May 22, 2024, at 9:30 AM
Present:
A. Hopkins, J. Pribil, S. Trosow, S. Franke, D. Ferreira
Also Present:
C. Rahman, K. Chambers, S. Chambers, G. Dales, J. Dann, O. Katolyk, T. Koza, D. MacRae, S. Maguire, K. Oudekerk, A. Rammeloo, J. Stanford, J. Taylor, J. Bunn
Remote Attendance:
D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, D. Freeman, E. Hunt, G. Irwin, E. Skalski, M. Somide
The meeting was called to order at 9:31 AM.
1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
2. Consent
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That Items 2.1 to 2.11 and 2.13 to 2.14 BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: A. Hopkins J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
2.1 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 1, 2024:
a) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting with the feasibility of providing consumer information about pet goldfish; it being noted that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) held a general discussion with respect to the Business Licensing By-law communication that was included on the April 7, 2024 ESACAC Agenda;
b) upon completion and approval to possible amendments to the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program by the Municipal Council, the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) meeting; it being noted that the ESACAC held a discussion with respect to this matter; and,
c) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, 4.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, ESACAC, with respect to this matter, was received.
Motion Passed
2.2 Springbank Dam Decommissioning and Bank Restoration: Consultant Award for Contract Administration
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - RPTwS-CWC-Springbank Dam Decommissioning Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Springbank Dam Decomissioning and Bank Restoration Consultant Award for Contract Administration:
a) Stantec Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection, contract administration, and environmental management services for the Springbank Dam Decommissioning and South Bank Restoration project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $728,067.15, including 20% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, bringing the total engineering services for this project to $1,056,385.43 (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-A05)
Motion Passed
2.3 Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements: Appointment of Consulting Engineer
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for the Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements:
a) MTE Consultants Inc. BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the detailed design and tendering services at an upset amount of $431,545.18 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the financing for this assignment 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 assignment;
d) the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,
e) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)
Motion Passed
2.4 Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements – Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC-RPTwS-Oxford St W and Gideon Dr Intersection Improvements Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services for the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements:
a) R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction supervision required for this project as per the R.V. Anderson Associates Limited work plan, on file, at an upset amount of $459,298.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
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 Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and a private property owner in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements project; and,
e) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)
Motion Passed
2.5 RFT-2024-049 Greenway Incinerator Rebuild Tender Award - Irregular Result
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - RPTwS-CWC-Incinerator Rebuild Tender Award Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to RFT-2024-049 Greenway Incinerator Rebuild Tender Award Irregular Result:
a) the bid submitted by Lor-Don Limited at its tendered price of $10,168,921.95 (excluding HST), for the rebuild of the Greenway Incinerator BE ACCEPTED;
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-E03)
Motion Passed
2.6 New Traffic Signals, Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers
2024-05-22 - Staff Report -CWC-RPT-New Signals and PXOs-v2-1of1
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to New Traffic Signals, Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers:
a) the installation of the following traffic signals BE APPROVED:
i) Byron Baseline Road at Lansing Avenue;
ii) Dundas Street at Ashland Avenue;
iii) Dundas Street at Kellogg Lane;
iv) Dundas Street at Eleanor Street;
v) Highbury Avenue N at Canada Post Driveway;
vi) Longwoods Road at Westdel Bourne; and,
vii) Queens Avenue at English Street;
b) the installation of the following pedestrian signals BE APPROVED:
i) Fanshawe Park Road W at Hyde Park Rotary Link;
ii) Oxford Street W at Summit Avenue;
iii) Richmond Street at Plane Tree Drive;
iv) Sunningdale Road E at Canvas Way; and,
v) Adelaide Street N at Victoria Street
c) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend By-law PS-114, entitled “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London” related to the new pedestrian crossovers planned to be installed in 2024. (2024-T07)
Motion Passed
2.7 Procurement Approvals for the Detailed Design for the Bradley Avenue Extension
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC-Procurement Approvals for the Bradley Ave Ext_Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to Procurement Approvals for the Detailed Design for the Bradley Avenue Extension:
a) approval BE GIVEN to award a single source contract to TMHC Inc. in the amount of $138,935.50 (excluding HST), to complete a Stage 4 archaeological assessment as required under the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the contract with WSP E&I Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $463,123.20 to a total amended value of $1,264,757.95 (excluding HST) to complete additional detailed design and environmental activities to support the environmental permitting, design and tendering of the project, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
c) the financing for the contract award and contract amendment 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 the contract award and contract amendment; 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 SS-2024-162 Traffic Signal Controller Single Source Purchase
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC-Traffic Signal Controller Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to SS-2024-162 Traffic Signal Controller Single Source Purchase:
a) the quotation submitted by Innovative Traffic Solutions Ltd. at its quoted price of $226,600.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 d) Single Source;
b) the financing for this project BE APPROVED with the Source 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; and,
d) the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project. (2024-T07)
Motion Passed
2.9 Basement Flooding Grant Program By-law Amendment
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - RPT-CWC-Basement Flooding Grant Program By-Law Amendment Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to amend the Basement Flooding Grant Program By-law (By-law A.-7562-160), by deleting Schedule ‘A’ and replacing it with an updated Schedule ‘A’, as appended to the above-noted by-law. (2024-F11A)
Motion Passed
2.10 Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion Project - Single Source Procurement
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - RPTwS-CWC-Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion Project Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion Project Single Source Procurement:
a) Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineer to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion project, in the total amount of $516,180.50, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
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-A05)
Motion Passed
2.11 Partial Closing Pine Street Road Allowance
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC - Partial Closing Pine Street Road Allowance
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to a Partial Closing Pine Street Road Allowance:
a) the closing of part of Pine Street on Registered 433 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849 BE APPROVED; and,
b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to stop up and close part of Pine Street; it being noted that subject to the passing and registration of the above-noted by-law in the Land Registry Office, an easement over Part 2 plan 33R-21849 will be conveyed to London Hydro. (2024-T09)
Motion Passed
2.13 Contract Amendment: Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands: Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC-RPTwS-CWC-Dingman Creek Stage 2 EA Contract Amendment Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to a Contract Amendment for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment:
a) the contract with Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan Inc. BE INCREASED by $178,398.00 to a total amended value of consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Dingman Creek Stage 2 EA project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $876,927.21, including contingency (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 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 in connection with this contract amendment; 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-A05)
Motion Passed
2.14 Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A and 2B: RFT-2023-128- Culvert Installation Project and Consultant Fee Increases
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A and 2B, RFT-2023-128, Culvert Installation Project and Consultant Free Increases:
a) Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A – Culvert Installation Project (Tender RFT-2023-128) construction contract value with Birnam Construction Ltd. BE INCREASED by $954,027, including contingency, for a total contract value of $3,356,250.56 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
b) the engineering design fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, by $322,091.24 (excluding HST), from $942,832.61 to a total upset amount of $1,264,923.85 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
c) the Contract Administration fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, by $44,924.25 (excluding HST), from $127,098 to a total upset amount of $172,022.25 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
d) the financing for these projects BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;
e) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these projects; 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-A05)
Motion Passed
2.12 Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment
2024-05-22 - Staff Report - CWC-Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by A. Hopkins
That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to an Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment:
a) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;
b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to design and implement an awareness campaign for households and lawncare service providers that focuses on better lawn and garden practices to help the environment and take climate action for implementation in February to April 2025;
c) the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to pursue a multi-municipality project to complete the remaining work in London on emerging best practices, applicable legislation and jurisdiction, costs and benefits, potential incentive programs, and other factors regarding gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment, including a funding submission to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund; and,
d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Sound By-law:
i) report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with proposed amendments to the Sound By-law to restrict the operation of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment in residential areas from 6pm to 8am;
ii) hold a public participation meeting to consider public input at the same meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; and,
iii) circulate the report to relevant community advisory committees for review and feedback in advance of the relevant meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;
it being noted that communications from the following individuals, with respect this matter, were received:
-
J.B. Morton;
-
D. Cameron;
-
S. Menard;
-
M. Luce;
-
Dr. A. Quan-Haase;
-
D. Sandic; and,
-
L. Seguin. (2024-V02)
Additional Votes:
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by A. Hopkins
Motion to approve parts a), b) and c) of the clause.
Vote:
Yeas: Absent: A. Hopkins D. Ferreira J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke
Motion Passed (4 to 0)
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by A. Hopkins
Motion to approve part d) of the clause.
Vote:
Yeas: Nays: Absent: A. Hopkins J. Pribil D. Ferreira S. Trosow S. Franke
Motion Passed (3 to 1)
3. Scheduled Items
None.
4. Items for Direction
4.1 Transit, Road Network and Active Transportation Planning for West London – Councillor S. Trosow
2024-05-22 Sub. Tranist Road Network and Active Trans. West London - S. Trosow
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by A. Hopkins
That the following actions be taken with respect to Road Network and Active Transportation Planning in West London:
a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Civic Works Committee on transit, road network and active transportation planning for West London;
b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the report a study of the issue of “filtered-permeability” and other measures with respect to mitigating the effects of cut-through traffic resulting from the opening of Beaverbrook Avenue and Westfield Drive;
c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider ongoing input from residents and businesses in the area; and,
d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to integrate the report into future MMP reports to the Civic Works Committee;
it being noted that there are several pending and anticipated development applications in the vicinity and the report should consider the cumulative effects of these developments on traffic and transit planning;
it being further noted that community members, including business owners and residents, have raised concerns about ongoing traffic congestion issues in West London in the vicinity of the Wonderland/ Oxford/ Proudfoot/ Beaverbrook/ Cherryhill area, and the need for traffic planning to address increased density from planned developments in this area;
it being further noted that the Mobility Master Plan recognizes that significant transportation improvements are needed in the North and the West; it being noted that funds for projects in these corridors were redistributed to other rapid transit initiatives outside the area;
it being further noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Butler and C. DeGroot, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-T08)
Vote:
Yeas: Absent: A. Hopkins D. Ferreira J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke
Motion Passed (4 to 0)
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
None.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:39 PM.
Full Transcript
Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.
View full transcript (2 hours, 24 minutes)
[16:37] Good morning, everyone. Please check the city website for additional meeting, detail, information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. So I’d like to just take a moment for us to pause here. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinai Walk, and the Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.
[17:14] 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. So welcome, everyone. I know we have a full committee. I know Councilor Tresault is not with us at the moment, but I did see him here. And we have Councillor Ferrera online. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate format and communication supports for meetings upon request.
