with, and that we are asked to accept. And I just want to make sure I understand, that there are three maps attached.

The three items, the three organizations, are actually two organizations, but three initiatives that we are going to be approving. Does it cover all these three maps, these three initiatives, or not? And I just want to know if this was a full project, or if there’s going to be additional money budget, bits coming forward, thank you. Yes, Ms.

Dan. He has them through the chair. These awards are for the vendors of record for the shelter amenities. So there’s three proposals that went through an RFP.

This is to provide our benching and leading benches, the lighting, and then the obelisk feature, which is going to be the visual identifier for every RT stop. And so the reason the maps show the full corridors for all of our three approved RT corridors, is this will be the vendor of record that will be hard-spected into our future contracts. The general contractor will do the work, and then coordinate with these vendors to be able to install the infrastructure that we’ve pre-purchased. So the budget isn’t been incorporated into the overall project for the entire program.

Councillor. Okay, thank you for that. And I will have actually have a meeting tomorrow about BRT, and I have a couple more questions about it. But for now, thank you very much for the answers, and I don’t have no more questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And thank you, sir.

I’ll go to any other members that have questions on the consent items that are before us. If the committee will allow me, I just have one follow-up question to one of the items, which is 2.5, and this is the Victoria Bridge financing. I know we are increasing the amount, and I have a question to staff on reasons why the amount has been increased, and when can we expect this bridge to open? Yes, and through the chair, as I mentioned earlier, this was a 2022 project.

Our original timeline under our contract for completion was to have completed before the end of last year. However, the very beginning of the project, we did have some challenges related to our sensitive and water work, also supply chain related to the structural steel. And so that did set off the start of the contract but a little bit later. What we did last year was really try to push to beat the weather and get our top coat asphalt down on the bridge.

Unfortunately, the asphalt plans closed before that could happen, and so now it’s extended the project into this year. We’ve been working through the winter and we’ll be ready to reopen. As soon as those asphalt plans open, we’ll be first in line to be able to get asphalt on the deck of the bridge, and then looking to open up by summer of this year, we should have traffic back on the bridge, and then we’ve got some finishing work to do to put the park back together down around and finish off the TPP connection. So we’re really looking forward to welcoming traffic back to that project due to the extension of the time that what we have forward today is an increase into the contract administration assignment with our consultants.

So they’ve literally are on the job for longer than originally intended, and we need to extend that contract. Thank you for that. And we do have the consent items as listed. We have a mover and a seconder.

We can proceed to vote. Housing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to the consent item that we pulled, 2.4, or is that after scheduled or items for direction? Just gonna ask that question of course.

Okay, so we usually do it at the end of the agenda. So we will proceed to scheduled items and understand we do have the chair. We do not have to ask for delegation status if only the chair is speaking. I see Mr.

Khan is here with us. Mr. Khan, you have, thank you for joining us here. You have up to five minutes.

Welcome. Thank you. And see, W.C. members.

Mr. Khan, if you can get that mic a little bit closer. Okay. So we can hear you.

Oh yeah, thank you. Can you hear me now? Yeah, just lean a little bit more into it. Okay.

If it’s not too uncomfortable. I will try. Chair, our man chair and see W.C. members.

Thank you very much for your time today. Taping review, the limited time available for this presentation. I will try to be precise to the point and be very, very brief. Before I start, let me introduce my team.

We have Mr. Trevor Kerr. He is the Vice Chair of ITCAC and also chair of sub committee for the transit and the environment. And then Mr.

Winston Librano. He is the chair for the active transportation committee. And then Mr. Ralph Vochal.

He is the chair for the MMP Mobility Master Plan and Mr. Antonio Santiago. He is the chair for the Vision Zero and the road safety. Brief intros of all chairs and the YCS are mentioned in the report.

So I don’t need to go through them. And thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time and commitment for today’s presentation. During the term, 2022-2023, ITCAC held 17 meetings. I received 34 presentations from staff and consultants and discussed 37 public notices and planning applications.

Our meetings were always full of discussions and deliberations. We never faced any core mission. I hope CWC members have already scanned our report. The report reflects the style and the culture of our working at the committee.

It also shows the firm commitment from the members of ITCAC towards betterment of the city we all call home. MAM chair and CWC members. The role of a community advisory committee is to provide municipal council with a formalized ongoing opportunity for public consultation and to offer recommendations, advice, and information on those specialized matters which relate to purpose of this committee. ITCAC is a group of retired and active professionals who come from different professions and backgrounds, bring diverse experience, exposure, and expertise from their respective fields.

Based upon our experience at the committee during the past term, we have drafted four recommendations for years and council’s consideration. To save time, I will not read those recommendations here. Rather, I will try to explain very briefly one by one. Recommendation one is a solution of time boxing.

You might have heard from all advisory committees time to time and they have always highlighted. Recommendation two is basically to enhance the relationship and the communication among community advisory committees. Technically, it is an extension of the recommendation one. Recommendation three is about annual report and work plans of each community advisory committee.

For sure, it will render every community advisory committee more responsive, focused, and productive. Recommendation four is about non-verting members from the boards and the commissions. It was the practice in past. It will save not only ITCAC’s time, but also indirectly the councils as well, which is otherwise consumed in inter-agencies communication whenever requested by the advisory committees.

Mr. Kahn, you have about 30 seconds left. Yes, thank you. Once again, thank you for this wonderful opportunity.

Me and my colleagues would be happy to respond to your any questions, concerned, and observations. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kahn.

And thank you to the members for joining you as well. I’d like to go to the committee, any comments? Receiving the delegation and the recommendations. Councilor Pervil?

