Transcript - Noise Enforcement Sparks Debate - Comité des services de protection et de préparation aux situations d’urgence

Noise Enforcement Sparks Debate - Comité des services de protection et de préparation aux situations d’urgence - 23 mars 2026

difficulty. Volume Uh through the comprehensive consultation process, staff identified some key issues. One of these issues we identified was the current definitions and licensed bylaw haven't kept pace with how food businesses now operate. Newer business models, particularly shared commercial kitchens, often called ghost kitchens, aren't clearly defined in the bylaw. This has created some confusion for operators and the third party users renting kitchen space. Another key issue relates to food premises that offer live entertainment or operate later into the evening. Currently, these establishments are required to obtain both a food premise license and an amusement place license in order to operate. and staff heard in consultation that licences felt this was not efficient. Additionally, noise complaints at food premises continue to be one of the most frequent types of service requests they receive. Between 2022 and 2024, the city received an average of 862 noise complaints per year, specifically tied to food premises. And in addition to noise, these establishments can at times experience challenges with patrons lining up outside or lingering on sidewalk, which which can create safety concerns or impact surrounding communities. The current bylaw doesn't provide specific tools to address uh these issues proactively um especially in areas with growing nightlife presence. Uh we also reviewed issues related to homebased low-risk food businesses uh as recent provincial changes now allow individuals to prepare certain low-risk foods at home for sale provided they provide public health requirements. Uh the city's new zoning bylaw permits these businesses in residential areas as long as they're only producing low-risk foods. However, the licensing bylaw has not been updated to reflect these changes which has created a gap. Next slide, please. Uh staff recommends several uh updates to several definitions in licensing bylaw as part of this bylaw review. Staff propose updating the definition of a food premise and removing the turn eating establishment and replacing with restaurant to be more clear overall. Additionally, staff proposed a requirement for shared commercial kitchens to maintain an up-to-date log of all clients using their facility as well as ensuring clients carry a minimum of $2 million commercial general liability insurance. In response to concerns raised by shared commercial kitchens, staff are also proposing a new offense for misrepresentation of where food is prepared. We're also recommending the creation of a new license category called expanded activity food premise. This applies to food premises that offer entertainment such as live music, dancing, trivia, or other activities beyond standard food service. Right now, these businesses require both a food premise license and an amusement place license. And this new category consolidates these requirements into a single license which reduces administrative burden while still ensuring the city has the regulatory tools needed to address noise and manage patri. Staff also recommend that enh recommend enhanced authorities for the chief license inspector to address repeated non-compliance with the noise bylaw. These authorities include being able to require the closing of doors and windows to mitigate noise during noise producing hours. Being able to require the relocation of noise producing equipment within the establishment to mitigate noise and being able to require the expanded activity food premise obtain a professional engineers report with recommendations for how to come into compliance with the noise bylaw as well as confirmation the required remediation of the premises has been completed. Uh we will note that the professional engineers report will only be required in cases of chronic non-compliance when all other enforcement tools have been ineffective in bringing in the licency into compliance. We're also recommending that homebased businesses preparing low-risk foods be exempt from municipal licensing requirement. This aligns with provincial regulatory changes which allow residents to prepare and sell low-risk foods as long as they meet public health requirements. It also aligns with the city's new zoning bylaw, which permits these businesses in residential areas, provided they only produce low-risk foods. Exempting these operators support small-cale entrepreneurship, particularly homebased bakers and similar startups, while still ensuring food safety because these businesses remain subject to provincial health oversight. Another important component of this review is the proposed increase in commercial general liability insurance from 1 million to 2 million. This reflects what we heard is already occurring in the sector as over 71% of respondents to the survey indicated they already carried between2 and $5 million commercial general liability insurance. General service Music on Direct. administr personel. Excuse me. Fore! Foreign! Foreign! The person permit Fore service. Foreim security responsibility. General Million dollar minimum. One of the first steps in implementation is extending the expiry date for all currently issued food premises and amusement place licenses. So instead of expiring on March 31st, 2026, these licenses would now be valid until May 31st, 2026. This two-month extension gives both the city and lenses the time needed to transition smoothly to the new framework. We're also recommending a new annual fee of $448 for the expanded activity food premise license class. This reflects the combined scope of what used to require two licenses for food premises and amusement place and continues the city's established cost recovery model. And finally, to ensure a smooth rollout, staff and bio regulatory services will develop clear and accessible communications for both lenses and the public. And importantly, all these recommendations could be implemented using existing resources within biomogatory services. There's no request for new funding or staff. Uh, next slide, please. Uh we're bringing this report's recommendations forward today for consideration by this committee and if accepted will rise to council on April 8th, 2026 and if approved at council the revised foods harness regulations will come into effect on May 31st, 2026. That concludes our presentation. Thank you for your time and we welcome any questions. Thank you very much uh for the presentation and thank you for staff for addressing uh another item on our work plan. It's good to see progress from an ambitious work plan that we developed earlier this term of council and appreciate that it's here before us today at committee. Um so colleagues there are nine delegations we'll hear at this time. I will also flag that we've received one written submission from the Hintenberg Community Association that has been added to the SharePoint site if you wish to review that uh that email submission. Uh but at this time I would like to invite delegates to come forward. Uh all delegates will have up to 5 minutes for their presentation. At the 1 minute mark, I will simply say 1 minute. And if you're still speaking at the end of 5 minutes, I will have to intervene to uh conclude your 5 minutes. Um for those who are present in person, we'll just ask you to come up and sit at the table here at the end. And there's a microphone before you. You could just press the button at the bottom of the microphone. So we just take people in the order that they registered. First is Larry Trevor Deutsch. Good morning, sir. right here. When you're ready, you have five minutes. Okay. Good morning, council members, and thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes to the food licensing, food premises licensing. My name is Lori Trevor Deutsch, and I'm a business development consultant in the city. As part of my practice, I oversee licensing and renewals for approximately dozen establishments here, as well for a cafe owned and operated by my son. I deal with food, amusement, and liquor licenses all the time. I also volunteer my services to several local businesses if they really need them, and a lot of them do. So, I have both personal and professional experience in this matter. I'd like to begin by noting that this review process has been a very positive experience and represents a strong first step forward to modernizing the city's licensing framework at a time when the industry is really struggling. Feedback was clearly welcomed and I appreciate that my input was considered even where it may not have been fully incorporated into the recommendations. That said, I do have a few suggested refinements that I believe are important and would be wellreceived by the industry. First, and most importantly, there is a need to clearly define what constitutes an amusement license and which businesses are required to obtain one. The city's website currently defines an amusement business as simply one that provides entertainment or amusement, including establishments with five or more arcade machines. billiard tables, bowling alleys, golf ranges, skating, and public halls. However, the bylaw review refers specifically to businesses hosting live entertainment. This has always been confusing to me. For example, some venues believe they require an amusement license simply for having a DJ at night. It is unclear to me whether that interpretation is correct. The lack of clarity has been a recurring issue. It raises the question of whether establishments like my family business or restaurants should require an amusement license if they occasionally offer live music such as a guitarist on the weekend. In my view, this does not align with the original intent of the license category. We need a more objective test of what constitutes an amusement license or an amusement place. For example, does the license specifically apply to live entertainment as in the review or will it apply to DJs? Is the entertainment incidental to the business or is it its primary draw? Will patrons attend primarily for entertainment or are there is the entertainment in ancillary to the restaurant? Will there be lineups which I think is really one of the keys. In other words, does the activity really require distinct regulatory oversight above and beyond that of a food establishment? In short, the definition of amusement should be modernized and clarified. The current framework seems to have been designed many years ago and primarily for arcades and similar venues. In fact, the first time I applied for an amusement license, um my client was required to obtain a police records check for the vulnerable sector which the police department refused to give because there were no youth involved. So it should un not un unintentionally capture restaurants who primary business is food but who offer incidental entertainment to enhance the customer experience with respect to simply combining food and amusement