[17:54] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Moving on. Any disclosures of cutary interest? I see none. Moving on to consent items. And as you can see, we have a number of them. I would like to pull 2.1, oh, 2.1.
[18:32] The chair is here. Maybe I don’t need to pull it. There is a delegation request from that chair, Brandon Samuels. So we will leave 2.1. I would like to pull 2.12. And with that, I would like to start with 2.1. There is a delegation request for Mr. Samuels. You don’t need to vote on that. He is here, so welcome Mr. Samuels. Good morning, everybody.
[19:07] Thanks for having me. Before I begin, I was just wondering, would it be possible for me to ask a couple of questions about item 12, the gas powered lawn equipment item? It’s not related to my delegation today, which is about the advisory committee report. I just wondered if that was permissible. Mr. Samuels, we will be dealing with that in items for direction. If you can hold your questions at that time, please proceed. Yeah, thank you very much. I’m here simply to present the report from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee.
[19:43] The items on our agenda are pretty straightforward, but I thought I would speak to just one of them, which is item 2.1, to provide additional context. Our committee has been looking at the business licensing bylaw and opportunities to provide education for the public at points of sale, where invasive species are sold. As some members of the committee might be aware, the city of London has printed an education brochure related to pet goldfish. Information that the public should be aware of before they choose to buy a goldfish, with information about illegal dumping, selection of alternatives, and that sort of thing.
[20:16] I have found, interacting with industry, that some pet stores are quite receptive to distributing these, while others don’t really have any interest. And we discovered that within the business licensing bylaw, there are provisions that allow for the license manager to require certain information be made available at points of sale. We’ve provided this information to the license manager who said they’re gonna take this back and review it, and then return to our committee with an update. But I think this is a proactive approach that makes a lot of sense. Goldfish are prohibitively expensive for the city and upper times to manage, where they’ve become established.
[20:53] And so, preventing these animals from being dumped in the first place should be a priority. I’ll also add that, although we’re beginning with goldfish, there is discussion about looking at other invasive plants that the city struggles to keep up with. Many of these are also available commercially at points of sale. And so, making sure that information is being provided to consumers to help them make educated choices makes really good sense to me. Apart from that, on our agenda, we received a resignation, which has opened up an additional vacancy on the committee. Expect that will be filled with the appointments process later this month.
[21:28] Our climate emergency action plan working group is preparing a report, which is providing recommendations to help us understand our audience better when we’re producing communications for the public about the climate emergency action plan and actions they can take at home. We also requested to meet with staff about the neighborhood decision-making program. That item was deferred until later meeting until the report was received by Community and Protective Services Committee. We are looking forward to having that conversation in the near future. And I believe that is it for our report. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
[22:04] Thank you, Mr. Samuels, for starting this off this morning. And thank you for being here. It really does make a difference. It adds that extra personal touch to the reports that we receive here. So thank you for that. I would like to just go back. There are a number of consent items, maybe just to start the conversations on all these consent items. I would like to put them on the floor. I do need a motion to start the conversation. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.
[22:37] I’ll put all of them on the floor, excluding 2.12. That’s right. And I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Ferrera, thank you. And to start off, we’ll go back to 2.1. Any questions on the sixth report of the ESAC committee. Do not see any. Councillor Trissell. And excuse me if I’m getting ahead of myself, but I was going to ask the chairperson whether or not the committee would be willing to undertake.
[23:12] If we refer the guest power leaf blowers to that committee, whether that’s something they think they could spend some time looking at. Should I hold that? I think we can have that conversation when we deal with 2.12. Okay. Moving on to the next one, 2.2. The Spring Bank Dam Commissioning and Bank Restoration. Any comments from the committee? Councillor Pribble.
[23:47] Thank you, Chair. And for the chair to the staff, on page 10, where is the appendix A? I just had a question regarding so far, we have committed 7.5 million and there is another 3.2 bounds for future work. So this 10 million, it is really truly for the decommissioning and bank restoration or are there any previous work included in the 10 million? Thank you. Mr. Annalut. Yes, thank you through the chair. So this account has been used in the past also for the One River Environmental Assessment and the Schedule B Environmental Assessment that determined the use of the dam and that it would be decommissioned.
[24:25] The remaining funds will be used for the construction tender, which closes shortly and will be awarded administratively as it’s under $6 million. Thank you, no more questions, 2.2. Any other comments? I see none. I wonder if the committee would— So Madam Chair? Yep. I had my hand up online. Councillor Paluzza, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair, for recognizing me.
[24:58] Just on this, thank you to staff as we continue to move along through this as it’s been multiple terms of council. Just, I guess a note that requesting that staff as discussed with our meeting with Oneida First Nation that a copy of this report be sent to their council for consideration as they have an interest in the Spring Bank Dam and the health of the river. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Paluzza. My apologies, I did not see your hand up. It does come up, I think, when you put your camera on. So thank you for being here and I’d like to just recognize Councillor Raman as well for joining us.
[25:40] Moving on to 2.3, Hamilton Road and Gore Road intersection improvements. Any comments? Go to Councillor Pribble. Thank you, answer the chair to the staff. It’s kind of not specific just to this one, but detailed design, we always go outside and we don’t do these things in-house. Do we ever consider, do we do any detailed designs within our city hall staff or do we always go outside? Mr. McQuay. Excuse me, through the chair.
[26:14] That’s correct for the more complex, larger projects. We tend to use the consulting industry, but for smaller scope projects, projects that we have, the in-house skills and resources to design, we will do some of that work in-house and that relates more to some of the lifecycle renewal projects. Councillor. Thank you, so the larger projects that we do give up, we don’t have the resources or staffing issues, financial issues, know-how for the larger projects or what is the reason that why we always go is the larger ones outside.
[26:57] Mr. McQuay, main reason for the larger projects why we go outside? If I had to identify one main reason, I would say it’s the resources. That staffing within the city is just not staffed up to deliver all these large projects and also the workflow ebbs and flows as the projects come online and so the consulting industry allows us to absorb the peaks and valleys of the required workflow as well.
[27:36] Thank you, and last question towards this, did we ever consider or do we ever do a kind of our or internal strategic plan feasibility study to see if it would make sense, some of the increase our staffing potentially to do with some of the larger projects, did we ever look at this and evaluate this? Yeah, I think it’s been touched on over the years through various processes and audits and where we’ve landed is striking a balance of how much work we do in house and how much is outsourced and finding the sweet spot of having the right resources internally that are maximized to their full potential and again also considering the major projects require multi-disciplinary teams and we don’t necessarily have all of those specialties in house when it comes down to the very specialized work that some of the environmental assessment and design processes require.
[28:42] Thank you very much, no more questions to 2.3. Thank you, Councillor. I’d like to go to Councillor Ferrera. Hey Chair, thank you for recognizing me. I thought I would just make some comments on this one because I used to live in the area and I got a lot of family and friends who live in the area. I do know kind of just from use of that road speaking, I guess to my grandma specifically, she’s always telling me that when she’s going down gore heading east at that weird intersection of Hamilton, how she has to look really kind of turn around and she does tell me that she has issues seeing down the road just at that angle.
[29:23] So I feel like this would be something that she may appreciate and enjoy. So I’ll be kind of just letting her know what’s going on there. And I do think just from my own experiences, I have seen a couple of accidents there just because of that weird three way intersection. So my comments to this is a good thing to see. I feel like this is something that’s been needed for a while and I’m glad that we’re going to see this. I think the report said in 2026 or something like that. I think they had to tie it with Hydro One work, but I’m glad to see this intersection being updated with that.
[29:58] So. Thank you, Councillor, for your comments. And I know there’s a lot of people that cannot wait for 2026 in that area. So thank you. Any other comments? I see now moving on then to 2.4, which is the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive intersection improvements. Any comments from the committee? I see none. Committee will allow me. I just want to make a few comments from the chair. This is a roundabout and in ward nine, which is the ward that I represent and I know the community is looking forward to this project starting very soon.
[30:38] So thank you to staff and there was a lot of work done on this. It’s been an ongoing conversation for the past couple of years about this roundabout. So it’s really good to see it come about. Moving on now to 2.5, which is the Greenway incinerator rebuild tender award. Comments from the committee? Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to staff appendix eight on page 27. And it has to do with the financing of this project and my question is kind of the second one from the bottom where it says the venture code 7 million draw down from the sewage works renewal reserve fund 4.8 million.
[31:26] If I go to the last column, which is balance for work and we are funded, there is still available from the debentures 3.1 million and zero from the reserve fund. And is it because in this reserve fund, there is no more dollars. And if there are dollars, what is the reasoning behind that we would go to the debenture and not reserve if there is still some funds left? Thank you. Just wanna know if I can go to staff. Thank you through the chair.
[32:01] This is completed by finance. So no, we don’t actually know, but we can get that answer for you. Thank you, no more questions to this point. Thank you, Councillor, I’d like to go to Councilor Ferreira online. Thanks, Chair. I wanna just make, I guess I have one question on this one. I see this as pretty critical to the operations of the city. So I was just reading through the report and I do see that there’s a section here that talks about incentives and disincentives as part of the construction contract.
[32:39] I was wondering if staff could just expand on that and give some detail on the disincentives and the incentives for that. Thank you through the chair. I’ll pass that on to Mr. Odekirk. Yes. Okay, and through the chair. Yes, we’ve established the contract with incentives and disincentives, primarily with the consideration of the costs that we incur for sludge haulage during the incinerator shutdown.
[33:16] It’s extremely critical for us to get this piece of infrastructure back up and running as quickly as possible. So we wanted to make sure the contract was structured in such a way that we were all rowing in the same direction, so to speak, make sure this gets done as efficiently as possible. And we’re very confident with this contractor that we’re gonna be able to proceed quite effectively in this project. Councillor? Thank you for that. And I guess just kind of my last part to this question, I do see that it’s supposed to be scheduled to start sometime in the summer of 2024.
[33:49] I’m assuming we don’t know the exact date yet, but just thought I might ask if you know exactly when or if you can just kind of scope us into a specific area of the summer. I’d like to go to staff. Any idea when we can get started on this? Yes, through the chair, quite informally, we’ve spoken with the contractor and they intend to get started as soon as possible. So once we can get this awarded through council, they’re going to begin the process. They intend to actually do a lot of work up front. So we may not actually see activity on site in terms of tearing down the existing incinerator, which is actually very good by us.