I don’t have a question because I actually attended the meeting, but I just wanna say to all the members and even ones that are not here, thank you very much for the work and for your input because we do evaluate it. As I said at this last meeting, I said it’s not that I will always agree with everything that comes from this subcommittee or this advisory committee, but I would like to hear your opinions and there’s very valuable feedback. Thank you. Councilor Fank?

Thank you, yes. I also wanna echo those comments. I appreciate the input that you guys are sharing and the time that you’re spending on a lot of the important files we have coming to us. I’m wondering through the chair, if it’s appropriate to have the three recommendations referred to the clerks for review, since they mostly, in my opinion, relate to some of those procedures and then have them report back on how some of these recommendations can be incorporated.

So these are the four recommendations going to clerks for a report back to us on how they could be implemented? Yeah, it’s my understanding the majority of these seem to be somewhat procedural in relation to the clerk’s role and so I’m wondering, I just would like to hear their input on if they’re able to incorporate some of these recommendations ‘cause I do think a lot of them make sense, but before I make a motion to implement them, I’d like to hear from the clerks as well. So I’m hoping maybe if I don’t know if the clerks would like to comment on that as a motion before I make a motion fully, but I thought that might be appropriate. I would suggest maybe bringing forward a motion then to refer to clerks.

Sure, yes, then I’d like to make a motion to take the recommendations from this report and refer to the clerks for a report back. Governance working group, oh, okay, yeah. Governance working group for a report back to this committee, maybe by end of Q2 of this year. Q2, would that be June?

I am looking for a seconder. Councillor Trussell seconds. Any questions, comments? Councillor Privel?

Thank you and through the chair to the staff. I just want to know if there was any feedback before we vote on it, any feedback from the staff regarding the both proposal as well as the timeline. Thank you. Madam Chair, this work would likely be best done through clerks on the governance working group as it is related to how the advisory committees operate themselves and how they’re resourced.

There may be some good best practices and these recommendations that could apply to other committees. So I don’t want to put a timeline forward for clerks on when they be able to review that for governance working group. Councillor? Thank you for the answer.

No more questions? Okay, I see Deputy Mayor Lewis joining us and you’ve got your hand up. Welcome Deputy Mayor to committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, colleagues, two cautions on this. Some of the advisory committee items that need to be addressed are already on the governance working group agenda. We are not going to meet a Q2 report back if this is sent to governance. So I would suggest if colleagues want to refer this to governance working group, do not put a date on it.

We have several items already on the agenda that quite frankly need to be dealt with in a more timely manner. So this would not be one of the top items on the agenda right now. But it is on our agenda for review because we do have, as colleagues will recall, we’ve actually extended the terms of the advisory committees for an extra period of time. So I think that if you want to refer this to governance working group, I would just ask that you please don’t put a date on it because we’ve got several other items ahead of it on the schedule.

The other thing that I would caution is I just want colleagues to be mindful of the fact that a lot of work and Madam Chair, I believe you were part of that working group last term too, that we spend a lot of time developing terms of reference for the community advisory committees. And I would just caution that in follow up to all that work, we want to be careful about creating two tiered advisory committees. Advisory committees where some have more range and resources and a broader term of reference than others. So just something for people to think about.

But the main thing for me is if you’re going to refer this to governance working group, please do not put a timeline on the report back. Deputy Mayor, thank you for reminding me in particular that the advisory groups are going to be reviewed. And I’m not exactly sure if we know what those timelines will be. So it would make sense if this, that we would not put a timeline on because it can be reviewed through that process.

I wonder if I can ask plurics if we have a general idea when the advisory groups will be reviewed. Is that, do we know where we are with that? Yes, there’s no one here to respond to that. So I would be very cautious as well.

Putting a timeline can create a bit of a conflict and having being part of a working group that has reviewed advisory groups, it is a very long process as well. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. No, I’m happy to remove the timeline.

Although I would like to see this probably done in the next year or so. ‘Cause I also think it’s a priority for governance working group. But I’m happy to withdraw the timeline on it and have this, I still would like this to go to governance working group ‘cause I do think there are some recommendations that are slightly different than the ones that we have in the package already for governance working group. So again, I’d like to make a motion maybe to refer these recommendations to governance working group for review and consideration.

And then we can decide how they mesh with our existing direction for reviewing advisory committees. If I may, Councillor, just to get clarification, that it would also be reviewed through the advisory groups review as well. Or are you asking it to be separate to that review? I think we need to really understand if we are going to have, and I just wanna follow up with the Deputy Mayor’s comments about having a two-tier system.

So all advisory groups should be reviewed as one, these recommendations could go to that process, just for clarification. Yes, yeah, I’m fine with that. I think I would have to pull up the governance working group deferred matters list, but I’m imagining there is an item that says review advisory committees, and I would suggest that these be just looked at at the same time as our general review of advisory committees, but I do want these recommendations to make their way to governance working group for us to look at. Perfect.

Councillor Trissell. I don’t share the concern of that there’s going to be a two-tier system of committees, because we received based on their workload, and based on a lot of thought, a specific recommendation, other committees, other advisory committees are free to do that. And if this means that we’re gonna be using a slightly modified procedure for this committee, then so be it, and other committees. I would really suggest that other committees take a look at this report to get an idea of a really good template.

We received another really excellent report at another committee recently, so I wanna encourage this. And if the workload of governance is just so onerous that we can’t deal with it in a timely way, we should just go to SPPC instead of governance. I know the governance working group usually reports to SPPC, and that report would be addressed at SPPC. I’ll go to the deputy mayor as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just, I wanna follow up on a couple of things, because I think it’s important to recognize colleagues should really review the work that the prior governance working group did in reviewing these. Some of the recommendations with respect to this report were actually removed in the last set of work that the governance working group did. So, for example, the recommendation that the advisory committee should be creating and approving their own work plan and submitting a progress report.