licenses. While this is helpful, I don't think it's going to significantly decrease the administrative burden on lences and it certainly doesn't help us on the financial side since you're just combining the license fee. In fact, while I applaud this, the real beneficiary will be the city itself as it will significantly decrease the costs associated with the issuance and administration of the license. So, if you're going to do this, why not give us some of that advantage? Second, with respect to recommendations regarding home kitchens, I strongly support the direction being taken. However, while the food itself that's being uh referred to is low risk, the preparation environment may not be as such. One minute. Okay. As such, I would recommend uh requiring home kitchen operators to obtain a simple food handler certificate. It's $25, a couple of hours work, and I think will really um enhance safety. Finally, I note that license review references the desire for online renewal of business licenses, but does not go into further detail. This should be a top priority. At present, license renewals require either mailing a check to the city, which a lot of business don't operate checks, including my own, or spending a lot of time at the licensing office to pay for this um renewal. This is inefficient and outdated, and by comparison, the licenses I renew in in Toronto take 2 minutes, and I do them online on my phone. Thank you again for this opportunity, and I'm welcome for questions. Thank you, sir, for your presentation this morning. I'll just see if any of my colleagues have a question. Vice Chair Hill, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the presentation this morning. Uh, Mr. Trevor Deutsch, um, I I have a question about the combined license piece. Uh, you spoke to um, the cost and you spoke to the the uh, I I think I would sum it as a bit of redundancy, but could you elaborate on that a little bit in terms of what that means from a licensing perspective? uh like are you seeing inspectors come multiple times for the same site kind of thing? Is that what you're referring to? Well, absolutely. And on the on the licensing site we get for let me give you an example. When we licensed um Med supper club in the market in Landown, we had three fire inspections. One for liquor, one for the amusement license, and one for the food license. It was the same inspector doing the same inspection uh all within several weeks of each other. And we have a very good relationship with both the food inspectors and the and the fire inspectors. They're very helpful, but they are overworked. And when I see them come in three times in the matter of 6 weeks to do the same inspection, that doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of resources. Thank you very much. And I note your comments about the uh ambiguity on the amusement licensing and the potential options for online registration. So, I'll be asking some questions to staff on that uh once it's my time to do that. Thank you very much. You Thank you, Vice Chair. Councelor Lulu Love, I fully understand what you're saying about this ambiguity when it comes to the amusement license. Um, you know, I have several businesses in my ward that um that are either a restaurant uh or a local brewery and ancillary to the work that they do there. They open up their space in the evenings after the work is done for things like uh like trivia night, uh karaoke, uh maybe like a single person uh and a guitar or a small band. And many of them have recently found out that they require an amusement license um to do that. And when you look at the wording within the amusement license, it reads like it's meant for like a bowling alley or for a uh an arcade or a midway or that sort of thing. Um the work that's been done uh on this policy, uh do you think that that makes things clearer or do these issues still exist? I think it it does not clarify because um we're still talking about the term entertainment and what defines entertainment. My point is that the bylaw should be based on what the regulatory enforcement needs to be. As I said, if I put a guitarist in in my establishment in the evening, it does not require the city to have additional regulatory enforcement. If I'm going to have a lineup in front of the door, it does. So, you know, it it's like an AGCO license. You you get a basic AGCO license. There are different subcategories um that go on with it. For example, you can have a caterer's endorsement. Um you can have offsite. So, in the end, I I appreciate that the city needs to deal with the bylaw aspects, but if there are no bylaw aspects, then it should simply be part of the food premises. It should be part of being a food premises. We're not We're not an entertainment venue. And there is no real definition of what entertainment is. If we have canned music, is that entertainment? I don't know. Like a venue that fits, you know, 50 people or something like that and it's a ticketed event because obviously you can't you can't say can't have 100 people in a venue that only holds 50 people. The event sells out. There's no queuing. You just walk in. There shouldn't be a requirement for further licensing is what you're saying. That's our position. Yeah. Yeah, and I think that makes common sense. All right. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your insight. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. And thank you, sir, for your delegation today. Much appreciated. Melanie Brule, good morning. Good morning, Merci. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you for your time today. Um, also thank you for the work that you do to keep this city safe, everyone. And that's a lot of work that was in that that report. My name is Melanie Brulee. I'm the executive director of the Ottawa Music Industry Coalition. We act as Ottawa's music office and represent over 500 music industry professionals, including venue owners, operators, artists, and technicians across the city. Uh, I want to start by saying that I support many items recommended in this report, particularly the move towards a single licensing category for venues offering food and live entertainment. Uh, as I mentioned in my email last week, I think this is a step forward in helping streamline processes for small businesses that are already working very hard. I am here, however, uh, to do my due diligence and raise concerns about two specific proposed enforcement tools outlined on page 17. uh one is the ability to mandate the relocation of sound equipment within a venue and the ability to uh require professional acoustic engineering reports at the expense of the lency. As currently written, these measures are being introduced without clearly defined thresholds, processes, or protections for operators. If we're serious about downtown revitalization and building a strong nightlife economy, we need policies developed in meaningful collaboration with the creative industries sector with clear boundaries that allow operators, residents, and enforcement all to succeed. As you can imagine, vague measures create uncertainty and for many small and mid-size venues, a real financial risk. Acoustic reports alone can be extremely costly into the tens of thousands as noted in the report. And also many venues operate with customuilt sound systems. There's an important distinction between volume and acoustics. And without clear standards or technical expertise guiding these decisions, we risk creating more tension and actually not solving the issue. It should be noted that this isn't about a lack of willingness from venues to operate uh and cooperate with the set parameters. Uh it's that the set expectations and the steps to meet them could and should be more clearly defined. I shared a letter to the committee from one of our members who has spent the last year investing in soundproofing, working with neighbors and engaging with bylaw and is still in court. This is an example of a gap and the cornerstone to resolving this situation has been the inability to access the data needed to move forward. So that points to a broader issue. These measures are addressing noise and acoustics uh but are being introduced through a licensing framework rather than through a proper noise bylaw review where clear standards, definitions, and processes can be established. Other cities approach this differently. They pair enforcement with clear policy frameworks, defined thresholds, and shared responsibilities like a agent of change principle. This improves compliance and reduces conflict. As I noted in my email, the nightlife council raised the need for updated noise and sound policies during the last bylaw review, and we understand that this work is anticipated for the next term of council. Right now, Ottawa is proposing to expand enforcement without that policy foundation in place. So, my recommendation is simple. advancing the broader licensing updates, but temporarily hold the implementation of the two expanded activity provisions related to relocating sound equipment and requiring acoustic engineering reports and address these with the upcoming noise bylaw review with proper consultation with the industry. We recognize that this is a complex issue, which is exactly why it's important to get it right. done well, this can support public safety and the long-term viability of our venues, which are critical to Ottawa's economy, nightlife, and downtown revitalization. So, Omic is here to help. This is exactly the role that we play, and we look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that this is implemented in a way that in a way that is clear, fair, and effective. Thank you. Happy to answer questions. Thank you very much for your presentation. That's much appreciated. do have a question for my colleague, councelor Divine. Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, Melanie, for the delegation. Um, and not just for the delegation, but for the uh um the uh practical solutions that you recommend. um on that when you were referring to those two uh enforcement measures um and forgive me if I get the terminology wrong but the uh the forced relocation of sound equipment and the requirement for uh for acoustic reports were those measures um as developed were they developed through any form of consultation engagement with local industry? No, we were sent an email that was the the mass email that was sent to everyone around the bylaw uh review for food premises, but included in that uh in that PDF, there was nothing mentioning these particular points. Um so uh yeah, we we were not consulted. Um and staying on that line, I assume that you probably have um relationships or understanding of how other cities might uh develop practices in this area. On those two measures, the city's ability to enforce through bylaw the relocation equipment and or demand acoustic reports. Are you aware of whether or not other cities use those kinds of tools? It's okay if you don't know, but No, I am aware. Um actually every two months I meet with other music officers all across Ontario. So every two months we have a standing meeting uh with music officers. So we meet with London, Ontario, Kingston, uh Missaga, Toronto, uh now we have Kitchener and Sue Staint Marie and Northern Ontario. So we have a standing meeting that I chair so that I could get more information when I started uh this role four years ago. So we are often exchanging best practices. Um, so I did absolutely reach out to all of them and there is nothing in a licensing review in any city in Ottawa in uh Ontario that has a music strategy that is included uh with the the relocation of sound equipment. There's nothing uh nothing that we can tell has a licensing review that or a licensing bylaw that includes that. So, just to be absolutely clear on that, in those cities that you consulted with and on those two particular measures, relocating equipment and requiring acoustic reports in your in your in your sister cities, you didn't find that those cities have bylaws that speak to those as enforcement tools through bylaw through licensing. Through licensing, correct? Um there's a lot of folks that have noise bylaws and actually they they changed it into calling it sound bylaw uh so that we're uh you know mitigating the the the thought of uh nightlife being a nuisance. So there's a lot of work to be done. We're very much at the beginning but no you are correct and I'm not sure if it's from you or from other delegates but it's not the first time I've heard requests that the term noise bylaw be replaced by sound bylaw. Uh because not all sound is noise. Um, and then just to that, I was going to ask whether or not um the industry had specific recommendations of how to honor the spirit of those uh measures, but it sounds like very clearly you're proposing that those two measures be held until it goes through the noise andor sound bylaw. Um, but if the spirit of that bylaw uh pertaining to the relocation of equipment and requiring sound acoustic reports, did your industry come up with alternative ways of achieving the same end without having to be as disruptive andor as costly as that? I think Ottawa is really at the beginning of uh looking at creative industries and looking at uh you know night life and so there's a lot of uh work to be done within the culture of all of this stuff. Um so I think you know passing it through a very quick licensing review as opposed to really looking deeply at uh where it is we want to go. I think that's kind of the maybe the spirit of what's happening here and and we're all about making that happen and uh put putting the right people in the room so that there is expertise guiding this stuff so we can get it right. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you chair. Thank you. Thank you counselor. I don't see any other questions. Thank you for your delegation. Thank you. Uh following we now have Aaron Benjamin. Good morning to you as well. Good morning. Good morning uh Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Chief Hut, great to see you. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today. You're going to hear some similar themes from me um as you did from Melanie. My name is Aaron Benjamin. I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Live Music Association for a few more weeks. and I'm here on behalf of live music venues, promoters, and the broader ecosystem of cultural workers who contribute to Ottawa's economy, identity, and vibrancy. Let me start by acknowledging that there are absolutely positive elements in this report. Uh the move toward a more streamlined licensing framework, including a single category for venues, offering live music and programming is meaningful and a very welcome step forward. However, as written, this framework also introduces new enforcement tools that without clear guard rails could create significant financial and operational risk for live music venues, particularly small and mid-size operators. These are not reasons to stop the work, obviously, but they are reasons to refine it before implementation. The core issue is that the report expands enforcement authority without clearly defining the thresholds, processes, or protections for operators. For example, the proposed authority for the chief license inspector to impose mitigation measures such as relocating sound equipment or requiring professional acoustic engineering reports, which we've heard can carry costs ranging from $3,000 upwards uh to tens of thousands of dollars for many venues. obviously not a manageable expense. What remains unclear is under what conditions are these measures triggered, what constitutes a repeat violation, and what opportunity exists for venue for a venue to resolve issues before escalation. As written, much of this framework relies on discretionary decision-making without clearly defined thresholds that creates inconsistency or can create inconsistency in application and uncertainty for operators who are trying to comply in good faith. We're already seeing the consequences of that ambiguity. There are cases where venues have made significant investments, engaged with neighbors, work closely with city staff and bylaw, yet still face escalation. that suggests that the issue is not a lack of effort or willingness to comply. It's the absence of clear and a clear and reliable pathway to compliance. There's also the broader structural concern Melanie touched on. The framework is being introduced in the context of ongoing bylaw modernization with key while key elements particularly the city's noise bylaw remain unresolved. In effect, we are layering expanded enforcement onto an incomplete policy foundation. At the same time, live music venues are not typical food premises. They are cultural infrastructure. They support local artists. They create jobs. They drive tourism and contribute to the kind of city building Ottawa has consistently prioritized. If we create a system that is unpredictable or cost prohibitive, we risk not just reducing complaints, we risk reducing the number of venues themselves. To ensure that framework is workable and balanced, we recommend four specific adjustments. First, formal recognition of live music venues at distinct c as distinct cultural infrastructure within the licensing framework. Second, clearly defined thresholds and escalation pathways before costly mitigation measures such as mandatory engineering reports can be imposed. Third, adoption of agent of change principles to ensure responsibility for noise mitigation is fairly distributed as our amazing city grows and intensifies. And finally, fourth, alignment with a modernized noise bylaw rather than layering new enforcement tools onto a framework that's already been identified as needing review. Finally, we'd like to note that key industry stakeholders were not meaningfully consulted in this process despite raising the issues in previous bylaw discussions. there's a great opportunity to correct that before implementation and I would like to acknowledge uh pleased to say that last week we did meet with city staff on this issue. They were very amendable to working more closely together in the future. So that's great. Um in closing, absolutely not here to oppose the work, just here to help get it right. Uh so we urge the committee to take your time to refine this policy to engage the sector in particular the Ottawa Music Industry Coalition and ensure that Ottawa's live music ecosystem our amazing live music ecosystem can continue to thrive. Thank you so much. Thank you Miss Benjamin for your presentation. We do have I thought we had a question. We do. Councelor Divine. Go ahead. Thank you chair. Um, thank you Erin uh for being here and always for being such a fantastic advocate for uh Ottawa Arts and Entertainment and culture. Um, so not only did I notice a lot of similar similarity between your delegation and the former, but um, uh, a term uh, terminology used that I didn't understand. I don't mind admitting when I don't understand something. Um, what do you mean? Would you mind telling me because I could either just, you know, go Google it or ask you. What do you mean by agent of change principles? Your third request. Excellent question. Uh so agent of change and I'm my colleagues who uh will follow me I'm sure we'll have additional insight here. Agent of change just really high level means that uh the the what is coming into the space to create the change is responsible for helping to manage that change. So in a case of let's take a development a building is going up and there's an existing live music venue already in that neighborhood. The developer of the building is responsible for managing the rel the pre-existing reality of the venue. So ensuring that there are triple glazed windows and talking to residents who may rent or purchase in that building, the experience of the neighborhood and what to expect. So managing the change, the agent of change is the one who's creating the change and managing the pre-existing relationships to help uh mitigate issues of uh of noise in particular and in your case because I think you said the third recommendation was the adoption of agent of change principles. Correct. in this case would that mean um because I don't think you're talking necessarily about changes that bylaw might be imposing on existing venues but in your and correct me if I'm wrong but in what you just described would that mean that if there's a venue that might not be a live music venue but a new agent of change is coming in to transform it into such that the onus of responsibility becomes that agent of change to make it so that it is conducive with zoning and or bylaw. What would be the onus of responsibility on that agent of change if that were somebody looking to transform a venue into a music venue? You're you're absolutely right. So it works both ways. It's definitely when we look at the case of the new venue history and on RITO coming very in fact announcing their first nine shows today I believe uh they would be the agent of change in that uh in that context and so they would be responsible for working responsibly with local the local community to understand the implications and the impact of their business on pre-existing company uh uh businesses and and neighborhoods. And if a if uh rather than being a new a new venue with a new uh developer, let's say, if an existing venue is making renovations and or changes to their established venue, do they also then become an agent of change? Right? So if there's no new development in the area and it's a venue that is attempting to if there are issues ongoing, I would say that that venue absolutely has a responsibility to manage the impact of their business on surrounding other businesses and residential etc. in in in practice, I I I'd like to think that it's everybody, you know, everyone can work together to resolve challenges, especially when we understand what constitutes a thriving neighborhood in particular in our downtown core and and surrounding neighborhoods. If we're not mindful of what the elements are of a thriving especially music city, we risk the uh we risk taking you know losing venues as we talked about if we make it too hard to operate different types of businesses that we know add to the vibrancy and prosperity of our visitors and residents then um you know we do that despite ourselves. So finding that balance counselor I think is everyone's responsibility. what the law says exactly, I'm not 100% sure, but in the context of agent of change, I think philosophically, everyone has a role to play in that particular scenario. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. Thank you, counselor. Vice Chair Hill, uh, thank you very much, Erin, for your advocacy on this issue and, uh, I agree. I love the music scene here in Ottawa, from small venues to uh, to big concerts. Um, I will ask a couple questions to staff to follow up on your four comments. Uh, but I am very heartened to hear that you've had conversations leading up to this that have been positive and we have an opportunity between now and council to perhaps make some tweaks uh as need be. Um, I think I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you for your delegation this morning. We appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, next we have Jeanvier Berni. Good morning, Gavin. Thank you. All right. Good morning, chair and members of committee. Thank you for your time and your ongoing work to improve our city and its processes. My name is Jad Bettoni and I am the founder, operator, and creative director of Art House located in West Center. Art House is a licensed cafe, art gallery, and event space. And since opening over 9 years ago, we have featured hundreds of local visual artists, musicians, DJs, and performers of all kinds, and have hosted countless community gatherings. We are known as a welcoming and inclusive space, a lively hub that supports discovery, creativity, and connection. We're also known for being one of Ottawa's only late night cafes with our busiest times during the week being between 6:00 and 10 p.m. While we are a smaller venue, we host events almost daily and our programming is crucial both to the success of our business and to community building. Art House is a member of the Ottawa Music Industry Coalition and in the interest of other members, fellow venue owners, and the city as a whole, I would like to express my concerns regarding certain expanded authorities for the chief license inspector proposed in the report for the food premises licensing review. Specifically, I am referring to the ability to mandate the relocation of sound equipment and to require professional acoustic engineering reports at the lenc's expense. Let it be clear that I recognize the importance of ensuring that our shared spaces remain respectful, safe, and enjoyable for everyone. I value the city's ongoing efforts towards this goal and can appreciate the complexity of balancing the wants and needs of residents, businesses, and the broader community. This is why I believe that how enforcement measures are implemented matters greatly. As currently proposed, these new authorities introduce significant uncertainty and risk for small and mid-size venues, particularly in the absence of clearly defined standards, processes, and access to tools and guidance. Decisions made without the appropriate expertise or a structured framework can lead to unnecessary costs and unintended harm, including ineffective changes and confusion and conflict with no clear path to resolution. For many venues like mine, being required to obtain a professional engineering report costing several thousand dollar or significantly ultrasound a sound system could seriously compromise the business. We already operate in what is considered a high-risisk industry with high volatility and inherent unpredictability. We run on tight margins and often have to manage sizable and unexpected expenses. As an example, Art House has recently had to spend over $70,000 to undergo renovations to address building code issues and ensure business viability. The need for these changes arose from factors that have been outside of our control. Having been faced with many other challenges and setbacks over recent years, we were already in a period of recovery when we had to take on this project. And given our current position, I'm not sure that we would survive another blow. More broadly, the presence of these risks may discourage operators from opening or continuing to run cultural spaces in Ottawa, something I believe we all want to avoid. Venues are critical components of a city's cultural and economic infrastructure. They provide platforms for emerging artists, boosting cultural vitality, community engagement, and social cohesion while acting as economic catalysts that create jobs, strengthen local supply chains, and attract visitors. Our venues would benefit immensely from the kind of investment seen in other thriving cities where resources for noise mitigation help sustain a vibrant and stable cultural ecosystem. In the end, I'm here to encourage an approach to the necessary updates that is thoughtful and collaborative to minimize unintended consequences and maximize practicality and effectiveness. One minute. I support the recommendation to defer the implementation of the specific authorities that were mentioned until they can be more thoroughly addressed through the upcoming noise bylaw review with input from industry experts and stakeholders. There is no shortage of organizations and individuals who are eager to help in this regard and who are aligned on the vision of a city that is both livable and vibrant. I see strategic policy development in collaboration with cultural and entertainment sectors as laying the groundwork that will allow us to nurture a thriving arts and culture scene, build a strong nightlife economy, and support the city's long-term growth. Thanks again for your time and consideration. Thank you for yours. We appreciate your delegation this morning. I do have a question from my colleague, Councelor Divine. Please go ahead. Thank you, chair. Uh, way to hold through Genevieve there as a as a a couple dozen little mini elephants walked into the room. Hello everybody. Hello kiddos. Uh, you're here to watch how the city conducts business. Um, uh, hey, it's it's so obviously I'm hearing a repeated pattern on at least two of those um, concerns, but I appreciate hearing the perspective from someone who runs a venue. So can I ask I can assume that you know the uh the consequence or the impact on your business of being required to uh to procure u and forgive me if I get this wrong a sound engineering acoustic report I can assume that the consequence on you is a financial one several I believe you said several thousands of dollars yes that that's what was stated in the and and if I if I correct me if I'm wrong with the passing of this bylaw as recommended mean that it's mandatory you must therefore go out and seek such a report for your venue. I think that this is what is uh what is expressed in the um in the report is that um there is there is the um the authority is um is given to the chief license uh inspector to mandate this kind of report. And I think that this is where there is a um lack of lack of uh experience and expertise that um could potentially you know um it makes it a little bit u discre discretionary of course. And on the on the other item um the uh the ability or the uh the power to to have a venue relocate its its uh sound equipment. Can you help me paint a picture of what that concern might mean in terms in practical terms for someone who runs a venue? Does it mean that um because I heard somebody make reference to there is a venue that recently spent a lot of money on custom uh installed custommade equipment. Is the concern from a venue that bylaw can come in and say those got to go there or is it that you can't have that equipment can you paint a picture of what the implication of such a recommendation would be on a venue? Well, again, like I think that um it's a bit unclear what the um by line inspector would be able to mandate um is is just like um the type of of relocation or rearrangement. Um I think that uh the impact would vary depending on the venue and the type of equipment in use and location, right? whe whether it's installed in the wall uh whether you know um it's it's easily movable um and so I think that that the key issue here is the ambiguity and um yeah so it's not necessarily the devil you know but the devil you don't know. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you chair. Thank you counselor. Before I go to vice chair Hill I just want to recognize uh our guests who are here today from St. John Paul II school. Welcome. This is the emergency preparedness and protective services committee. We are a standing committee of Ottawa City Council and we oversee the Ottawa Fire Services, the Ottawa Paramedic Service, Ottawa bylaw and Regulatory Service, and emergency preparedness. And today we're talking about potential changes to food establishment premises. So, places that serve and or sell andor prepare food. So maybe not the most exciting issue for everyone in our great city, but it's important to keep the public safe and healthy at all times when we buy food or or consume food. So that's what we're discussing here today. So you're welcome to stay as long as you want, but we ask that all of our guests today remain respectful and quiet while the committee conducts its business. So you're always welcome here at city hall, your city hall. Vice Chair Hill, over to you. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh jump before the uh the presentation. Uh assuming that you're able to get all of the permits that you need in due course in order to operate uh the art house in the way that you would wish, could you describe for me some of the programming that you would run for students that are in the you know grade five range? Um oh my god. Um well I mean we are an all ages venue and so a lot of um our events including uh live music and uh game nights uh we have board game nights featuring uh DJs would be um open and uh very happy to welcome many students um that are sitting here today. Thank you very much. I think it's important to note that uh the business we do here impacts everybody positively. So thank you JF. Thank you, Vice Chair plant. Okay. Well, um a building code. Okay. Um if I may continue in English. Of course. Go ahead. Um so um there was a um let's call it an an oversight um at the time of uh the renovations before we started our business in terms of building code and occupancy classification and uh in order for us to um have the um the uh sorry uh the capacity numbers that would make the business viable. We uh were not the correct occupancy classification and we had to change this occupancy classification which meant that we had to make some changes to the building related to washrooms. Um and um uh yeah change change also the the building classification which can only happen through a building permit. Got it. Okay. So, would you have had to do that say if it was like owner occupied kind of how like I'm I'm just it seems like something you would have had to do anyways or maybe I'm misreading the situation. Um I mean we had it been done correctly from the beginning, you