[34:29] We’d like to keep that running as long as possible. So they’re gonna pre-build and get things going, order a lot of the critical components right away. And we still seem to be quite on schedule for what was estimated originally. Thank you for that information, Councillor. Are you good? Moving on, then we’ll go to 2.6, which are new traffic signals, pedestrian signals and pedestrian crossovers. I know there’s a number of them coming to awards. Obviously, we need these signals approved by council.
[35:03] That’s why it’s here. Any questions from committee? Councillor Pervall? Thank you, sir, the chair to staff. And I did ask this question before I just want to, before we vote on it or move it forward, the to the Richmond Plain Tree and Sunnydale Canvas. And I know we are trying to make things safer, but again, both of these lights, they will be down the hill. And I just want to make sure there was consideration done that during winter times and certainly on Richmond, cars are not driving 50 kilometers an hour, 60 kilometers an hour, if we feel that installing these lights is the right decision and it will still be safe because both of them are on the downhill slope.
[35:45] Thank you. Mr. McPray? Through the chair, thanks for the question. Yes, the design of these projects are include the assessment of all criteria, including what you mentioned. And specifically, they are planned and identified to improve safety overall and recognizing that there’s vulnerable road users looking across at these locations. And we know crossing of major roads is a significant risk area for pedestrians.
[36:22] Councillor? Thank you, no more questions? I will go to Councillor for online. Thank you, Chair. So when I was reading this one, I was excited. First, I guess I’ll start with, you know, thanks to staff for being very responsive, I guess with the Councillor and other Councillors in the area for pedestrian crossover specifically, ‘cause I know I’ve had multiple conversations with staff and I was very happy when I saw this on the report for the Oxford Street Summit Avenue pedestrian crossover there. So I just wanted to know, just looking at the report, is this PXO gonna be a type B PXO at that location?
[37:02] Mr. McPray? Sorry, just to clarify, is this the Oxford Street Summit Avenue location has been referred to? Okay, so that is a pedestrian signal. Okay. There’s three categories of crossings here. There’s traffic signals, pedestrian signals, and pedestrian crossovers, and that location is a pedestrian signal. So the fault for the main street, it’ll have signals similar to what a full traffic signal typically has.
[37:38] So with the actual traffic lights and everything like that, not your typical pedestrian crossover, we’ll have the traffic lights like red, green, and yellow on it. That’s correct. All right, thank you, that’s my only question for that one. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Palosa, good to see you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to staff, always one of my favorite reports as it’s, I don’t know, pedestrian crossovers are great, especially when people stop as traffic for them.
[38:13] My question is, for the type D PXOs, I have a cycling infrastructure project that’s gonna be coming on Home View Road. I had discussed with staff about PXO as it connects to City Pathway and a park. I don’t see it on the list. Are we able to do those outside of this process as seeing as the type D PXOs only need the financial impact of Boulevard signs? Mr. McQuay. Yeah, thanks for flagging that.
[38:47] We can review that. pedestrian crossovers need to be identified in the by-law, but the cost mechanism is reduced, the cost impact. So we can assess the location that you’re referring to. I can follow up with the project team, and it could be planned, it may just be a matter of time and we’ll come from that. Thank you. Councillor. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll follow up Mr. McQuay offline as it’s community meeting next week.
[39:21] And I would like to make sure that everything’s done to make sure that the bylaws could be in effect for Council on, we don’t miss anything. Thank you. Thank you for raising that here at the committee. Councillor Chor so. Actually, Councillor Ferriara through the chair, Councillor Ferriara expressed my gratitude and thanks to traffic staff for the decision to move ahead with the installation in front of the mosque on Oxford Street. And I want to just add my deep, deep thanks to you for doing that.
[39:57] I know we’ll be getting questions about the estimated time of arrival of the construction. Are we able to answer that right now? Mr. McQuay. Specifically that location, yes. That will be implemented in 2025, so next year. So with the approval today, the design process will start and it’ll be a spring start on the construction of it. Thank you, Councillor. I see no other questions.
[40:33] Councillor Roman, welcome. Thank you and through you, Chair. I just wanted to share a couple of concerns. First, as everyone’s expressed, yeah, this is a great time to see these come forward and much appreciated. I did have a question about the Hyde Park link in Fanshawe Park Road. I’m just wondering, does the crossover connect to sidewalks? This is the one at Hyde Park in Fanshawe, Mr. McQuay. That location currently has a pathway to the south, but not to the north.
[41:20] So I suspect that’s what you’re asking about. And so the identification of the pedestrian signal at that location will be timed and coordinated with a planned pathway extension to the north. So it’s part of the future pathway project to be coordinated with that. Councillor. Thank you. The residents in the area have been asking for sidewalks so that they can safely walk along the side of Hyde Park Road to Fanshawe for some time.
[41:58] And so when they see things like the connectivity to Hyde Park, Rotary Link, part of the concern is that they don’t feel like we’re hearing what they’re asking for because this has been an ongoing concern for those that live in the apartments that are the old old apartments at the corner. I think that it’s great that we’re doing things to connect within the trail systems and it’s definitely a needed use, but at the same time, I think where residents are also saying that they could use additional pedestrian infrastructure.
[42:39] I’m wondering how we can better coordinate with our pedestrian infrastructure in the area so that there is that connectivity. And my understanding is that that sidewalk is not near-term at all as that construction and projects in the area are still ongoing and discussions with developers are still ongoing. And I handed the right in. Is that a question to ask comments? No, just the comments. Thank you for those comments. Thank you. And then my second one is about Richmond Street at Plain Tree Drive.
[43:11] I understand the desire. I share similar concerns to Councillor Pribble about this intersection, just hearing from residents often about turning into onto Plain Tree Drive with their vehicles and the difficulty they have, especially in the winter with making that turn, as well as concerns that the transit access point that we’re trying to connect into can easily be connected to further down where it’s not at the other intersection, where it’s not up at the top of a hill.
[43:50] And there’s issues with when people are driving and sunlight and being able to see people in the area as well. So there are some concerns. And I’m just wondering with the extension of Calingham Drive later on in the future when that subdivision is built out, if there’s a consideration being given to what crossing might look like in the area, one’s Calingham Drive is in place, the continuation. Mr. McQuay.
[44:23] Through the chair, that intersection has been assessed for various arrangements. The pedestrian signal is recommended at this time and it’s based on counts of pedestrians crossing in the corridor, so yes, there are alternative crossings, but what the assessment identified is people crossing at the road, both at that location, a little bit further north. And so based on the observations that was identified as the best location, it’ll continue to be monitored.
[45:00] And if the traffic volumes reach a point at which full traffic signals are required, the intersection can be upgraded at that time. Councillor? Thank you. And from the date of installation, when would that be permitted for study? To clarify is it like three years from the installation. Sometimes I know there’s a window of time of which after we’ve conducted a study, we won’t do another study.
[45:34] And I’m just wanting to make sure that for residents, for instance, because traffic volumes are already building, a lot of that may be construction pressure right now in the area, but I’m just wondering when that might be evaluated again. When do we start our studies once we’ve made these changes at the intersection? I think, I know we do have guidelines that to do surveys and that, but I’ll go to you, Mr. McQuay. Through the chair, we monitor our more significant intersections where we know there’s growth in the area.
[46:12] Typically what we’ll try to do counts approximately every three years, but if we know there’s specific concerns, we can look to increase that, but that is the typical frequency. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Perkle. I do have full up now because when Collingham came up now, so in future potentially we are looking at lights and crossing Sunnydale, Collingham, Plain Tree, North Centre and Fanshawe. And I measured last time between Sunnydale and I planned it’s 180 metres and the other ones to Collingham, it would be more than 20.
[46:52] So I, with this one, as I said, I really didn’t see because I think people coming from, doesn’t matter, most of the people coming on the internet to this area are from West towards East. They go towards La Blas, Mason, Wille Mall. We do have crossing at North Centre at Fanshawe. I really, to be honest with you again, my first point was the safety because it’s down the hill. But now when we are looking into the future, I really honestly don’t know.
[47:26] Actually, I’ll ask the other way around. What was our decision based on that this Plain Tree Richmond needs IPS? Thank you. Mr. McQuay. Yeah, through the chair. Maybe to clarify one of my previous comments, when I talked about potential for monitoring for future signals, that was at the Richmond Plain Tree Drive intersection. And sorry, now I’ve lost track.
[48:02] Well, the second question. Hold on, Councillor, go ahead. Sorry, the question was actually, what did we based on the need of the IPS at Plain Tree Richmond? Thank you, sorry. It was based on, well, it was prompted initially by a request from the public. And then validated through the study that I was referring to that measured pedestrian crossings of Richmond Street in the broader area.
[48:35] And based on that, identifying where the most appropriate pedestrian crossing improvement would be. And for a busy four lane road like Richmond Street, the pedestrian signal was the tool that is required for that. Thank you and follow up. And in this study, we did consider that there’s, I don’t know, I don’t want to get some 50 meter, but bottom line, just south of it, there’s crossing North Center Road. Because again, if you think about it, there’s really crossing at Plain Tree going, there’s really nothing cross on the east side.
[49:19] There’s the uplands residential, but again, we do have the North Center that potentially if there are some students going to the school, going west across, are we considering the North Center? And do we still feel that this IPS is important based on the volume of people crossing, having North Center Road crossing right below? Through the chair. Yes, that certainly is a consideration when we identify new crossings of what options are available for pedestrians, and the North Center Road connection was considered, but the actual observations of pedestrians cross in Richmond Street, to the North indicated to us that there are other desire routes for pedestrians that that must not work for, because there’s observations of pedestrians cross in Richmond Street.
[50:23] Okay, thank you for that. I’ll make a last comment that cars driving North, if it’s things are not synchronized and then they will be stopping Fanshawe, then about less than 200 meters North Center, and then at Plain Tree, which is gonna be up the hill, red light, going up during winter times, potentially ice, I will leave it at that. And I did hear the answers already. If there is anything else you would like to add, please go ahead, thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for those comments.
[51:01] Any other comments? I see none, we’ll move on to 2.7 procurement approvals for the detailed design for Bradley Avenue extension. Any comments from the committee questions? I knew somehow that Councillor Palosa would have her hand up. I’ll go to you, Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I know you’re aware of this one too, as this area used to be your area before I inherited it. A long awaited project that will come with many different things to the neighborhood, including changing the flow of traffic and as that White Oak Road revitalizes and becomes developed.