That was altered by the last review of advisory committees. So what we actually have here in this recommendation in particular is an advisory committee asking to go back to a former structure. We’ve got another recommendation that the committee that we ask were direct senior level representatives from organizations like the London airport, the LEDC, CAA, which we can ask, but we have no authority to direct. So, I really think rather than trying to move this forward and start passing some recommendations through SPPC, it really does need to go to governance working group.

And that will be an opportunity to review the work that was done by last term working group and reviewing the CA terms of reference as well, because it was three and a half years of work to get to the terms of reference we have today. So now to start pulling those apart and saying, well, we’re gonna go back on this one based on the recommendation of one committee. I think it would really be getting the card ahead of the force. So, we do have that referral already for review at governance working group.

As colleagues will know, March 2025 is the expiry of the current term for the advisory committees. So, we will be dealing with this at governance working group sometime in 2024, because we have to take any steps necessary with regard to any changes before the next round of appointments to these advisory committees happen. So, for colleagues, I guess, comfort or surety, it will be dealt with by governance working group this year, ‘cause we do have a timeline to make some decisions prior to the expiry of their term in March of 2025. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And just for committee’s information, the governance working group is meeting next week, and there will be a governance report on advisory groups at that meeting. I’ll go to Councillor Frank, and then Councillor Tresault, do you want me to go back to you? No, I’m ready to vote. I’m ready to vote on her motion.

Okay, if you can just turn off your mic. Vote on her motion. And I’ll go to Councillor Frank. I’m ready to vote as well, actually, thanks.

If we can have the motion up. There are no further questions, comments. So, we have a motion in front of us that the third report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, ITCAC, from the meeting held on February 21st, 2024 be received. The four recommendations within the report be forwarded to the governance working group for review and consideration.

It be noted that a verbal delegation from Mr. Khan, Chair, ITCAC, with respect to this matter, was received. That is the motion. Any further questions?

Councillor Tresault. This motion exhausts the item, and then we move on to something else. I do have one other question. So maybe I should ask that before we vote on this.

Yes. If it refers to this item. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Somewhere in your report, you mentioned that you also review selected planning applications that have a bearing on transportation issues.

And my question is, how is it determined the source? How is it determined which planning applications you actually look at? Is that referred from planning staff because they’ve made a determination that there are traffic issues or do you self-select them, if I may ask? So this is a question to staff?

Madam Chair, I’m happy to answer that. The determination is made by staff in planning and economic development based on the general trip generation, as well as sometimes the level of public interest or the degree of change that’s anticipated. Councillor? Well, okay, so this is very timely then, because I have a number of applications in my ward.

I’m not gonna get into a particular application here, but it might be that on the face of application one, there’s nothing that would warrant this to go to the committee. And on the face of application two, there’s nothing that would warrant on the face of it at going to this committee. But when you put together application one, two, three, and four, now there’s another one, I’m talking about the Oxford coroner, by the way, it might not be a bad idea for them to be looking at it. So is there a way that a ward councillor can try to encourage planning staff to forward a group of related applications to this committee for their review?

‘Cause I think it’s, and it’s really timely, it has to happen quickly. Because once an application is filed, the planning staff is on a very, very short turnaround period. So we need to figure out a way to bring in the expertise of this committee in a useful way. Madam Chair, I’m not sure what mechanism there is for councillors to refer things to the advisory committees, except by motion, I suspect, at the relevant committee.

So whether that would be PAC or here, I’m not positive, it’s getting into a bit of a governance piece that’s not necessarily something I’m expert in. I would suggest that most major projects, as well as all EAs and corridors, do end up at ITCAC. The ones that are less likely to do so are things where there’s a non incremental change project to project. So you may be seeing the repurposing the school site into housing, the trip generations approximately the same.

A lot of those do still end up going because of the community interest. Mr. McRae, do you know anything additional around how the development applications are chosen for ITCAC? Mr.

Chair’s correct in that it’s at the discretion of the planning and economic development staff. And I’m pretty sure they are guided by the committee terms of reference. So it lists the number of matters that the committee shall entertain. And it’s one bullet is significant land use plans that affect transportation matters.

Area planning studies, secondary plans, official plan reviews. So that staff review the terms of reference to the committee. Councilor? Yes, so well, I understand that Councilor can’t unilaterally on the Councilor’s own desire at an item.

But I’ve had conversations with Mr. McRae and other members of planning staff about the abundance of related applications along the Oxford corridor. Now there’s one on at Wonderland and Beaverbrook. May I ask, is that something that has been referred, have those been referred to this committee?

And I’m talking about the huge development in between Sherry Hill and Beaverbrook, talking about other ones in that immediate vicinity. Councilor, I think that could be a question that you can follow up with staff. I’m not sure if they have that information, but I’ll leave it up to staff. Madam Chair, I can’t off the top of my head nor can Mr.

McRae recall what has gone to this committee from planning exactly or what might be on future upcoming agendas. We certainly can work with our colleagues in planning and get a list of past submissions that have been provided and anything that is pending. And the Councilor is able to reach out to staff, to yourself or to planning. I guess that’s where the clarification needs to be made a little bit more.

What do we know is coming up at different committees regarding different projects? Madam Chair, I’m happy to let Ms. McNeely know that there’s interest in these projects and whether they’re going to get a cack. And we can follow up directly with the Councillor as to the intent from planning.

And that would give the Councilor the ability to make decisions relative to whether he would like to see something different occur. Thank you for that. Are you satisfied, Councillor? That was the silly question from me.

I’m going to leave it there. - From the Chair. Thank you for your questions though. We do have a motion.