would not have had to do it later on and it would not have been put on the business, right? Um it could have easily been done uh at the beginning from the property owner of course. Um, and uh, and the business had to take on, of course. Um, and I was just wondering too because I I'm having obvious I have obviously a very dense ward and there's people and Jake, you're going to shake your head here. There's people who live amongst our many music venues um, and our our our our cafes turned music venues etc. And it sometimes causes in French we say right like we're so I was just wondering do have you personally has your place had any noise complaints or this was just something you did just to stay it was something that we did to stay viable just because of our our occupancy classification was it was kind of um an unusual one and uh our our number of seats were actually uh quite low for the size of the space. So again, we were not restricted by the area uh of operation. We were restricted exclusively by number of bathrooms and increasing the number of bathrooms um would actually like like the the the area that we had indoors would allow for double the amount of patrons comfortably. Okay. Um and I guess my final question is do you or any of your staff like live near the venue? Yes. Okay. So that that generally you get generally then get an idea of what it's like in the neighborhood and why you have to do these things. I find sometimes the people who are advocating one way or another, they don't necessarily live near the area that's being affected. So I'm happy to hear that you do because then No, we do. And and we have happy neighbors and uh I don't think that we've been an overly problematic uh venue and even with the increased capacity that that we've managed um it has not not been a nuisance to to the neighborhood. Um, and we don't have lineups outside and and things like that. It's still a very comfortable kind of space, but um, yeah, it was it was necessary for us to be sustainable. Great. Thank you so much. And I'm happy to ever if ever you want to reach out and chat about this. I have similar venues in my area, so I'm always happy to have this conversation. Yeah, I'd be happy happy to help uh some fellow fellow venue owners. Me, thank you for your time. Thank you for your questions. Uh, that concludes uh questions for you. So, thank you for your delegation. We appreciate it. Next we have Matteas Munoz. Good morning to you. Good morning. Up to five minutes. Go ahead, sir. Sure. Uh good morning, chair and members of the committee. Uh my name is Matias Munoz. Uh, I'm a longtime member of the music community here in Ottawa and the owner of Fono, a new event space located in the heart of Centertown, Ottawa on Bronson. Uh, I'm here to address some similar concerns with the new enforcement tools related to this review. Uh, as a business owner who has just navigated the gauntlet of opening a brickandmortar space uh, downtown in this climate, I want to share the practical reality of what these proposed changes mean for people like myself. Uh, starting a business is always a risk calculation. Uh, between record high rents, thin margins, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars often required, as in my case, to retrofit a music venue or an event space. The hurdles are already immense. By introducing enforcement tools like mandated equipment relocation or mandatory acoustic reports that can cost, as stated, thousands of dollars, this fundamentally changes the risk calculation. When a prospective owner looks at Ottawa versus another city to start a business, they aren't just looking at the market. They are looking for stability. These measures create a compliance moving target as I see it. Um, if the rules of the game can change overnight, requiring us to tear out customuilt infrastructure at our own expense, many entrepreneurs will simply choose to invest elsewhere uh or worst of all, not invest in uh an event space or music venue at all. This isn't just a business risk for many of us. It's a threat to our personal financial survival. We don't open these music venues for the money. That's difficult enough to achieve. Uh we do it because these spaces are sacred to the cultural fabric of our city. We are passionate about the arts. We want to make Ottawa a more vibrant and desirable destination for residents, for students, and for tourists. We want to help build the nightlife economy that the city has prioritized. We want to be compliant, but we cannot do that effectively if the threat of catastrophic expenses is hanging over our heads without a transparent and data-driven process to resolve these conflicts. I spent years in the Ottawa music community. I have seen the potential firsthand of the people in this city. Uh, and without grassroots arts venues, it becomes much more difficult for the arts community to thrive. I use the word catastrophic. I I mean it literally. The most the the most small music venues operate on razor thin margins. An unbudgeted $20,000 engineering report or mandate to move a hardwired sound system is an immediate insolveny event. Uh we are talking about padlocks on doors and empty storefronts downtown. And I'm not being alarmist here. This is just the reality. If we lose spaces due to vague policy, uh they don't just relocate, they vanish completely and the local economy suffers. So to be specific about the impact on my business as I see it, you know, relocating the equipment as as as Jean Viev uh has stated as well. Um it's not like moving furniture. Uh it involves electrical rewiring often times structural changes to the building. uh and potentially moving the sound issue from one neighbor's wall who's complaining to another's uh and it can cause a cascading effect uh down that road. Acoustic reports, again, as stated, can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a small venue. This is a hidden tax uh that can bankrupt us before we've even had a chance to achieve compliance. One minute. We want to be your partners. We want to be good neighbors. uh and we want to be able to be at the table to helping you find solutions that actually work. Uh my recommendation um building upon previous recommendations of delegates is one to advance the broader positive licensing updates that streamline processes for small businesses. This is a great this is great progress. uh to to temporarily hold the implementation of the two expanded activity provisions regarding equipment relocation and mandatory acoustic reports. And three, address these items through a thorough and dedicated noise bylaw review in collaboration with the business community and uh Ottawa Music Indust Industry Coalition and Light Nightlife uh office. Um, this allows for meaningful consultation that the industry has been asking for. Uh, thank you very much and, uh, happy to answer your questions. Thank you for your delegation. Uh, we do have a question from Vice Chair Hill. Go ahead. Yes. Uh, thank you very much, Mateas, for uh, for your delegation and certainly I'm sympathetic uh, to supporting our small businesses across the city and all of their domains. Uh, and I'm concerned when I hear terms like catastrophic. So certainly we'll be looking at some of the uh recommendations that you uh you suggested. I just want to confirm that I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that um the change concern you have is the change in policy to implement the content of this report? Is that the change or are you referring to the fact that by adopting this report it will set the conditions for a long-term and sustained period of instability? That is correct. the form uh the latter of your point there. Um really the having these uh these tools become part of the way that uh we have to operate. Um it really throws us uh into a a place where there's a lot of uh you know one person um down the street that has a very low tolerance for any noise whatsoever in a neighborhood can cause uh this catastrophic like I said um series of uh cascading events where um we may have to relocate uh sound equipment. We may have to pay for all this stuff. And to be honest, um, you know, this it's not clear to us how we're supposed to adequately face this. Uh, people like myself and Jean Viev are trying to approach uh, compliance in a way that is, uh, you know, from the get-go, I have, you know, in installed solid corridors. I've done everything I can to ensure containment of the sound in my venue, but I feel as though these measures that are being suggested here um just cause a lot of uncertainty in terms of how the rest uh how the future would go for for running my business. Okay, message received. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh there are no other questions. Thank you for your time. appreciate your delegation. Uh, next we have James Scott McCelp. Good morning. You have up to five minutes as well. Good morning. Um, Nino Food Tech Experiment in the Ottawa Smart City. Arett Ottawa restaurants and other permitted eeries aware? Slide two. Everything we're showing you here today is regarding the biodigital convergence otherwise known as the nano bioinfocogno experiment. Nano for nanotech bio for biotech info for IT and cognitive for cognitive science. Slide three. Nanotechnology products drive from drive from nanotech have a wide range of applications in both the health and food sector. Slide four. Health products and food branch involved with nanotech. HPV HPFB participates in the health portfolio nanotech working group. Members include health Canada, public health agency at Canada, Canada institutes of health and research and industry Canada. Slide five. Health Canada participants participates in a number of international initiatives such as the working party on manufactured nanom materials of the OECD and technical committee 229 of the ISO and collaborates with international counterparts. Slide six. Meet France Wolier member of the IEC and ISO and the standards council of Canada. France is responsible for international standards of IoT digital twins and biodigital convergence. Slide seven biodigital convergence overlaps with smart farming. Slide eight relevant standards from ISL include technical committee 276 on biotech, TC34 on molecular biomarkers, food and agriculture and IO ISO strategic advisory group on smart farming. Slide nine, meet Crystal Vanderell, director, general policy, Horizon's Canada and former head of strategic force at the World Economic Forum. Slide 10. Mr. McCallik, I'm just going to jump in just for one second. I've asked the committee coordinator to stop the clock just to reserve your time. Um, we're here to discuss the food premises licensing review, the bylaw update. Yes, we are. And I have some recommendations for that. And this is all regarding the food that we're eating at these restaurants. Thank you. I want to make sure that your comments uh are related to the review and the bylaw changes. They are related to everything restaurant owners are currently feeding Ottawa residents. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Um slide and I was at I believe precision and smart farming use a combination of technologies to influence and alter how agriculture industries functions including using robots, data optimizing fertilizer inputs and blockchain enabled origins tracing. Slide 11. Biodigital innovations modified how we produce food. Integrate new types of food and disrupt existing supply chains including lab grown food. Slide 12. Another thing I don't accept is crisper modified crops cultured meat individualized diets based on DNA profiling and neutrogenomics. Slide 13. Pine tech solves. It tackles big problems. Agriculture and agri food can scientist Dr. J Dr. Justin Pahara is working on a new crop treatment that will target insects insects with nanom materials to track them with 3D images. Slide 14, NRC capabilities and food in 2016 with agriculture and agri food Canada. Slide 15. I'm just jumping in again. We have a point of order. Sorry to interrupt your presentation. Point of order. I I this is fascinating. I'm not I'm not denying that. I just don't understand what it has to do with the the subject at hand. Well, if you'd let me finish, we would get to that. So, uh, I'm going to ask that you get to address the matter that's before the committee today. If you're not able to address the matter before, I'm addressing all matters of food and that you're giving out new license agreements here. Okay. Now, if I personally was serving nanotech food from my home, which I don't obviously need a license from reading your new license agreement, um I would inform restaurant owner, I would inform the people eating my food that they're eating nanotech. Now, I realize you don't want to do that, but your new license agreement should come with labeling for both the owner, restaurant owners and the patrons eating there. First of all, don't interrupt me as the chair when I'm trying to discuss this matter with you. Number one. Second, I don't believe you're addressing the issue before us today, but to save the committee time this morning, I'm going to let you finish. You've got 2 minutes left. Go ahead. Um, could we go right to actually slide 20? Smart solutions for food safety device include molecular based diagnostics, photonic sensors and handheld devices, printable electronics, RFID sensors, smart polymer films, graphine nanom materials and nanom materials for molecular sensing of food. All done for big data analytics. Slide 21. Contact Connor for more info on dangerous food tech. Slide 22. Emerging technologies laboratory. Research done here. Design, develop, and test new tools that can detect bites, bacteria, and viruses. Parasites and food using lab on a chip. Slide 23. University of Alberta researchers improve 3D printability of plant protein. 3D food printing creates customized foods with specialized printer. Slide 24. This study was done by the Faculty of Agriculture and Life Environment Sciences. Slide 25. Funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Although 3D printing P proteins with plasma is far from natural. Slide 26 in May 2022. The Ottawa Smart Farms launched by the city of Ottawa on Invest Ottawa. Slide 27. Gordon J. Wallace, farmer and residence in the at the Ottawa Smart Farm and owner of GPS Ontario. Slide 28. Minute. GPS Ontario uses data to gather map and monitor. They call it planting with precision. Slide 29. Meet Shabu uh Me Shabuku at UFO where he works at food biochemistry and food nanotech. Um slide 31. Slide 31. His his research takes a chemical sciences approach and exploring food and health using emer emerging technology sustainable value added processing and alternative proteins. Slide 32. Everything I've shown you today is part of the biodigital convergence. Do licensed restaurant owners in Ottawa even know this is happening? I've spoken to several. They don't. Um, none of them had any idea this was going on. Um, I recommend that all new licenses should come with labeling requirements where they both educate the owners and patrons of the tech they're currently being forcefed by the city of Ottawa. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I don't see any questions for your delegation today. So, we will continue with our next delegate, Fared Daher. Thank you. Good morning. Uh my name is Fared and uh for more than a decade, I've operated several nightlife venues in Ottawa, including most recently uh 221 Reto. So, many of you know this building has been part of Ottawa's music landscape for for decades and uh most recently known as the location for Mavericks. uh about a year ago, almost exactly a year ago, we reopened it as Grid Works with the goal of reinvesting in it and operating it in a modern and responsible way. But shortly after opening, noise complaints began. From the beginning, we took those complaints very seriously. Uh acting on the advice of sound experts, we invested close to $100,000 in different phases into sound related improvements. So insulation of select walls, ceilings, sound system re-engineering, including cardioid and noise cancelling configuration and even extensive operational controls. Despite all this, complaints continued. We were really puzzled. Professionally conducted volume measurements in front of the venue, in the back, on the roof didn't reconcile with the frequency of the bylaw visits. So we consulted uh specialized acoustics engineers. Their position was that low frequency sound in dense urban environments like RITO can can behave unpredictably and that resolving them requires precise data, specifically complaint locations and timing to assess the contribution of mitigation measures so far and explore what to prioritize next otherwise any further action is speculative. So that information which had been requested for nearly a year now uh and we've been waiting for for close to four months to proceed with the acoustic study that we volunteered to do was never asked of us so far. Uh no information yet. So just for clarity, the information was requested through the legal disclosure process which has led to multiple court adjortments, maybe a dozen so far, paying all the legal fees, multiple court adjortments, not due because the any delay or actions on our part, but because the disclosure that is due has not been provided in parallel. The information was also requested through several friendly meetings with bylaw leadership who is who have been listening and expressed willingness to cooperate but they haven't been able to provide any actionable data likely due to privacy reasons uh of the complaints and uh maybe not to affect the matters that are before the courts. The only meaningful indication that we've been able to gather via our own channels and and some industry partners is that recent complaints may be concentrated from one single unit on a high floor unit on a high floor apartment in a in a building behind us. Without the data, we cannot confirm whether the issue is isolated to that unit or broader. And that distinction is extremely critical because it determines what type of response is appropriate at this point and in extreme scenario whether there is a viable solution if that's possible. So what this highlights is even when an operator is acting in good faith uh at the moment they're not there may not be a a path uh for for a solution at the same time enforcement is continuing and escalating. Uh a few months ago we opened a second venue on the second floor of that building. uh previously known as Decuff. So, a different corporation, different liquor license, and a different lease which had been previously contracted. So, shortly after opening, bylaw began finding this venue as well. So, we're now facing potential non-renew non-renewal of our licenses for both of these venues while the legal process remains stalled and unresolved. Our our reputation's affected, energy is low, we're acting defensively instead of proactively, and we're not really creating entertainment at this stage. we're just lobbying for it to survive. So this raises a fundamental question. Are we creating a system right now that leads to resolution in scenarios like this? Um consider also the resources each complaint even if hypothetically is coming from the same resident triggers a full response. Over the past year we've had maybe a 100 bylaw visits and our only option is to fight them in court. So is this system producing meaningful outcomes? And this becomes especially relevant in the do in the context of the measures that we're we're talking about today. Uh more power. So mandating relocation of sound equipment which experts would tell you would not affect uh low frequency sounds and requiring professional acoustic reports for other venues. They're appropriate but our experience shows that without a defined solutiondriven process uh there is a huge risk. So, we need the data and we need a collaboration for the for the city to collaborate with sound experts as well. So, we're actively being asked to produce these reports which cost in our case over $10,000 without the work that that would be needed, but we don't have the data for them to be to lead to a solution. So, the risk is responsible operators invest heavily but don't have the means to resolve the issue. Most venues would have probably closed or given up. Um I really think this this points to a broader policy gap and I agree with most of the the delegations today. Uh these are fundamental noise and acoustic issues yet they're being addressed through a licensing framework then rather than through a proper bylaw review with clear standards, thresholds and and processes. So my recommendation is to halt the implementation of sound related enforcement tools until they can be properly addressed through a noise bylaw review with industry consultation. Thank you. Thank you very much uh for your presentation this morning. I do have question from my colleague councelor Divine. Uh hello fared. Thank you for your delegation. Um I I think the questions I have with regards to what you raised, I'll probably have those questions uh more for staff and for yourself, but I I'm just trying to get um absolute clarity on the concern you're facing here. And I was speaking to some, you know, of the other delegates um who I think are aware of your situation and are aware of how your situation is perhaps um an an an example of of why these uh changes are being proposed. Can I just get clear understanding? Are you saying that you have obviously been required to hire consultants to to solve a problem? But are you saying that because you cannot get specific information from the city then you are not able to specifically address the problem? Is that basically what you're saying? Uh almost. I I'll clarify. I I have a hearing in April where I will be required to hire the acoustics engineers. I have tried to hire them without it being a requirement. it was more so of an internal voluntary uh solution. Um but I was not able or they they proposed that it would be a great risk to to do this job at that stage because it will likely provide speculative kind of feedback or speculative report that that is not going to resolve a complicated acoustic situation like one in in dense areas. I want to say that uh