[51:45] A question through you to staff, as originally this project was expected to have construction starting this year, which has now been delayed. I see in the report, it’s archeological assessment level three and some species at risk. As I do have developers asking, who are trying to move forward timelines, are we now starting of this timeline moving forward that will be able to meet it with these contracts being tendered? Just confirming Councillor the timelines for the start of this project, the extension. I’ll go to staff.
[52:19] Mr. McQuay. Thank you through the chair. I appreciate the anticipation of the project. We realize it’s important. Certainly that is our plans to start construction next year. These, unfortunately, these processes that require investigation and identification of findings that might trigger provincially legislative processes. It just presents unknowns to a project schedule. So that’s what we’re dealing with.
[52:52] We feel confident that we will be able to keep that project schedule. That said, there’s risk factors that are out of our control, but we’re certainly working towards a construction. Next year, recognizing the importance of the project. Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. And one follow-up question. The original designs, perhaps back in 2019, there was a discrepancy with the after transportation connecting from this section to the section that’s already been connected on Wonderland, just making sure that everything’s in alignment now and any issues have been corrected throughout the process.
[53:36] Through you to staff, if I may. Yes, Mr. McQuay. Certainly, we like to coordinate the act of transportation improvements. I’ll have to follow up with the team on that. And so thanks for flagging. And I’ll ensure that’s getting coordinated. And as with any project, we’ll keep the community involved, like informed on this project. And that can be an item we’ll make insurers part of that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[54:08] No follow-ups. Thank you to staff. Thank you for your questions and for being here with us this morning. And if I may just a quick comment on the Bradley extension, no, it’s a long-awaited project and it’s a much-needed connectivity road as we build it out towards the West and have opportunities to move around. So really pleased to see this coming forward. Moving on to 2.7, sorry, to the 2.8 traffic signal controller signal source purchase.
[54:46] Any comments, questions from committee? Council approval. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. So we are purchasing 50 EX2 controllers. Can you please tell me, and I know it’s stated in the report that all those traffic lights they need to have this and they do these are the extras. What do these controllers actually do? What do they help us to thank you? What do they do, the controllers? Mr. McQuay. The traffic signal controller is, there is one at every intersection and it resides within a cabinet.
[55:25] And we tend to put art on the cabinets just to make them more aesthetically pleasing, but inside there is a computer that manages the timing of the signal. It receives the information from the vehicle detection and the pedestrian detection and uses that information to inform the phasing of the signal. It also feeds information back to the central software and if necessary, the folks that manage the central software, they can adjust the timings and they transmit that information to the controller at the individual intersection.
[56:12] So that’s what these are. Council? Thank you, want to follow up? So therefore from our Byron Center where we have the TV screens and we can see traffic increase that specific times, will these controllers would allow us to make adjustments to the specific signal lights and make the traffic flow better, easier, faster? Through the chair.
[56:44] Yes, exactly. These are one part of the integrated system and you’re correct. We have a transportation management center that’s been delivered under the intelligent traffic signals project and we monitor both visually and also through modeling how best to coordinate and operate each individual traffic signal and that is done out of the transportation management center at in Byron. Thank you, no more questions?
[57:20] Thank you, Councillor, moving on to 2.9. Please see the added by-law that we have on the agenda regarding the basement flooding grant program. Any questions from committee? Councillor Preble. Thank you, I have one question on page 50. Where is the proposal, eligible works, current upset and proposed upset limits, strong PDC went from nine to 7,000. And then it says previously the limit was combined which is the storm building store.
[57:57] But the store building store is still staying three and 3,000. So I was just curious why decrease in this category? Thank you. Thank you, through the chair. The overall upset limit was actually increased by $1,000 because if a property owner was applying to the previous combined storm PDC, $9,000 upset limit, they would not be eligible for the standalone $3,000 limit.
[58:33] So, in effect, what we’ve done is we’ve just separated it out to make it easier to apply for property owners to apply for one or the other. Councillor, you need a mic? Oh, there you go. Oh, thank you. Okay, so overall I do see that but in terms of this, sort of 2,000 that there was the eligibility before in the proposed upset limits, in the proposed ones, it’s covered this.
[59:10] I just wanna make sure that the reason was because there was no need to spend this amount of money, which is great. But if it’s not, if you are thinking of the residents, that’s really my bottom line. Thank you. Thank you, through the chair. Yes, we are confident that the 3,000 is enough on that category for the residents. Thank you, no more questions. Thank you.
[59:43] I’d like to go to Councillor Ferreira online. Thanks, Chair. I have a question regarding the semi-detached dwellings. So I see that as with the changes, we’re looking for both units, I guess in a semi-detached to apply at the same time, rather than prior where one could apply, and then I guess they would find out that there could be an issue with connecting either weeping tile or whatever.
[1:00:16] I just wanted to kind of get some, if we can get staff to expand on that. ‘Cause like the way I’m looking at it, it seems like we still have the same issue, but now we’re just kind of approaching the issue right at the beginning at the initial point of contact rather than kind of having a back and forth with staff and a resident and then finding out later that they would need to get potentially, I guess their neighbor to also get in on this. So I just wanted to know if I get some extra information on that. Thank you, through the chair.
[1:00:51] Yes, that’s exactly correct. So what happens is a resident comes in and because on these duplexes, the weeping tiles are connected for the entire building. So if one separates, then you’re increasing the risk of flooding for the other side. So what happens is there is a lot of back and forth with staff. So the wording has been changed to make sure that it’s really clear upfront so that the resident isn’t doing a whole bunch of back and forth on their end and only to find out that it’s not gonna work because their neighbor isn’t interested in participating constantly. No, that’s it.
[1:01:26] Thank you for that. It makes sense to do it that way just to kind of relieve, I guess, the time and the resources spent on both staff side, the city side and for time for our residents. So it’s a better quality of customer service. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for those comments. I quite agree. It is about being a little bit more efficient as well. So moving on to 2.10 these guys. I’ve been so good looking over and I missed you this time, Councillor Friend.
[1:02:01] Thank you, yes. I had a good email conversation with staff but I just wanted to get a bit more clarity or make sure that other folks are aware. Given the, I would say relatively low uptake from residents but I don’t know, I don’t have a good comparison to other cities if we’re low average or high. But given that and given that unwanted water is one of our key culprits in ending up in our sewer systems, I am just wondering what other efforts we are doing to assist with reducing unwanted water going into the system specifically in regards to helping residential properties manage that.
[1:02:41] Thank you through the chair. Yes, so we are always looking to increase participation in this program. We do have the financial ability to increase it quite a bit and we have looked at things such as increasing it from 90 to 100% for example. But when we’ve done pilot projects where we did that and even had the city running the project, it did not increase participation. So unfortunately, this is one of those programs that people don’t really tend to be interested in undertaking the work on their side unless, or even having the city come in and do work in their basement unless they’ve actually had a basement flood.
[1:03:14] So we do proactively send out information to areas where we know there are weeping tiles connected to the sanitary sewer as well as after the flood. So if we’ve had a major storm event and we’ve had pockets of flooding so that we know people are aware of it, we will really target that area with information as well. There are other things we could look at doing such as required disconnection at time of other plumbing work and so on in the basement or at time of sale. We’re not necessarily recommending those at this point as we have not done a full summer view with legal and so on and by law with that.
[1:03:53] But that is something we could look at. That said, between tile disconnections there are a large source of water into the sanitary system, but it’s also a rather large target to try and hit because there are so many of them. So even with increased efforts on it, it may not be the most financially, like it might not be the best bang for your buck. So what we are doing right now is an update to the pollution prevention control plan. It can, the recommendations from that can inform some of these decisions going forwards and where we’re best off to spend our money.
[1:04:32] Is it continually targeting weeping tile disconnections knowing that we have to have buy-in from the property owner and to really make a difference in one sewer. You have to have a large concentration of participation or are we better off doing other things in the city such as storage or up sizing capacity improvements. So at this point, we’re probably best off to continue looking at that through the PPCP and report back on that with those recommendations later in the year, Councillor. Thank you.
[1:05:04] I look forward to reading the PPCP update. Thank you. Moving on to 2.10, the appointment of consulting engineer for the Thames River sanitary siphon capacity expansion project. Any comments, questions from committee? I see none. 211 is, oh, Councillor Ferrera. Sorry, do you have any questions, comments? I do, sorry, sorry, go ahead. My comment or questions really is on capacity for the sanitary siphon.
[1:05:43] I do know that we have, speaking with staff, I’ve had a meeting regarding this with the high level and the low level, but I just wanted to get some information on the capacity levels itself ‘cause we do have a lot of developments that are going on along York and just along the area. So I wanted to see if we could get some comments on that. Ms. relevant, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Yes, this is one of our key projects actually in increasing capacity for intensification and infill development and not only in the downtown, but all along this sewer shed.
[1:06:18] So that incorporates some of the work in the rapid transit corridor down Wellington Road and so on as we see those areas intensify. So this really builds capacity for that development, but also builds capacity for those wet weather flows. So we’re doing overflows to the Thames River at that by or at that outlet downtown, Councillor. Thank you for that. Yeah, that’s just kind of the big conversation that we keep on getting up with when we start talking about building new developments and the towers and everything like that.
[1:06:57] Really the real restrictions are the capacity under the ground. So that’s why I wanted to just kind of see with this one because I do know that this is kind of the area that catches everything from downtown going towards Greenway. So I do know that it’s very important. So thank you for that for that. Thank you for those that question, Councillor Ferrera. I do have just a quick follow up on that given the importance of how we develop downtown and creating more housing.
[1:07:29] I want to just sort of add to the importance of this project. The question is more about how is it going to and I guess affect the park and the use of the park going forward and an idea when we can start the project as well. Thank you through the chair. The project is slated for construction for 2025. So this will be a micro tunneling project. So you may have seen some of the information on the trunks that are immediately adjacent to here yesterday on the news with the micro tunneling.
[1:08:04] So it’s the same process. So there will be some disruption in the park and on both sides of the Forks of the Thames because we do have that descending receiving pit and staging area. But if you go and look at the parking lot of Kiwanis community center right now, that can give you an idea of sort of the layout of that receiving or that descending pit and so on. So there will be some disruption, but as always, everything will be restored. We will maintain public access around it and to the best of our ability that the play areas and so on again, that will be subject to layout and where the descending pit needs to be located and also some other sewer work in the area to make sure it all connects.