Any further questions? We can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.2, we have another delegation request from the Chair of the Environment Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, Mr.

Samuels. Welcome to Civic and you have up to five minutes. Thank you, good morning. Always nice to be back at Civic Works.

I’m here to present the report from our committee. There’s a few items on it that I thought might be worthwhile to explain in conversation, just in case there are any questions about them. Before I get to that report though, I just wanted to mention that aspects of what was just talked about in the previous item resonate with me as someone who served on advisory committees for the last several years. Sometimes we get into confusing situations about intergroup communication, where we’re not clear on whether an item belongs within the scope of one committee or the next, or sometimes both, and there can be delays when things have to be referred back and forth.

In fact, one of the items I’ll talk about from our report today originally started at a different committee, which then had to be referred back to our committee, and so a bit of preemptive understanding, I think would go a long way, especially if items can be circulated between multiple committees as needed. So on our report in your agenda, you’ll see there’s a few items there. Briefly, I’m just going to describe them, and happy to take any questions you might have. Our climate emergency action plan working group is set to schedule a meeting with communication staff to figure out how our committee can support developing more robust and far-reaching communications to help access parts of the London community that need certain types of messaging about climate change, mitigation, and adaptation.

One item that we voted on at our committee meeting was to use a portion of our committee’s annual budget, $1,000, to print yard signs. You’ll see an attachment with the report. It’s a version of this. This is what’s used currently by stormwater.

It’s got the mascot filter fill on it. I have one of these on my front lawn. I get a lot of compliments on it, I think it’s great. We want to keep the look of a sign similar and create one that’s suitable for people that are looking to naturalize their yards, recognizing recent work that was done on the yard and lot maintenance by-law.

There will still be conflicts between neighbors in the community, and putting up an information sign is a really good way of indicating that a naturalization project is intentional, and that can reduce demand on municipal compliance receiving complaints, where it’s very clear this yard is being naturalized. Here’s where you can access more information about the by-law, et cetera. And item 5.2, we have a communication with staff about potentially arranging for someone to be on site at EarthFest, which is coming up next month, just in case there are questions from community about the new yard and lot maintenance by-law, lots of interest in naturalization projects nowadays, and so it’s really helpful for them to be able to ask those questions of knowledgeable staff. And item 5.3, this is related to the tree protection by-law.

Our committee received something that was referred from the ecological community advisory committee about tree removals, and in particular, we had some questions about the enforcement process where we suspect that illegal tree removals have occurred. We learned from staff that there’s kind of two pieces to enforcement. One is for smaller-scale tree removals, like individual trees, where they could be administered a monetary penalty. The other is for larger-scale tree removals of multiple trees, which can actually be pursued under the Provincial Offences Act.

What we learned through that discussion, though, is it is a requirement under that legislation that complaints need to be submitted within six months of the infarction. And why that was concerning for us is we were looking at mapping data that was older than six months, meaning that if trees are removed and the mapping, aerial photography of trees is not being updated regularly enough, then there’s a chance we’ll exceed that allowable six-month period, and then it’s very difficult to take enforcement action. And so what our committee is recommending, which you’ll see in the report, is to take a look at this by-law and opportunities to improve enforcement, particularly increasing the frequency of aerial mapping should be feasible. We heard from staff that the cost of carrying out those mapping exercises is not very expensive and could be quite reasonable.

So just looking to your committee for more information about that. And then finally, we have a few items coming up on our next meeting agenda, just as a preview for you. These were additional to our work plan that we submitted last month. Just for your awareness, the committee has expressed interest in the neighborhood decision-making program and how climate change is being factored into the criteria and projects supported by that program.

And so that’s all I have. Happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Samuels, and thank you to your committee as well for the work that you do. We do have the fourth report in front of this. There is a request, 5.3 regarding the tree protection by-law. Apologies, turn it off.

I just wanted to go to staff that 5.3, the tree protection by-law, that this matter be included in the civic works deferred list. Is that a concern? If the committee decides to do this. Madam Chair, we’d be pleased to report back.

Any questions from the committee? Councilor Trussell? I just want to point out that I’m very, I want to comment through the chair that I’m very happy that you’re looking at the tree protection by-law. Since I’ve taken this seat on council, I’ve been getting communications from people in various stages of different kinds of projects, expressing concerns about tree removal.

And I think more attention needs to be given to this. And one thing that I notice is, whenever there is a proposal for tree removal, whether it’s with respect to an infrastructure project, or whether it’s with respect to a development project, or whatever, there is a corresponding arborist report. And I want to make sure that the arborist report, which actually gets down to the level of the trees and identifies why they have to be removed, which I found very useful. I want to make sure that that’s included in the get involved page at the earliest stage.

‘Cause I’ve had situations where people have reported to me that there are going to be tree removals, but we can’t find the documentation in back of it. And then by the time it’s put on there, it might be too late. Is there a way to ensure that the arborist report is included in all of the get involved type pages from the beginning so people don’t have to ask for it? Madam Chair, we certainly can work with our colleagues and communications to ensure those are posted at the earliest available date.

They may be, in some cases, still labeled as draft, but absolutely we can work to improve the access to those reports through get involved. And my only other question is, I just want to make sure that you’re actually given access to the aerial mapping resources that you’re asking for. I mean, I’m very impressed that you have the expertise on your committee to actually read these things and turn them into actionable evidence to make policy. Where exactly is that?

You indicated that it was not gonna be very expensive, but can I get some assurance that you’re gonna be, you’re gonna be able to access that data when you need it? Madam Chair, I do have Mr. Yeoman, the Director of Parks and Forestry on the line for this call. And he’s had a number of discussions with the advisory committee and can speak to the more detailed points of access.