when there is a real issue, a lot of times it's environmental and and uh low frequency sounds they can they can be amplified with with distance. They can bounce off buildings. So moving speakers around or just paying to have a report without what is it that we're trying to resolve is is is not a is not a solution. So can I ask you a hypothetical question? And and by hypothetical, it's because I I suspect you don't have the uh accurate information to pinpoint from where the problem is coming, but you've made illusions to if hypothetically uh this the problem were coming from one pinpointed area. If hypothetically, can I ask if if you were able to procure that information and if it was demonstrated through the data that the problem was coming from one specific complaintant focused on one specific area of your establishment, is it even feasible that you could um make alterations andor improvements that would allay that problem? Absolutely. And that's why these acoustic studies exist. Um so and I've expressed that if if we can confirm that in the last 3 4 months that these complaints are coming from one one unit we want to go ahead with the work but we can't go ahead with the work and then realize that there was another one on the other side of the street or there was one on you know north or or whatnot. So I I think this is just an extreme case where even when the the venue is willing to invest because there's so much on the line that the the the report without a solutiondriven process where there is some sort of transparency to to to to collaborate uh might might lead to to to nothing. And just so I can understand because I want to have faith that if it were pinpointed where the problem came from that you could address it as opposed to just complain back why am I going through all these hoops because of one complainant. Um as briefly as possible if if I handed you a report that said all the problems are coming from this specific location. It's that corner of your bar that is the problem. As briefly as possible what kind of solution could you put in place to to to amend that? Yeah m Mr. divine like the amount of white hair I grew this year from trying to resolve resolve this issue. If somebody was to hand me this report, I would immediately perform the study and with that study, I would immediately know that there is this is the solution. These are the phases of the solution or I would immediately know that this is not a viable space for you know whatever environment. We've even like joke jokingly but seriously mentioned that if it is one unit, we'd be happy to take on the rent for that unit and help a person relocate if they're willing just so that we can buy time to resolve the issue. This is how this is the extreme of of you know a situation of of a sound uh issue. All right. Thank you very much, Fared. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And Councelor Kelly, you have a question. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for your your delegation was extremely well spoken and detailed and I found it uh impactful. Um it sounds like you've been through quite a rigomear all to try and deal with this. Um, so when you have uh had conversations with the city or or by law um in regards to these issues um based on what I've heard you discuss, you've requested the locations where the uh complaints are coming from primarily and they have uh refused to to give you that information. they've often said uh let us get back to you uh and uh without without coming back to us with the information. I think there's also and this is part of why I'm recommending a thorough process. A complaint or numerous complaints a year ago are irrelevant for us today because of the amount of mitigation work done. So what we're asking is what's happening the last few three four five months and I I again I mentioned it in the in the delegation I think there's maybe a uh a hesitancy because of privacy and because they don't want to affect anything that's before the courts but this thing has become so heavy that it's it's even difficult to provide adequate disclosure bylaw's under extreme pressure. I know the counselor's office, the mayor's office is involved, the BIA is involved, the night that you know the night mayor's office is in, everybody's feeling the pressure. Uh so, uh I I I honestly don't don't know where where this will go. Uh but but yeah, like definitely my information my assumption would be that there would be privacy and other legal reasons why they can't release specific information to you, but but they have not expressed that specifically to you in any of their correspondents. uh indirectly. I think the recommendation is always to get it through the courts, but the the prosecution seems to be maybe overwhelmed or maybe uh not having adequate information at this stage. And I and I mentioned one thing in the delegation is I really think the city and bylaw should collaborate with with industry experts to to to maybe get some consultation on on how to further how to resolve this faster because my my what I'm seeing is maybe we're confirming that the venue is open when these complaints are happening but we're not necessarily using a data or science-based way to measure if they if they are genuine or not. At least I don't expect that for every sound sound complaint, but in in a scenario like ours, this would be helpful. So, I think that that that gap has made it really difficult even through the courts for us to get the information that that we need. And you know, closing is not really an option because we're we're invested in this and there's, you know, 100 plus people that live off this and this is one of the primary places for people to dance and and experience live music and uh in in the in the Byward Market at the moment or on RTO. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I'll I'll certainly have some more questions for staff and and follow up to some of the things that you've uh you've delegated on today. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, counselor, and thank you for your delegation today, sir. We appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, next we have Quende Cafe. Sorry, Kaf. Good morning, sir. You have up to five minutes. Just press the button there. There you go, please. Thanks. Uh, good morning, chair and committee members. Um, my name isWende Cafense. I am a board member with the Ottawa Music Industry Coalition as well as the Ottawa Film Office and I work professionally across Ottawa's cultural sector as a producer, performer, and consultant. I should also mentioned that I'm also a former city staffer who produced and contributed to many uh committee reports myself, so I want to shout out the city staff to my right. I know I've been in that chair. I know what that's about. Um, I'm here both as a partner to the city's broader a cultural and economic development work and as somebody who's directly impacted by how these policies play out on the ground. Both because I'm a performer. I'm a bit downstream from the owners of the venues, but I'm somebody who is contracted to perform in these venues and also I work as a consultant with many venues in different capacities. Um I want to begin by recognizing that there are positive elements in the report. Uh particularly the single licensing category for music and cultural programming and I think that that's important. Uh but I do believe that there is some fragmentation and that's broadly what I want to talk about is that you know um we are introducing policies without some of the complimentary policy frameworks needed to ensure that they're applied consistently, transparently and proportionally. And you know not only that that we have um you know and and this has been mentioned before like you know the challenge of the discretionary application without some of the clearly identified thresholds or escalation pathways um and and just the the the the increased risk of uh uncertainty and potential cost. Um, as has been mentioned, you know, I think we're looking for similar things. Uh, myself and some of the other delegates, uh, in terms of, you know, uh, having more clear definition about what constitutes a repeated violation like a number of times or or having sort of a little bit more quantitative clarity around that. Uh, standardized thresholds as it relates to how these measures are measured and triggered. um you know having a more clear escalation framework and having a more defined pathway for remediation before costs are imposed. So understanding like where that line is uh for business owners. Um and and I think that all of that will improve uh financial um excuse me uh it will improve predictability and compliance uh across the sector. But I do want to situate this in a broader context and it's the notion that Ottawa is currently investing heavily uh not only in downtown revitalization but also in uh the way that it uh grow that we grow and develop our cultural and creative industries to leverage their economic value, their tourism value uh and and their social cohesion value. Uh you know we've and there's been a lot of talk about downtown but this isn't just limited to downtown. This is happening across the city. I know uh councelor Lulof mentioned uh that these things are happening at his ward in the east. Uh I've certainly played out there and been engaged with venues out there. Um and and it's happening in our rural regions as well. You know, these kinds of regulatory uncertainties affect how and where cultural entrepreneurs choose to operate across the entire city. So it's not really it's not just a downtown issue. It's a broad issue that affects you know the whole sector. uh business owners, they shape decisions about opening a venue or investing in a space or upgrading equipment or even continuing at all based on predictability and the regulatory environment as Jim FV and Matias you know rightly mentioned. And so this connects I guess in some ways to a recent oped that I wrote in the Ottawa Business Journal about uh how we coordinate all of our efforts across the city. uh and and and I think that's one of the broad issues that I want to raise here that on one hand we're saying that culture is essential to city building and economic growth and then on the other hand we introduce conditions that make it harder for entrepreneurs to design and operate spaces predictably that are fit for purpose. Um, and so, um, you know, these policies don't just regulate noise. They shape whether cultural businesses can exist or do exist and how they're designed really from the ground up based on the regulatory environment. One minute. Thanks. Um, as I said, this misalignment is a real risk and it applies citywide. uh and and and it's something that the the sector is really organizing to try and work with the city to mitigate um you know uh across music, nightlife and broader cultural industries. There's a growing level of coordination, professionalism and investment. Uh organiz organizations, venue operators and cultural workers are actively working to build sustainable businesses and contribute to the city's economic