[1:08:45] But we are very mindful of that. Thank you for that. And great map by the way. I really appreciated the detail of the work and the project that’s gonna go forward. Moving on to 211. It’s the partial closing of Pine Street Road Allowance. Any questions, comments from committee? Be none. We have pulled to 12, going to 213. And any questions, comments from committee?
[1:09:23] Be none. And 214, you know, Councillor Trussell. Yes, and I don’t have any amendments to this so I didn’t pull it, but I am wondering, this does seem like there’s some very large increases here in relationship to what the original tenders were. And there’s a paragraph that talks about added field investigations, design changes, expanded geotechnical investigations.
[1:09:56] Could you expand a little bit on why there are such, I think, relatively large overruns here? Thank you through the chair. So really this is an increase of scope because the extensive additional dewatering that was required once the contractor was on site. I will pass it to Ms. Chambers to expand upon that though. Ms. Chambers. Thank you, Ashley. And through the chair, the additional cost for dewatering, it does become a very complex process to basically gather more field data with respect to flow rates coming out of the bank at the Oxford Culver Crossing.
[1:10:39] So most of the costs are related to that. In addition, there were some complications about incorporating the water main on Oxford at this time that led to additional costs. Interesting opportunity arose during this project though was bringing in a trunk sanitary sewer for future growth north of Oxford as well. And that added a bit of cost too to the design. We see that as a very positive move. So a lot of this is just getting the product to be done properly. Unfortunately, the dewatering is a costly exercise, both in design and in the construction of the well program.
[1:11:16] Councillor. Yeah, so are these public works undertaking things that need to be done in order for the developments, the development applications on north of Oxford to proceed? And by applications, I mean the one that’s currently pending the ECM property and also looking ahead a little bit the word, the random property. Thank you and through the chair, 100%. The additional costs go towards realizing the mud creek corridor and this culvert crossing is pivotal to increasing the channel as well as realigning the channel to its proper alignment.
[1:11:56] So this supports the floodplain reduction for the area to accommodate development and therefore is very important. Councillor. To what degree through the chair, to what degree do these changes have any effect on the timeliness of the applications? And I’m not asking you to put your planning committee hat on this is just from your technical point of view. Does this have any effect on the ability of these projects to move forward according to the schedule that we have right now? Mr. Chambers.
[1:12:31] Thank you and through the chair. No, the schedule will remain intact essentially because the culvert crossing was being done slightly in advance of the channel and it’s all riding on the next phase 2B channel that’s out for tender right now. So both of these things will be done by the end of 2025. So the schedule is intact. So when it comes time to raising this at the planning committee, just to foreshadow this, this would be in the form of not something that would stop the project from going through, but it would be a holding provision?
[1:13:10] Through the chair, I’m not clear above the question, maybe phrase a different way. Given the fact that we are going, the city council is going to be asked to approve these projects before this work is done, how is that reflected in the project approval? Would there be a condition or would there be a holding provision or how would this work? Through the chair, if a planning application were to come forward today, they won’t be able to proceed until this work is completed.
[1:13:46] So there would be a holding provision until the work is completed because we can’t develop until the floodplain limits are reduced by this work to phase 2B council. And expressing a concern that I often express and that is the interrelationship between the different departments. Can you assure me that this information, I’ll ask this through the chair, could you assure me that this information has been passed on to the planning staff so it can be reflected in their recommendations for this project?
[1:14:25] I’ll go to Ms. Ramalu. Yes, thank you through the chair. Yes, so we’ve been working closely with planning on this area for quite some time now, so they are aware of the sequence of events on the channel work, the implications on that planning. So they’re fully aware and we’re all working together, make sure that this can happen. Thank you. And my final question through the chair is, are these additional costs being passed on to the applicant or is the city absorbing these? Could you be a little bit more specific about the additional costs that we do?
[1:14:58] Yes, the 954,000 in part A, the 322,000 in part B, and the 45,000 in part B, the additional costs that are identified in this measure. Are these being passed on to any of the developers or is the city absorbing these? Ms. Ramalu. Thank you through the chair. So the established growth non-growth splits for the project remain in place for this account. So even with the additional costs, so there is non-growth benefit to this.
[1:15:34] So the culvert effect, flooding of Oxford Street and so on, and so is a benefit to the greater area as well. And then of course, there is the growth component that is funded via DC charges. So that splits established for the accounts and that continues on. Thank you, Councillor, for those questions as well. Moving on to, I guess we do need to vote on these items. So if we could, we have a mover and a seconder. If we can vote, proceed to vote.
[1:16:31] That’s our privilege. Voting yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to scheduled items, there are none. And number four, items for direction. I would like to, we’re moving to 12 first, which is the update and next steps for gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment.
[1:17:06] There have been a number of added submissions, which we will be receiving. And just to start off the item, the conversation, I would like to go to Mr. Stanford for doing a quick presentation on this report that we are going to be receiving. Thank you, Madam Chair. And very pleased to be able to just provide some overview comments. The report before you today is the next step in the evolution of how we are planning to address landscaping equipment with respect to gas powered items.
[1:17:49] This was an item that was part of the climate emergency action plan, but it has also come before this committee and other committees in the past as well by dealing with the noise side. So joining me today as well, there’s Ores Catola, he’s here in the chambers and Drew Freeman is online. Should there be other questions during your deliberations? As I sort of step back in time, we look at the aspects here from the greenhouse gas perspective, the air pollution perspective and the noise perspective. And our report provides an update on what other communities, primarily in Ontario and Canada, have been doing with respect to these items.
[1:18:27] Our review basically highlighted less information than we had hoped would be available at this time. And a couple of communities, including Vancouver and Toronto, have actually pulled back on some of their research and activities, which has made it a bit more of a challenge for us to determine a path forward here to bring forward to committee and council. Overall, we’ve seen some examples in Ontario and in Quebec and other parts, but very limited information on how things have been performing, costs associated with bylaws and changes, the impact on the industry and basically the uptake within the community and how they’ve made changes.
[1:19:03] So as part of our work and consultation here in Ontario, we did contact a number of other communities and some came to the same conclusion as us. A couple, including Hamilton Oakville and Ottawa, have actually indicated a willingness to work together to come up with information that is needed to pursue these initiatives within their respective communities. We took upon ourselves chatting with a group called the Clean Air Partnership, a group that is very experienced in conducting work for communities, not only here in Ontario, but in other parts of Canada. And they have received requests over the last few years as well on this item too.
[1:19:40] So they are quite interested in championing a application to the Federation of Community Municipalities, the Green Municipal Fund, to double basically the funding available for a project, to come up with a number of the unanswered questions, as well as a lot of the information that would be needed as part of an awareness and education program, and as well as look at some of the bylaw aspects that are available and some of the challenges that have occurred. So really to conclude to Madam Chair, in our report, we laid out sort of a four prong attack on moving forward on this.
[1:20:16] The first one step is actually dealing with an FCM application, something that we would undertake right after Council approval. That goes into a process that does take some time. So we’ve laid out a second step that we’re not gonna wait until the final answer comes in from FCM, what we’re gonna begin to develop, what would be what we believe an important broader campaign when it comes to education, awareness here in London, much more than just landscaping equipment. What has come before committee here and other committees at London is information on naturalization, information on how do I, how do I ensure drainage on my property is basically helping and not impacting my neighbor.
[1:20:59] A lot of things to deal with proper management on property would be brought into a program. The reason we’re suggesting that is that not only would be a better spend or better value for our investment in education awareness, it would also attract a larger marketplace. There are many in London that have already converted, for example, to electric leaf blowers, electric battery powered lawnmowers. So in many ways, we would not be reaching those people, but they could actually have habits that actually need improvement in other ways. So that is why we’re actually proposing a much more elaborate and comprehensive lawn and garden care program.
[1:21:40] It would touch on everything from biodiversity and habitat creation right through to, as I mentioned, naturalization. We would implement that in February to April of next year before the spring season. Part of our timetable also includes work internally, and we’ve identified that resources are gonna be available throughout December of this year to set sites on working on our own house, basically. And that includes handheld landscaping equipment to some of our larger pieces of equipment.
[1:22:13] And in fact, there was some of that discussion at the last civic works committee meeting, dealing with the challenges that exist with the larger pieces of equipment out there. It’s easy on a smaller scale, but not as easy on the larger scale. And I think, Madam Chair, the recommendations that are before the committee today, I think are reasonably straightforward, as part of a more comprehensive program. It does allow for a lot of customization, because as we proceed on this, we know there’s interest in a number of different areas. We’ve had good conversations in the past with our advisory committees on related items, and we would plan to bring basically that dialogue into these conversations as well.
[1:22:53] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sanford. I’d like to go now to committee members, Council Frank. Thank you, yes, appreciate the update and the report. I think it’s really exciting to be working with other local municipalities, like Hamilton of similar size, through Clean Air Partnership and through FCM. So I think that’s a really good approach towards working on this, as well as including other better lawn care practices, and not just specifically with gas powered lawn equipment. So I think all of that is really great. I had a couple of questions, and then I actually do have a direction, I was hoping to put on the floor, that has been circulated through both by-law and the clerks, just to get it all wordsmithed.
[1:23:36] But one of the questions would be, in regards to our own city-owned assets. I know, again, trying to change residential practices and purchasing habits is a bit more difficult, but even within our own city-owned portfolio. I’m wondering what the timelines are for trying to convert our lawn equipment towards electric. Mr. Sanford. Madam Chair, I’ll start off with just a couple comments, and then I believe Drew Freeman, in fleet and equipment is online as well. Part of our preparation of this report was involving our parks and roadside operations folks, to make sure they were aware of what was going on here.
[1:24:14] They are the users of this type of equipment, primarily in parks, of course. Paul Yeoman couldn’t be with us today, but Drew Freeman is online. Drew, I’m gonna turn the microphone over to you for their comments. Mr. Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Stanford, and through the chair. Right now, as Mr. Stanford laid out in the report, put forward to you that later on this year, we’ll be undertaking a wholesome review of a lot of our small handheld equipment, particularly the conversion to electric.
[1:24:50] The markets come a long way in terms of what they’re offering. Gas powered still outperforms electric at this point, but it’ll be mainly centered around duty cycles and sort of the industrial use case of how we use our equipment. So it’ll require larger battery packs, more expense potentially around the infrastructure required for setting up some of those, where the units are domiciled at night and how they’re charged, ensuring that we have proper fire suppression, that we’ve taken that into consideration.