Before I give up the mic, I just wanted to flag that generally matters related to trees and tree protection do go to PEC, so I just, I’m not sure if perhaps the request that the tree protection by-law return to civic works should just be amended to say to the appropriate standing committee of council. I believe we should be in PEC for that. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the question.

We did have a very good discussion about this at committee. The request actually and the suggestion came from the committee members for administration to have that information for it to be shared publicly and made available, doing the two flyovers potentially every year. We do an annual one right now. The second one would help us with our monitoring work that we do looking at canopy cover and has a number of benefits beyond just the enforcement aspect.

So the costs continue to decrease with aerial photography and there’s a lot more technology we’re exploring as well. So we think this will be really helpful. It’ll be available to us and members of the public who are large. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. yeoman for being with us. We are going to make an amendment then following up on Ms. Shear’s comments about the tree protection bylaw going to the appropriate committee as opposed to civic works deferred matters list.

Councillor Trissell. Yeah, I just want to flag the tree protection bylaw as one of those policy issues that very well could cut across different committee jurisdictions because if it’s an infrastructure project, it’s definitely not going to planning committee for a council determination. It would be more within the jurisdiction of this committee. So tree removals occur in a variety of different circumstances.

And I think it’s important that we have the flexibility to make sure that we don’t miss a tree protection issue because of jurisdictional issues. Ms. Shear. Just to clarify, Madam Chair, changes to the bylaw generally report to PEC.

The application of that bylaw to infrastructure projects would be in the infrastructure reports to come to this committee. So it is a bit of belt and suspenders, but generally we’ve amended the tree protection bylaw, urban forestry strategy. Those have gone to planning an environment as per the committee’s defined role, but you’d still see tree protection information associated with major infrastructure projects coming to this committee as well. So there’s an overlap.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions from committee? Councillor Pribble. Thank you.

And through the chair, talk to Mr. Simulus. And I just want to thank you and your committee as well as ecological one with headed by Sandy Levin. I just want to let you know and you certainly know and you are aware and your members as well.

When I attend to your meetings, you know that I don’t agree always with everything because I look at the whole picture for half a million of Londoners. But one thing is I’ll take this opportunity to let you know and Sandy Levin as well that actually thanks to my additional information I received at your meetings. I did support one initiative in the multi-year budget. So I think that the work you do is certainly considered not always agreed by the Councillors, but certainly considered and we certainly do take it to our hearts and we do think about it.

Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. And I want to echo Councillor Pribble’s comments.

And I look at everything from the city of a half a million people as well. And I agree with almost everything you guys say. So I think we always have different perspectives on council, but love what you guys do. I just wanted to follow up and ask with the other items, like the additional business, can I confirm that if we receive this report then the other requested asks in the report will also happen as well?

I’ll go to the clerk. The motion that was drafted is up on the screen right now and it pulls out any of the items within the report that had a request or an action. So if this is voted in favor, then those actions would be taken. Perfect, thanks.

We need a mover and a seconder as well. Councillor Tristle and Councillor Ferrara. The other questions can proceed to vote. Councillor Pribble, Councillor Pribble.

Thank you. I just did finish reading the entire motion. Just again, before we vote, I would say this thing. And I know staff did already address one thing, but is there anything in this motion in all the points that staff would like to give us a feedback or comment on?

Thank you. Madam Chair, I think that the motion put forward from the advisory committee contains a number of very positive actions and we’re happy to advance with our colleagues. Thank you very much for your response. Now for the questions, we can proceed to vote then.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to the next item, items for direction. We do have a added revised submission for point one regarding the Harris Park shoreline reconstruction. We see Ms.

Velastro here, who is requesting for delegation status. So I will look to the committee to approve the delegation. Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Trussell, proceed to vote. Councillor Trussell, closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Ms. Velastro, welcome to committee. You have up to five minutes and we have received your added submission.

So please proceed. Thank you. I’m here to ask the committee to consider three aesthetic changes to the final design of the Harris Park shoreline reconstruction. These were brought forward to staff but never really seriously considered.

I just wanna first mention that the sloped embankment of large river storm and vegetated upper edge is a standard design for all stormwater projects except for stormwater ponds. And you can see this, you can see it at Mud Creek at Wonderland. You can see it at Gainesville Road, just west of Hyde Park. You can see it at Pottersburg Creek.

And I’m just raising this because if you’re familiar with these areas, then you would understand that the criticism of this project is fair and informed because we can see from past projects of what is gonna be like going forward. So the three items that I’m asking you to consider is that the concrete lookout at the south end of Harris Park. There’s also one currently at Ivy Park. It is a concrete circle with benches, concrete benches.

It’s underutilized and it’s often to faced with graffiti. The cost of the proposed outlook at Harris Park is $200,000 and it’s going to have a pot of trees similar to what you see on Dundas stream. We think that it’s unnecessary and that the money would be used better if it was put back into parks, ideally to purchase land to expand community parks or something to that effect. And we think that just having benches where people can sit down and enjoy the river would be just as nice than a concrete lookout that costs $200,000.

So we’re just asking that to be reconsidered and if the money can’t be better used. Sorry, give me a second here. Also, we would appreciate if the tree plantings would better reflect a natural forest composition along the river. This would be tree species that naturally grow together combined with understory trees.

Understory trees are smaller trees that grow beneath the canopy. They tend to flower in the spring and produce berries later on. And the city already plants flowering understory trees at the forks. This combination is important because birds feel safer with tiered trees as they move down to the ground.

And the flowers are important to pollinators in the spring and the berries are relished by wildlife later on in the season. It’s important to people because flowering trees are beautiful and they’re also fragrant and they make you feel like spring is here. And the overlapping canopies provide good shade. It provides a dense shade and not that it actually cools the outdoor temperature if you’re underneath them.