[1:25:28] So that’s basically our plan right now, is that later on this year, we’ll be doing a wholesome review of how to transition. Right now, we have about 5% of our handhelds are electric in our database, very small, but a lot of that is used for testing and trialing to ensure that we’ve taken into consideration performance, health and safety, some of the battery, the handheld units that are battery related are a little bit heavier, so we have to ensure we’ve considered ergonomics, ergonomic factors, not just performance.
[1:26:08] So that’s pretty much our approach, I don’t know if there are any further questions. Council Fang, thank you, appreciate that that work is gonna be undertaken. I’m just wondering on timeline, and would it come to council essentially telling us what the plan is then? So if we have 5% electric right now, is the plan next year 10, then the following year 15, then 20, will we be getting that kind of information from staff? Mr. Freeman, or yes, Mr. Freeman. Thank you, through the chair. The most economical approach would be to, as the life cycle of these units, so a lot of our trimmers are life cycles three years, a lot of our pushmowers and blowers are more in the five to six year timeframe, so our plan would be to look at replacing them when the life cycle comes due and not replacing them prior to, which we think would be the most economical plan, so there would be a bit of a scaling out period over the next six years, let’s say, to sort of, as we replace, we would replace it with electric, and that would be the approach, that would be the overall long-term plan, as well as there might be some areas where there might not be a suitable replacement at this time, and we’ll obviously highlight that, and that depends on the work and how it’s done and duty cycle and charging would, that would be to me an outcome of the work that would be done later this year, thank you.
[1:27:39] Councillor, I know you’ve got a few more questions, I’m just wondering, as well, just to frame the conversation a little bit more, there is a motion, too, that I would encourage you to present, as well. Sure, and just to follow up on that thought, though, I appreciate that, I suppose, then maybe that information will be tracked, and then relate to Council via the SEAP updates, ‘cause I know that it’s part of it, so maybe that’s where we will look for that information, and I think doing life cycle renewal for, like, for green, makes a lot of sense, because no sense in throwing away a perfectly functional item before the end of its life cycle, so I appreciate the work staff are doing on that, and then in regards to the motion, yeah, so for direction, I did work a little bit on crafting a direction towards civic administration, specifically in regards to the sound by-law with the lawn care equipment, and if that could be pulled up, and then would you like me to read it, as well, Chair?
[1:28:40] Yes, I think the clerk does have it, and if we can put it up so everyone can see it, and please, if you can proceed. Thank you, so direction is that civic administration be directed to take the following actions with respect to the sound by-law. Report back to future meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee, because that’s where by-laws go, with proposed amendments to sound by-law to restrict the operation of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment in the residential areas from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m., and hold a public participation meeting to consider public input at the same meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, and circulate the report to relevant community advisory committees for review and feedback in advance of the relevant meeting for Community and Protective Services Committee.
[1:29:24] And I’m looking for a seconder on that. I do not see a seconder, but I will second that so we can continue the conversation. Councillor Trussell. Yeah, I was not willing to second this because I think we need to have, and when it’s my turn to ask some further questions, we need to have a much deeper discussion about the operation of the by-law. The problem is not, the problem is not the 6 p.m. to 8 a.m., the problem is the entire operation of how the by-law is being enforced.
[1:30:06] So, yeah, six, six, six, six, after 6 p.m., is something that we need to look at, but it goes much, much deeper than that. So, I am going to want to reformulate this. I like the idea of a public participation meeting, but I do want to also specify that I want this to go to a particular advisory committee. So, I’m not going to be supporting this, but I really appreciate the direction you’re going in, but I want to refine this a little bit.
[1:30:43] Any other questions from committee? Councillor Trussell. Would this be the appropriate time for me to ask questions about the administration and content of the sound by-law? We have staff here to answer your question. Yes, okay, so I’m going through the sound by-law very carefully, very, very carefully. And there are a couple of observations I want to make about it.
[1:31:15] Number one, there is this section, part six on exemptions. There is no categorical exemption for law and equipment, so we can just get that off the table. That just is not there, it doesn’t exist. Now, if we work backwards, this by-law creates two different types of potential prohibitions for sound. One is known as qualitative, and it’s set forth in part two. And section 2.1 reads, no personal may cause a permit an unreasonable noise or a noise that is likely to disturb the inhabitants.
[1:31:55] Now, starting at 2.2 and 2.3, there are a number of deemed violations of 2.1, and having gone through the list of deemed violations, none of them are applicable here. So I’m going to want to get back to the discussion of what constitutes a violation of section 2.1, because the way I read section 2.1, a lot of the complaints that people already have about the law and equipment is already prohibited under the by-law.
[1:32:29] And there is no need to make an amendment, it’s just a question of number one, enforcing it and number two, letting people know about it. Under part three of the by-law, there is a quantitative noise, a stationary source. And that goes to the level of actually bringing in the equipment and doing a decibel test of the equipment. And I do have a few technical standards here, questions here, and if we can’t answer them then today, maybe you can get back to me on this.
[1:33:02] But under part three, adoption of standards and procedures. Which one of these NPC procedures would gas power leaf blowers be under? My reading of this is it’s probably NPC 205. But could you confirm that? Under the chair I’d have to look at the regulation of NPC 205 to specifically see technically residential lawn mowers and lawn equipment would be regulated under this.
[1:33:44] If I can add the regulation of lawn equipment is regulated in the sound by-law, but it’s not regulated by the decibel level, nor is it regulated by the type of power source that is provided for that specific lawn equipment. It’s regulated by the time of day. It is regulated by the time of day as an absolute prohibition as to certain hours. Councillor, just through the chair as well.
[1:34:16] Through the chair. Through the chair. And I just wanna be a little bit careful. We do have the motion. So if we can kind of tighten it with that. Yes, what I’m trying to- And you’re welcome to have your questions asked after the motion as well. I just wanna make sure we’re, just wanna tighten it up a little bit. Okay. Am I, let me back up then, ‘cause I made a couple of statements and I wanna make sure we’re in agreement. Am I correct in saying there is no categorical exception under part six?
[1:35:21] Through the chair, I refer many members to the section D of part six city equipment. And we currently apply that to city golf courses. Councillor. Thank you. So with respect to the city, there is categorical exemption there on golf courses. Am I, am I, am I correct in my reading of 2.1 that that creates an additional head of prohibition for unreasonable noise or a noise that is likely to disturb the inhabitants?
[1:35:55] And this is under the qualitative section? Through the chair, I would refer the committee to section 2.1 sub bracket F.
[1:36:31] And that is the clause that we use when we receive complaints on power equipment. And power equipment includes lawn mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, or any such noise generating tool, clearly audible at a point of reception as in a residential area. That’s how we operationalize this regulation. With respect— - Through the chair, Councillor. Through the chair, with respect that’s, that’s with respect to advertising. Sorry, could you repeat that last sentence?
[1:37:14] Yes, yes. Tracking attention to performance, I would argue this is not a performance and number two, it’s not advertising. So I don’t think that subdivision F house the generality of section 2.1. And if— Councillor— If we’re not clear about that— Go ahead, I thought you had a question for staff. Yes, and if we’re not clear about that, I need a clarification because it is my understanding that when residents call in to try to file a noise complaint under 2.1, they’re told that you do not accept a noise complaints at all with respect to a lawn equipment.
[1:37:59] And I would just want to clarify if that’s the case. Through the chair, that is exactly the case because we refer to F, which talks about power equipment specifically mentions lawnmowers, chainsaws leaf floors. And it gives a time period of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. And I’ll repeat that the regulation does not differentiate between the power source of the equipment and in the report it is clearly stated and factual in reality that gas powered lawn equipment is much louder than battery powered lawn equipment.
[1:38:48] Yes, people understand that and that’s why they’re often making complaints. I think, and I’m not sure how to proceed on this then, but I do think we are going to have to ask the solicitor to take a look at the interaction between 2.1 and subdivision F under that because I think that there is a legitimate difference of opinion here. And I also think as long as we’re at it, I would like to get a little bit more clarification on the actual quantitative provisions under section three.
[1:39:26] Because if a gas powered leaf flower is operating at a decibel level of well over 100, that is way beyond the area of human safety. And I think while I would like to further review these NPC guidelines, I would like some more information as to whether any of these are applicable. And I understand that you would need more time to do that. I’m wondering if before we get to this interpretation of the noise bylaw, which I believe goes well beyond just the hours of the day.
[1:40:05] It might not be a bad idea to ask for you to just look at this, review it with council, and maybe come back to the next one of our meetings here just to clarify some of these questions, rather than trying to put this into a motion now. That’s a question to Mr. Catolic. We do have a motion on the floor, but the councilor is asking for more information or review. I did hear a question around legal advice as well. I’ll go to you.
[1:40:41] Through the chair, we periodically review bylaws and bylaws are written by our legal staff in consultation with us. Our contribution is highly focused on the operationalization of the bylaws. During the last review and previous reviews, our focus was on the response to complaints in an economical fashion and also in a fashion that we could collect evidence should charges be laid, and we want that evidence to be satisfactory in the courts or during hearings of administrative and monetary penalties.
[1:41:24] That’s why we chose to use the time period. From an operational perspective, it would be very difficult to respond to complaints with our decibel reader, attend that a property where somebody is cutting their lawn and take a reading for 20 minutes, go through the whole process and gather evidence in that regard because the noise that’s emanating from lawn equipment is measured at the point of reception and not at the source of the equipment.
[1:41:58] So we would have to go to the residents that are complaining about the noise. The time of day restriction, operationally, is very effective, very simple to implement. If you’re outside of that noise period, you’re in violation of the bylaw. To follow up a previous question then, and I don’t mean to get into a back and forth debate with you, but I really need to understand this before I move on. F says the sound from or created by any instrument, radio amplification device, loud speaker, public address system, equipment or device, that emits sound when the same is used or operated for the purposes of advertising or for attracting attention to any performance or sale.
[1:42:53] And I just need to ask you again, I just don’t think that is applicable here because there’s no performance or sale. Is that your question? I’m terrified. - I’m just trying to understand the question that you’re asking. Yes, I do. If the steps response to why complaints under 2.1 are not being entertained, if the response to that is, it’s because of 2.F, then I want to understand the language in 2.F that says when the same is used or operated for the purposes of advertising or attracting attention because that is not what’s happening here.
[1:43:50] Through the chair, the F that I’m referring to is specific to power equipment. There’s nothing when you’re cutting a lawn that is relative to advertising. It’s an operational regulation. It’s been enforced for many years. It’s easy to enforce and efficient to enforce. In that case, and I hope Councillor Frank will assist me with this, I think in addition to looking at the question of 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., we need to ask the further question as to whether section 2.1, the subjective prong of the sound by-law is operative, or whether it is superseded by subdivision F.
[1:44:44] And I think we need to focus on that because this is not for the purposes of advertising or performance. Go to Mr. Coler for that answer. Through the chair, when we enforce all of our by-laws, we look at them in totality. And if there’s specific sections of the by-law, as there is in this one, relative to lawn equipment, that is the regulation that we enforce. Councillor?
[1:45:19] I’m looking at this from the point of view of an aggrieved homeowner. And we’re at the right o’clock in the morning, so we’re not at night. And I’m not going to worry about the decibel level, but they honestly believe that this is an unreasonable noise or noise that’s likely to disturb the inhabitants within the meaning of 2.1. And they call your office and try to file a complaint, and they’re told by your office that we’re not going to entertain the complaint. And I suspect if they proceeded further to ask why not, you would say, 2.F.
[1:45:58] What should a person do under that circumstances? Through the chair, the advice that service London gives when they receive complaints, is that there are exemptions in the by-law. Very similar to if somebody complains about a train or a garbage or recycling that’s being picked up at night. There are exemptions in the by-law under part six. And specific, there are exemptions with respect to city equipment, and there is a specific section on lawn equipment, and that is how the by-law is operationalized.
[1:46:46] Okay, and again to the chair, we’ve agreed that there’s other than the city’s equipment, golf courses, there is no general exemption under part six that applies to private operators or homeowners. So I think at this point, I’ve exhausted the questions I have about the noise by-law, and I feel that we need to bring back some further discussion to council, because I do feel as if the city is making an error in not enforcing 2.1.
[1:47:20] And this is putting aside the more complicated question of the decibels. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I would then encourage the Councillor to perhaps draft some information for either for council or for if this passes the Community and Protective Services Committee to provide that specific direction. I feel like if there is a significant desire from the Councillor to see something different than what is currently on the screen, then I’d encourage them to change that. But I did want to just mention that I meant to move the staff report motions as well as this is an addition to, and I realized I did not include ABC on the original staff motion, which was including the FCM campaign and the education campaign and receiving the report.
[1:48:09] And so I’m hoping that, I don’t know if we need to redo the whole thing, or if we can just add the staff’s direction to my original move motion. I’ll go to click. Through the chair, I have made that addition to the original staff recommendation with the addition of your motion as part D, and I’ve put that up on the screen. I’d like to go to other committee members, any comments. I have second the motion.
[1:48:51] I do have a couple of questions, and then I’ll go to the Councillor, or Councillor Trissell, I’ll go to you first. Yeah, just to get this all on the table at the same time, I would like to add a few other clauses to this motion, which I don’t think are inconsistent with it. So I just as soon put them in there now. Number one is a specific referral to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. Number two, I should slow down.
[1:49:30] You can go ahead. Number two is the addition of a representative of the environmental community to the addition of a representative of an environmental community organization, to the working group. I say that because there is an industry representative on that working group, and I think that that should be co-balanced by a community organization representative. And three, I would like a report back, clarify the status and coverage of the sound by law with respect to noise complaints regarding gas powered equipment.
[1:50:18] I don’t think that’s inconsistent with point A, it expands it a bit. And I think it’s an important piece of it. I want to avoid a situation where we’re just getting piecemeal reports back possibly to different, possibly to different committees. This report came to our committee today. And as a member of this committee, I feel I should try to diligently deal with all of the points that have been raised in this report. And the biggest flaw that I see here is the manner in which noise complaints are being dealt with by the public under 2.1.
[1:50:57] Because I quite frankly do not see that there is an exemption under section six in general, or 2.F in particular. And I think people need to understand when it’s appropriate for them to be able to complain. So I think it’s okay for this committee now that we have this report to add this. So I would add those additional additional additional points. Thank you, Councillor. So we have three amendments to the original motion.
[1:51:31] I’ll go to Councillor Prigle. Thank you. Oh, just before I go on to Councillor Prigle, could we have clarification? Is it number three? I’ll just go to the clerk. Councillor Trussell? Yes. - Mike Son. Through the chair, I apologize. I’m just looking for a couple of clarifications. So for the first part, it was a referral to the Environmental Stewardship Advisory Committee for review, I’m sorry, what was being referred to them?
[1:52:13] It’s this entire matter that’s the subject of the report. I don’t want to limit what they can talk about. And if I may also ask through the chair, the addition of a representative of the environmental community organization to the working group, what’s the name of the working group? If you don’t mind. Could Mr. Stanford to the chair answer that to get that exactly correct? I’ll go to Mr. Stanford. Thank you. We actually haven’t set up a working group per se. We will be pulling together information from a variety of sources.
[1:52:48] In our report, we did mention a group called Landscape Ontario. They happen to represent a number of the long-care companies in London and across Ontario. They’re not actually part of a working group per se. It is a group we’re going to consult with. We are happy to consult with many different environmental groups in London, including the advisory committees. Along the way should we decide that a working group is good to set up, we would make sure that it is very well balanced. So at this point in time, Madam Chair, what I can say is that we will be consulting with, there are a number of environmental groups that have sort of long-care and a naturalization as part of their forte.
[1:53:30] We would like to actually consult with all of them unless committee and council sees it differently. Okay, we don’t need that one then. I think Mr. Stanford has made it very clear that even though Landscape Ontario was mentioned at one point, that is not to the exclusion of other groups. So that further clarification on the third item? The third item deals with a report back to clarify the status, scope and coverage of the sound by-law and its enforcement with respect to noise complaints regarding gas powered equipment.
[1:54:18] Just take a moment here for the clerk to get it in order and then we can have it read back. And then I would need a seconder as well for the amendment. I’ll just go to the clerk.
[1:55:24] Through the chair, the motion would be that the motion be amended to add a new part E and F reading part E. The matter of an update and next steps for gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment be referred to the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee for review. And F, the civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting to clarify the status and coverage of the sound by-law and enforcement with respect to noise complaints related to gas powered equipment. I’m gonna ask for a seconder on the amendment first and then I will go to Councillor Pribble.
[1:56:07] Councillor Pribble, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I will second date to put it out on the floor but what I would like. Just before we, are you seconding the amendment? Sorry, I didn’t hear that, you are. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you, and I would like actually feedback from staff and potentially from both Mr. Katowik and Mr. Stanford regarding D E F, if I can please have your feedback.
[1:56:40] Thank you. Is that to Mr. Stanford and Mr. Katowik? I’m sure if it could go back up on the screen just so we’re just still clear on the additions. Mr. Stanford, we need the mic. Through the chair, I can put up, they’re not, I apologize. The new motion is for E and F so I can put that up on the screen but part D is part of the original motion so I can’t put that up at the moment.
[1:57:22] So is it E and F that you’re looking for? Actually, Chair, I wanted feedback on all of them because I never heard the feedback from our staff on D so I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me via address now, E and F, our staff and then we go back to D but I would like to have a feedback on all three. Thank you. We can do that. E and F is up, Mr. Stanford. The Councilor is looking for feedback on all the items but the amendment is.
[1:58:04] Madam Chair, I’ll be able to comment on one or two of them. What I’m seeing here on E, that is very much what we actually had in mind so far. So fully in full agreement of that. The other items deal primarily with, I believe, the sound by-law so I’ll ask Mr. Catola to comment on those. Mr. Catola. If you can put the original motion up and I’ll go in order with respect to D, we can have an amendment and a public participation meeting at the July CAHPS meeting if requested by Council.
[1:59:20] E is standard, it be referred to advisory committee. And F, I’d have to consult with our city solicitor should we have a in-camera report. I can’t speak for legal but from municipal compliance. As I mentioned numerous times today, when we enforce the by-law, we look at all the regulations in totality and there is a regulation that’s time related with respect to law and equipment.
[2:00:03] Councillor Prigle. Thank you, wonderful questions for the chair to the staff. Mr. Catola in D one, 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Any feedback from you? Yes, through the chair, the complaints that we get with respect to a gas powered law and equipment is the length of time that they’re using them and the time of day. However, within the sound by-law, there is no differentiation on the power source and it is generally known that gas powered law and equipment is louder than battery or electric law and equipment.
[2:00:52] So the way the recommendation reads, we would allow gas powered law and equipment to be used from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. We would allow non-gas or electric powered law and equipment to be used from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. So the by-law would differentiate on the source of power because of the reality is there is a decibel difference. Councillor, just as a reminder, we do have the amendment on the floor first, E and F.
[2:01:42] I’ll just make one comment and I know we are gonna go first to E and F but in terms of D, I just think from 6 p.m. at this stage and where we are now, that it’s too early. So that’s why, and I do understand that two D, two and D, three will have to do this exact time. So therefore, when it comes to it, I will not be supporting it at this time. But I do understand the E and F we are adjusting first. Councillor Fink. Thank you, yes. I’ll speak to E and F just ‘cause it’s on the floor. With the original motion, it encapsulates the E-S-A-C-A-C as well as if there are the relevant advisor committees and I didn’t want to assume that the accessibility committee might not want to look at this or the other environmental committee.
[2:02:28] So I was gonna leave it in staff’s hands as to make sure which ones should be circulated. So I already see this almost as a duplication. And then in regards to F, I feel like staff have clarified this multiple times and I don’t necessarily want them to spend their resources writing an additional report. If Councillor still needs clarification, I think that’s a simple conversation or email but I have heard the same answer about three times. So I don’t feel personally the need for an additional report. So I will not be supporting these amendments. Any other comments from committee?
[2:03:06] I see none. I do have a quick question to staff from the chair and I might have to release the chair as well. So I would like to go to Vice Chair Councillor Tresot to speak. I’ll call on. Thank you, Vice Chair, Councillor Tresot. I do have a question on the amendments E and F. I do see E as a duplication. I think more advisory groups need to be part of this process.
[2:03:42] I don’t have a problem with the E but the F, the question I have through you is, will it delay this process getting all this information to us? I have a concern, this has been an ongoing conversation out in the community. It was really great to see this report here in front of us. I’d like to get it moving sooner than later and I want to make sure that there’s going to be no complications, I guess, in moving the, not only the request for funding but the whole report forward with the added amendment of F.