So it actually gives relief. Right now Harris Park is a football field. It’s not comfortable. It’s hard to be there without some kind of shade.

You may not know this, but I know this ‘cause I made this happen is that the city of London declared itself a B city in 2016. But it has taken a little action to fulfill its obligations under this designation. So we considering the trees at Harris Park, we go a long way to making London a true B city. I also want to address the conwards.

The conwards are these iconic trees along the Thames River. And I’m being told that they’re not going to replant them. Those are the trees that they cut down along the river now. And in the environmental impact statement, I said these trees were in good condition.

They’re also ancient trees. They were ancient trees. They’re gone now. And my understanding is that there was never an issue with these conwards.

The issue staff cited was that they’re poplars. So they’re fast growing trees. They’re mighty, mighty trees. And they’re called conwards ‘cause their seeds look like cotton balls that fly out through the air.

There’s never as far as I know an incident at Harris Park with these conward trees. And they certainly would not pose a threat if they’re planted and incorporated in a larger tree stand rather than individual trees. Since the environmental impact statement never had a chance for public review, I would like a few more seconds. Okay, we would appreciate an opportunity to submit a tree planting plan that incorporates what the city has done but enhanced what the city has done.

And we would like that done for an opportunity to have that reviewed. And then the last thing is based on, okay. Okay, that’s it. Okay, is my time up?

Yes, it is. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I’d like to go to committee.

Any questions, comments? Councillor Trissell. Yes, a number of questions. First of all, generally to staff, you’ve heard those three recommendations.

Are those things that can be incorporated into the project at this time? Should be a little bit more specific, please. Are you referring to the submission or to the comment? Yes, the speaker identified three requests that she was making.

If the chair wants to let her reiterate those three succinctly, but you have them, okay. Madam Chair, I believe I have them there to delete the concrete lookout, to do a more naturalized tree planting with understory, including potential restoration of the cottonwoods, and to have the community design the tree planting for submission to the city, is that correct? So I’m going to just sort of as a general statement, say that we are quite a ways down the path with this project and a number of these things including the concrete lookout having the subject of a great deal of discussion in the past. Went back to the river, didn’t proceed with the major improvements to the forks of the Thames.

Some other improvements to improve public access to the waterway for all users was part of that project. And this project, the lookout comes from that space. With respect to the tree plantings and what opportunities there are for different restoration and for community participation, I do have Mr. Yeoman on the line and he may be able to provide some more insight there.

Mr. Yeoman. Thank you, through you Madam Chair. So the tree selection that we go through is informed by a number of factors.

It’s informed by an urban forestry review and assessment. It’s also informed by park design as well in terms of a lot of the different priorities and needs that we’re trying to work through with the park. Harris Park is a city wide park and it has a number of uses. We want to encourage that.

We want to really bring more lenders down to the park as well. We’re also very mindful too that the core continues to intensify and we’re going to need additional park opportunities for those residents as well too. In terms of the community planting suggestions, we’re happy to receive those and consider those. We also need to look at species availability with our suppliers as well too.

And unfortunately, some tree species are not planted in large numbers by suppliers or the supplies diminishing as well too of trees in general. Any other questions, Councillor? Yes, I actually, I have quite a, I actually have quite a few. The statement was made that some of the community concerns were not given serious consideration because the scope of the project had already been determined by the time you did the open house.

Could you respond to that? Madam Chair, it’d be very rare for us to go out to an open house without some well-developed design on paper for which people can provide comment and feedback at that time. But there have been a number of discussions about the work in Harris Park over the course of several years. We’re always happy to receive suggestions but we do not act on all of those suggestions and we understand that for community members that might be frustrating that their concerns were not addressed.

Okay, there’s also a statement that there are implications with respect to the migratory birds convention act to remove nest removal. And I’d like to know to what extent have these concerns been specifically addressed because we don’t want the city to be in violation of these broader laws. Madam Chair, these is legislation that we are very familiar with. We work within the context of almost all of our project and certainly that’s why the removals are done prior to nesting season.

We will be in compliance with the requirements of legislation. My next question deals with using petroleum tar for pathways to access the river’s edge. Is it absolutely necessary to engage in this level of sort of non-natural development? Madam Chair, the pathway near the river’s edge is intended to be hard surfaced using asphalt to ensure that we have a year round wearing surface that is accessible to all pathway users.

Use of permeable surfaces, crusher dust, gravel, wood mulch, would preclude the use of that space from people with disabilities. It makes it unaccessible for people with bikes and it’s also problematic for people who might be using baby carriages and the other sorts of devices to that extent. I don’t have an alternative that would be environmentally friendly. I know there’s a suggestion of using steel grates or plates.

Those are extremely costly, have a high level of embedded carbon, but also create a very slippery and challenging surface for people with mobility challenges. Okay, there’s a statement in here that it’s also intended to facilitate large transport trucks that can carry heavy equipment to the concerts and festivals. Madam Chair, the pathway that is designed as part of the park project is meant to be a pathway for users of the park. We do design the TVP proper to at least be able to access her emergency maintenance and repair purposes for park assets.

We are not designing a road to service Harris Park. Counselor. And finally, this is just, thank you for indulging my questions because this is coming up a lot. And since this is not a development project that goes to council for approval, it’s difficult for councilors to have this interaction with you.

So I really appreciate this. Is there some additional meeting or review or I’m not calling for a council vote or a public participation meeting ‘cause that’s not in the bylaw, but is there something else we could do to sort of try to incorporate some of these and other community concerns into the final project a little more before we proceed, finally? Madam Chair, I’m not advising we have another public participation or a meeting to try to negotiate the content of the project. I don’t believe there’s broad agreement in the community.