[2:04:29] I’m not sure who to go to through the Vice Chair. Through the Acting Chair, I’ll start off, the addition of either E or I think E is included, but F, that would not delay the process that is laid out. That would be sort of a parallel process. So we would not, the timelines that we are pursuing in the report would remain intact. And Mr. Cook would have to provide any further comment. Through the Acting Chair, if the intent of the totality of the motion is to have a public participation meeting in July, F would delay that because there are numerous exemptions within the by-law.
[2:05:16] I’ll use a snow removal on public, on private property as an example. If we get a complaint that somebody is removing snow at 3 a.m. in the morning, we will not accept that complaint because the by-law is very clear that there’s a time, there’s no time permission regulation on that, very similar to law and equipment. So if the intent of F is to provide a report in consultation with our city solicitor, who may or may not, I can’t speak for her, provide a supplementary in-camera report, then F would likely delay the public participation meeting in July.
[2:06:04] Thank you for that information. I will not be supporting the amendment then. I’ll return the chair. Got the chair back. Any other questions, comments to the amendment? E and F only. Yes, I have one. Go ahead Councillor. If I’m asking staff in the solicitor to look at one clause, one clause, we’re gonna have a public participation meeting in July.
[2:06:41] How is asking staff to look at that one clause going to push this past July? I don’t understand how that is operationally going to actually cause delay. Is that a question to staff? Through the chair, as I mentioned previously, I can’t speak for the city solicitor. However, I can for municipal compliance and the spirit of the questions at today’s meeting are more than just looking at one clause.
[2:07:15] It’s the, what I heard is the enforcement protocol of the sound bylaw specific to gas powered lawn equipment. That goes beyond just looking at one clause, where their request has also been made to look at quantitative regulations. So the NPC regulations. So that goes beyond just looking at one clause. One further question then to the chair, if I may. Is the chair opinion that this matter would be better brought up before the CAHPS committee rather than civic works since it’s dealing with the bylaw?
[2:07:57] Mr. Colle. Through the chair, that’s correct. That’s why all bylaws go to a specific committee. And once again, I can’t speak for the clerk, but the clerk would likely, when I would be drafting the report, would say this doesn’t come to this committee, this goes to CAHPS committee. And in that case, and in the interest of proceeding with this in an expeditious way, given the fact that there are a lot of complaints from the community about the lack of enforcement of this bylaw, which needs to be addressed.
[2:08:34] Notwithstanding that, I’m gonna withdraw part F. So I think this bylaw can be adopted by this committee anonymously, if I understand the comments that people have made. But in doing that, I wanna make it really clear that when I get complaints from residents, that they’re not getting proper service from bylaw enforcement, there has to be, there has to be a response to that. And now that we’re well into the season, I think we’re gonna be getting more and more.
[2:09:07] So I’m going to, in the interest of moving this forward and staying within civic works, I’m gonna withdraw F. And I’d like to go to the seconder if he’s okay with that. To keep it on, I will second it, I will second it to keep it on for the council to address. Councilor Pribble, he is withdrawing it. Sorry, keeping E, I’m in, sorry. Yes, taking off F, keeping E.
[2:09:45] Okay, so F is off, E is still on? Actually, I’m gonna say this, because E is repeated, bottom line, when it comes to the voting, I would vote it down anyways. So I will make it simpler, faster, I will not be seconding it. So we have the amendment, it has been withdrawn, we have a motion. I’d like to go to the mover comments, any comments, just one moment.
[2:10:22] Go ahead, Councilor Frank. Thank you, just on the original motion. Then yes, again, I kind of already gave most of my comments, looking forward to a lot of the work that staff is already doing, and looking forward to seeing all of these items go to caps for further discussion. Thank you. Councilor Pribble. So we are at the original motion, I will not be supporting, or if we are voting on it together, I would like to vote separate on D, please, because I will not be supporting it.
[2:10:55] When I read again through the ABC, I’m happy with the staff, the approach they took, and we are taking, and as it will be implemented next year anyways, I will stick to ABC, which I will support, I will not be supporting D at this time. I don’t really honestly see, based on what’s covered in C, I do think the staff took the right approach, and for us to do the benchmarking competitive analysis, and let’s take the further steps from there, thank you. Thank you, and with that, I see no further comments, I would like to therefore put A, B, and C on the floor for voting.
[2:11:42] Yes, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, so we’ve got D on the floor.
[2:12:37] Closing the vote, the motion carries three to one. Moving on now to the 4.1, which is the Transit Road Network, and active transportation planning for West London. We have a motion brought forward by Councilor Tresault. With that, I would like to go to the mover, and to see if there’s a seconder, just start the conversation. Did I discuss this, to see if there’s a seconder?
[2:13:14] Is there a seconder? We have the motion, I’m looking for a seconder. I will second that, hold on. I notice there is an amendment or an added to the motion that is on the agenda. Councilor Tresault, being further noted, if you could just speak to that before we look for the seconder.
[2:13:54] I have seconded that if you could speak to the addition as well. It being further noted that the MMP recognizes that significant transportation improvements are needed in the north and the west. It being noted that funds for projects in these corridors were redistributed to other rapid transit initiatives outside the area. And in fairness, I should give Councilor Raman credit for that language, and I’ve inserted this at her request, because I think it’s a strong addition to what I’ve written.
[2:14:28] And I would ask for a seconder for that as well. It’s all part of the motion, but I needed that clarified as we didn’t see that in the original motion. So there is a motion on the floor. I will go to the mover. Thank you, thank you very much. What motivated me to draft this motion to CWC was a discussion that we had at the recent planning and environment committee.
[2:15:12] When suggestions were made that some of the matters that I was trying to address with respect to traffic, with respect to traffic and transit planning were better within the scope of the Civic Works Committee, and particularly the work that we’re doing with staff on the implementation of the transportation mobility master plan. Accordingly, I drafted this with reference to a couple of specific points.
[2:15:47] I did refer specifically to a particular intersection, because I think that that is an intersection that is gonna be the subject of much public debate and comment, and it provides an example of the type of intersection where the planning device of filtered permeability would be useful. Ultimately, the main point that this motion tries to make coming out of this committee is that we need to have a coherent uniform, organic, not specific to a particular project, look, study of the cumulative, and I stress the word cumulative, effects of the different projects, that are all before the planning committee being evaluated individually, but since there is not an area plan, and since we do not have the benefit of an area-wide traffic study, I believe that this particular motion fills a gap in what would be considered good planning and good procedure regarding this important topic.
[2:17:05] So I would ask this committee to support this, and I’m hoping that Council will support it too. And I think at this point, I’ll just defer to other members of this committee to state their opinions on this, and I’ll reserve for the rest of my time. Thank you, Councillor, I’ll go to committee members. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d like to hear from staff, if they have any feedback on these items, and if this would impact any of the MMP efforts. Through the chair, we’re fine receiving this direction, recognizing that this work is already underway, and the consultation that is happening with the Mobility Master Plan can complement this, and it’s based on an understanding that the reporting on this will flow through the MMP process that is underway.
[2:18:01] So it’s being captured, and Council will receive a holistic plan for both the West part of the city and the entire city and the improvements proposed there. Councillor, wonderful. Then I will very happily support this, because I think a lot of active transportation and public transit needs to be looked at in this area. So appreciate the work of the area counselors on this item. I’d like to go to other committee members who are visiting committee members, Councillor Pribble.
[2:18:39] Just like a comment based on their feedback, we received from the staff, and the proposal that we see in front of us, I will be supporting it as well, thank you. Councillor Robin. Thank you, and through you, I wanna thank Councillor Trossa for bringing this forward, and for the discussions on this matter. I will say this is something I am hearing quite a bit about from my ward, regarding the North and the West specifically around how people are getting around in general, in all modes of transportation.
[2:19:13] So what I think we are doing here today is we are recognizing that the community wants to have a separate discussion around how things are developing in the area, and what consideration needs to be given to the way that we’re moving around in this area, but also that with the further it being noted, I think sometimes we lose sight of how things move around within our system here at City Hall, in terms of funding projects, in terms of how we got to where we end up, and I think it’s important to put the it being noted in, it being further noted in, because of the fact that we don’t wanna lose sight of the finance piece that was pulled from the West and the North, when we made the decision on the RT in which legs to go with, but also with respect to some of the plans for intersection improvements that have also moved dollars from those intersections to other places.
[2:20:33] So I think it’s just a reminder that we have made some of those decisions, and we need to now structure our decision-making to put priority where we haven’t been putting the priority as a council in terms of that direction. So again, my hope out of this is not only do we see this direction as it plays out with the MMP, but that we can have some further structured conversation in the West and in the North, as it relates to how people for CS moving around with all of the projects that are forthcoming, as these projects are being reported by our media partners, what we’re hearing from the community quite is a lot of concern and a lot of, and I would say significant feelings that their lives are going to be impacted because of the way we’re planning.
[2:21:34] And so I do think that there is that opportunity to belay some of the concerns by allowing people’s input. And one of the challenges I’m really struggling with is as these applications are coming forward and residents are sharing their concerns about transportation issues, that that information does not make its way automatically into the MMP discussion. That should be, in my opinion, a very simple way, there should be a way for us to capture that information from those comments on planning applications and filter those to the appropriate MMP reports.
[2:22:14] I do think that we’re asking people, when we’re asking them about a planning application, we’re asking them now to take an additional step and provide that feedback to the MMP. If we’re going to do that, then we should be at the time we do a planning notice and we hold a public consultation. We should do a separate but connected MMP consultation so that people have a chance to weigh in on it because what’s happening is they come to planning and they want to share their frustration with the fact that we have all these planning applications coming forward and they’re not being heard because it’s not connected to the application.
[2:22:50] So they want a place to be able to share those concerns and hear back from staff and their counselors that we’ve heard you. So I’m hoping that we can have those conversations in a meaningful way that the community feels heard and they know that we’ve got this for them. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen. I see no further comments from committee. If the committee will allow me, I just want to give my thanks to Councillor Trussell for not giving up on this ‘cause it is a very important conversation that we hear as counselors on how we move around.
[2:23:28] Councillor ramen, I really appreciate what you have added to the further being noted, the importance or the opportunities that we do not have in the North and the West as we are all about development going forward and the challenges and continuing that conversation and the importance of those opportunities. I’m really pleased to see and second this motion. So thank you to everyone that was involved and with that we can proceed to vote.
[2:24:13] Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Moving on, deferred matters, additional business. I see none and looking for adjournment. Councillor Frank seconded by myself and we can do a hand vote, all in favour? That’s carried, thanks everyone.