This is a city-wide park as Mr. Yoma noted as to what this project should look like when it’s done. That said, if people wish to submit those ideas and they’re ones we can incorporate at this phase of the project, we are happy to receive them. Could I request that such submissions also be made available to this committee?

Madam Chair, certainly if anyone submits anything with a copy to Civic Works and the clerk will distribute it to the members of the community as requested by the, with a permission of the submitter. If I could just go to Mr. Yoma to Mr. Yoma?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and just to add to that is why I would like to let the committee know as well that we’re always listening to the community feedback. We had, as Ms. Chair mentioned, we’re incorporating the changes as best we can. We have actually, as a result of the public feedback received, we’ve tweaked the alignment of the Thames Valley Parkway to retain four additional trees that are in the park.

So that’s been a great benefit of the discussions and I’m always happy to have those as we go along. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. I would like to thank Mrs.

Vastra for coming today and also for the numerous questions she sent it through. I want to say that I want to mainly think to our staff and I think predominantly it was Mr. Titus that kept responding and all his any concerns I had and he answered and there was a supportive rationale behind the steps we are taking. So I think to our staff and I do feel, as I said, the rationale was explained both to the person who sent the email and with the questions.

And I would like if these could be also shared with other potentially, if there are any other concerned citizens about this, that if the answers could be shared with them because the rationale is very clear. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Ferrer. Thanks, Chair.

I was happy to listen to this conversation. Just wanted to see where it went, but I do want to say thank you to Ms. Vastra if she’s still there for the delegation and thank you to staff. Great, thank you to staff.

And to Mr. Yeoman and Ms. Ramaloo and Ms. Chambers.

You’ve all been very helpful. And I do see that there was a good reception for community engagement, especially for that little tweak that we spoke about. So I do want to definitely send my thanks for that and I appreciate that, thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments from committee? I see none. I wonder if the committee will allow me just to make a comment from the chair. I want to thank Ms.

Vastra for the delegation and for her many, many questions. I agree it is a learning curve. It’s for these projects, not just for Harris Park, but there’s a number of other large projects in the city. And if anything, the questions being asked, lots of information being shared with staff, staff responding, I am always amazed how important trees are to the community and we get the emails.

And I’m seeing a lot of heads being nodded from staff. I think we all understand the importance. It’s almost an emotional feeling that you get when you know, especially the bigger trees are coming down. And if there’s any opportunity or way that we can engage with the community ahead of projects or upfront as opposed to through that process, which is also important, but the more information is shared, the amount of trees that are going back, how we do the restoration, I think that has to be a more of a fulsome process as we communicate with the community on the trees that are very precious in our city.

So I think we’re all in agreement that they do matter how we can do a better job communicating, I think is always a challenge for us. So thank you again to the delegation. I am looking to committee any comments, receiving the delegation, looking for a motion, Councillor Ferrera to receive the delegation and looking for a seconder, Councillor Tresault. And with that, we can proceed to vote.

I vote yes, I’m just having trouble with these crap right now. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So moving on, we did have a consent item full 2.4, which is the 2024 Renew London Infrastructure Construction program I would like to get a motion to discuss the consent item on the floor, Councillor Frank, Councillor Ferrera. And I would like to also ask staff, there is a brief presentation on this if the committee is willing to receive a quick presentation from staff.

But for now, if we can, I guess I can go to staff then for the presentation, thank you. Thank you and through the chair. No presentation, just some brief introductory remarks to set up the presentation or the report. So again, thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief introduction for this year’s annual Renew London report.

It outlines the city’s successes and lessons learned from 2023 and previews the important work this plan for 2024. So each year, the Renew London Infrastructure program completes important underground work to replace and upgrade our aging infrastructure to make our city sustainable and ready for continued growth. On the surface, we undertake projects to enhance road safety, improve traffic flow, while encouraging more emissions-free active transportation and in neighborhoods, we rebuild dozens of local streets, updating streetscapes and aging infrastructure for the next generation of residents and families. At 2023 was one of the busiest construction seasons London has ever experienced, featuring three rapid transit projects, a new roundabout and key transportation improvements.

Last year’s work represented continued improvements in the core, some of which will begin to wrap up this year. We’re excited to soon welcome traffic back onto Victoria Bridge and under the Adelaide Street Rail Crossing and reopen lanes of traffic on Wellington Street downtown. So we’ll be keeping Londoners updated as we hit exciting milestones for each of those projects. Looking ahead, this year’s 2024 Renew London Construction program is set to tender just over 270 million in contracts to improve our city’s infrastructure.

That makes this the third consecutive year of record-breaking construction value. Now, a contributing factor to this year’s especially high construction value is that there are several large two-year projects that will start in 2024 and continue into 2025. The 2024 projects will continue to focus on essential transportation investments above ground, while addressing our aging underground infrastructure needs. We still have a bit more work to do in the core, as well as lots of new infrastructure that’s being built in other parts of the city as well.

So we’re looking forward to delivering all of our 2024 construction projects, big and small, and our project teams will continue to coordinate with all of our partners to manage impacts and keep people informed during construction. Like in previous years, we’ve selected a list of top 10 projects, which we’ve packaged together in an interactive tool that you can find at london.ca/top10. And with that, I’ll conclude my introduction and pass it back to the chair for any questions you have on the work presented in today’s report. Thank you, Mr.

Stan. This was pulled by Councillor Ferrera. Questions, comments from committee members? Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the comments and the overview of the item. The reason I pulled the item was specifically for a line that I read for the traffic diversion measures on page 18. And this discussion kind of took place a little bit on the other consent items between Councillor Pribble and Mr. McCrae on this with respect to the speed limit and just activations of the Black Street itself.

And it’s basically speaking about, I’m speaking about the Dundas place traffic diversion measures that took place in last year’s construction season. And I do see just from my own observation on the ground and from speaking with the people who visit the area that there is probably spin-off benefits, benefit spin-off effects from those diversion measures. And I do want to see, as it was discussed already, that we’d like to see a more pedestrian friendly environment on the Flex Street itself. So, and again, the Flex Street was built for events and for gathering spaces and it supports business interactions and business themselves, as Mr.

McCrae said earlier in this discussion. So I wanted to bring a motion that I did send to the clerk and I was wondering if you could bring that motion up and it’s basically, I’ll read the motion. It’s that civic administration be directed to provide options for ongoing traffic diversion for Dundas place between Wellington Street and Rideout Street and report back to civic works with an operational plan in Q4 2024. So, before anything, maybe we should go to staff and just see how staff can take that.

Madam Chair, I’m getting the nod for Mr. McCrae that that will work. I also have a note from Mr. Jan Chula that will allow us to collect data from the patio season that goes well into the fall usually, analyze that data and provide meaningful recommendations to council and committee.

I thank you for that. So, the timeframe Q4 2024 is correct. Yes, Madam Chair, I would suggest it’s probably the later bit of Q4, but definitely Q4. Okay, thank you, I appreciate that.

I was hoping the sooner or the better, but I do want to be able to work within the constraints of staff’s time. So, Q4 2024, at the end, that’s fine, but I do want to just see if we can see what type of spinoff effects and using the flex tree itself as more of a flex tree. So, it’s built that way. So, I figured we’ve already seen some positive interactions just as a byproduct from the diversion measures that we saw from construction.

So, maybe we should look into that just a little bit more. So, that’s what this motion is basically asking you to do. So, I’m hoping for a seconder and I’m hoping for this committee to approve it. Okay, how about if we get a seconder first, Councillor Trissell, Councillor Frank?

Thank you, and through the chair, I just had a couple of questions. I’m not totally, I don’t understand actually. So, maybe if I could ask the mover to explain, are you saying that you want more diversion traffic on Dundas place or less than you want to be used more as like a pedestrian cycling flex street? ‘Cause I don’t really know which way this is going.

Thank you, Councillor. So, I drafted this motion from reading that one line on page 18, and it’s basically looking for less vehicular traffic as in cars just to allow the flex street to be open more to pedestrian traffic. If that is bicycling traffic, that’s, I don’t see why that would be an issue, but I would like staff to just report back and look at all the options. So, that’s what this motion is going for.

It’s just looking for staff to look into this flex street itself to open it up more for community gatherings. So, that’s what the intent of the motion is. And it is a report back. Any other questions from committee, Councillor Pribble?

Thank you and sort of chair to the staff. I do, by the way, and I thought that last summer was absolutely fantastic and beyond the right path in terms of the Dundas place. The events that have taken place brought really many, many, many Londoners through joy, dancing, singing, lots of really fun and it was unrecognizable from potentially some other days. But one thing in Dundas place, and that was always kind of in the other parts of the world in such streets, you have, I don’t know if the right word is the pillars, but those yellow pillars, did they go up and then we can, the staff can always put them up in five seconds and put them down.

And I always see if every time we do their lots of staff, lots of bringing all the fences, et cetera, is this something that we considered kind of, or is it feasible because in the infrastructure under, is it, I think it would be really make it to everything much more smooth or much more faster and much more flexible. Again, if we wanna do certain things, even if it’s the last minute things, have you ever considered it or is there an opportunity to consider it now? I think that will be addressed in the report back, but I’ll go to staff. Madam Chair, that’s a good observation.

So we have had some discussions about the type of barriers that should be used for both events or for traffic diversion, if we’re looking to restrict through traffic in a permanent way. We had into when we were designing Dundas place, deeply consider the types of ballerds that come up from the ground, they’re quite expensive, a little tricky to operate in the winter. But that said, as we report back, we can look at what the appropriate traffic control measures are. Certainly we’ve got friends in the emergency planning area that we’d like to see a more robust barrier and some locations for big events.

Thank you, no more questions. Thank you. Councillor Chirso. Is, am I through the chair, am I correct in thinking that the fences are actually used when there is a licensed beverage serving area and the fences would typically not be used just to stop traffic?

Madam Chair, we actually have not had Dundas place fully open to traffic during the summer since its construction pre-COVID. So there is a combination of diversion using planters and various other types of barricades to close off the road. And that’s done in collaboration with traffic engineering as well as our colleagues in event management who managed the Dundas place event. But the use of actual fences, which takes more time to put up as he was suggesting.

Councillor through the chair. The good question is around the fences. About fences. Pacific.

Madam Chair, for the full closure of the road for an activation, we have temporary fences that are deployed. There are no permanent gates built into Dundas place at this time. It is something we can explore through part of this motion. But when it was constructed, the intent was not for full closures all the time.

So we have a temporary solution that has been working well since the plaza was completed in late 2019. But if we were to look at ongoing traffic diversions, we may want to look at it more permanent and easily deployed solution. Okay, I see no further questions. We have a motion to proceed to vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on, I have not been made aware of any deferred matters, additional business. I see none, moving on. Oh, Madam Chair, just to confirm, we just passed the motion made by Councillor Ferreira, or do we have the motion for the acceptance of the report as information?

Staff recommendation as well for 2.4. We do have the motion to receive as well. So we’ll be able to vote on that in front of us. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Moving on, I’ve not made aware of any deferred matters or additional business. I am looking for a German Councillor Ferreira. Seconded by Councillor Trussell.

Can we do a hand vote? Thanks everyone.