and cultural life. Um and if we're but if we're being asked to grow, invest, and help drive activity across the city, then we do need regulatory framework that coordinates and allows us to do that with confidence. Uh the solution is here here is not to remove enforcement tools. It's to pair them with clear modern policy frameworks that reflect how other cities are managing and uh how how we need to balance and and and also balance uh broad competitiveness with other places. Thank you. Thank you for your delegation. appreciate that very much. Uh any questions for this delegate. Seeing none, thank you for your time today. Thank you, sir. Okay. Our ninth delegate uh is Alex Maltby. Good morning. Like everyone else, you have up to five minutes. Okay. I will uh try to be brief. I feel like I'll make more friends if I'm brief. Uh, and I'll I'm not going to be redundant and uh repeat things, but I'll try to reinforce some of the the points that have already been made. I'm wearing two hats today. One is uh representing my organization, Arts Ottawa, and we firmly believe that arts and culture is uh not a nice to have or supplementary to, but is a foundational component of civic infrastructure and our social lives. And I'm also here as uh just myself. I have extensive experience as a musician and as a sound technician, uh event and concert booker, talent booker, promoter in small and mid-size venues throughout the city. Uh many of these are cafes or brunch spots by day and by night become cultural and community hubs and incubators for the next generation of artists in our community. I've dealt with bylaw officers many times and have honestly never really had any issues. And I think this is because our spaces have always been managed in a respectful, professional, and community oriented way. It's not uh controversial to say that space is uh a central issue and challenge for our local arts community uh specifically around affordable, consistent, sustainable, and familiar spaces uh particularly within the performing arts. The ambiguity of the language in some of these proposals is alarming and further undermines the agency and predictability of what is already such a precarious and exhausting labor of love for anyone involved in event production. Like my colleagues, there is this incoherence in the language around the relocation of uh speakers which demonstrates a lack of familiarity or expertise in uh the running of an entertainment venue particularly because speakers as has been been mentioned are often hardwired or to the walls which then creates an additional public safety risk. uh and fails as another delegate has mentioned fails to uh resolve any specific issues around uh frequencies and identifying maybe it's something around 200 hertz that is actually bleeding through or transferring to adjacent properties. Uh and so I'm just simply urging council to reconsider uh to consider the comments of my fellow delegates and revise and include language that is consistent with the real needs of these spaces. uh and this can be meaningfully achieved through uh consultation with interest holders in the community. Uh and this is not only to support and uh not penalize existing spaces uh but also to not deincentivize perspective and entrepreneurial activity that can further innovate and contribute to our uh local cultural sector. And that's it for me. Thank you very much for your delegation. I'll see if there are any questions. Vice Chair Hill. Yeah, thank you very much. Um, this this is a question generally uh for I think the delegates that are still here listening, but yourself as well. Um, we're going to have an opportunity to talk to staff after you're finished about some of the general concerns that we've heard uh and themes. We may not solve all those issues today in committee. Uh, but this report's going to come to council in about a week and a half's time. Okay? So, we've got between now and then to address the issues, to fix the lowhanging fruit, and to make some adjustments that may need to be made. Okay? So, I just want to highlight the importance of probably the next 3 days of this week uh to do the business we need to do in order to make some of these uh issues land. Okay. Thank you. Not a question, but thank you for raising that with with our delegates. Uh I don't see any other questions for you, so thank you for coming today. We appreciate your time and the time of all delegates who have either written or presented today in person or virtually. So, thank you to everyone. Uh now we will enter into the question period for staff. I have asked the general manager to just uh provide an opening uh comment and response to some of the concerns that we've heard today from members uh the delegates that we've heard and then I'll take questions from members of the committee. So, please go ahead. General Manager. Thank you, Chair, and uh thank you for the opportunity to provide a uh comment before we uh take questions. So, this is just a reminder to uh to members of committee that this review is focused specifically on food premises licensing. Uh rather than a broader review of the noise bylaw or amusement licensing um where there is overlap, it is simply a streamline pro is simply to streamline our processes. Businesses that operate as both a food premises and an amusement venue would require only one license instead of two. Tools such as relocating sound equipment and requiring an engineer plan are for cases of ongoing non-compliance and to support compliance with the existing noise bylaw and it's not the city's practice to comment on matters that are before the court. A comprehensive review of the noise bylaw itself is anticipated as part of the next term of council's bylaw review work plan. Importantly, these measures are not new. They already exist through the application of license conditions. The proposed updates would simply allow by regulatory services to apply conditions more efficiently without requiring a license committee step in the infrequent cases where issues persist. This helps improve responsiveness while maintaining oversight and supporting businesses in achieving compliance. So with that, maybe I'll just turn it over to Samantha to see if she might have some other comments as well. Thank you, Ryan. Um, I would perhaps just note that uh as part of our review, we we did review uh similar bylaws in other municipalities. Uh, and we we looked uh quite a bit at at at Toronto. um where they actually require a phase one noise mitigation plan as a requirement to obtain any license uh for these types of establishments and then uh delegate uh the authority to to the chief license inspector to require that professional engineers report as a second step. Um, and so in considering our approach, we we looked at that and and certainly considered it, but recognized that with most with most of these establishments, there aren't issues or when there are issues, they are dealt with through our our education based enforcement. And so we didn't necessarily think it was appropriate to require this extra administrative hurdle of a phase one report for all lenses. uh but we did reserve that that extra measure of uh a professional engineers report for again these these cases that the outliers where there has been chronic non-compliance. Um and and so that's how we we've ended up here uh today. And and and again, these are enforcement measures that are specific to these food premises that have expanded activities and they are recommendations that we are making in light of the provisions of the new zoning bylaw which allow the expansion of these businesses. We want these businesses to expand with within Ottawa. Um and and a as a result of the new zoning bylaw, these businesses will be allowed to establish in areas where they haven't currently or they haven't previously existed. And so these are these tools are providing extra uh flexibility to allow us to address those cohabit uh that councelor plant was was talking about as that transition happens. Again, appreciating that uh a noise a comprehensive noise bylaw review is is likely in the the city's near future. Okay. Thank you staff for providing that additional information and context. Questions then from colleagues. Uh Vice Chair Hill, you're first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, could staff comment to what the impacts would be if there was to be a temporary hold on the expanded activity provisions until the noise bylaw uh is managed next term. Mr. chair. Uh it it would uh I I imagine in that that instance perhap perhaps uh perhaps my colleague can speak to it more, but uh in in that instance if these reports were required um he could continue to seek to impose that as a requirement through the uh licensing appeals committee as he currently does. Thank you, Sam, and through you, Mr. Chair. at this time. You know, it it really just makes the process a lot more efficient for situations of chronic non-compliance. Okay. Um, sorry, I'm going to go a little all over the map because I took a lot of notes here. So I will just refer back to the comments I think that were just made to summarize the assessment of uh some of the delegates in terms of the um specificity of this report to food uh services. Um but my understanding from the report is that we are a bit more broad than that like this does speak to entertainment. Um, I mean, we've seen a number of members from the entertainment industry come and do delegations to express their concerns. So, I think there is a bit of a disconnect there. Could you could you speak to the entertainment component of what this report addresses and governs so that we can make sure that um that um we're not inadvertently undermining some of the economic development um objectives that we have. Mr. Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. Um, perhaps to provide some additional context, there are currently, I believe, 189 licensed amusement places in Ottawa and 170 of those are food premises as well. So, there's a very large overlap between the food premise um licenses and the amusement place licenses. The majority of those those licenses are are in fact both. And so this started out as a as a food premises license review and that has been um certainly the work that that we have been undertaking in in the last several months. Um and as part of that review we heard that there are issues with these expanded activity food premises specific to noise complaints and patron management. And so that's how this sort of fed into this category. Um and then again because we are looking at these amendments uh for food premises um we felt that it would be um appropriate to include this the same requirements for amusement places uh to ensure consistency between the two licensing categories. So could you clarify for me then in terms of um the requirement for a license, entertainment license, um would having a DJ or a live uh guitarist coming in on a weekend, would that obligate uh a separate permit or would that be encapsulated for a restaurant owner in their normal operations? through you, Mr. Chair. And in these situations, councelor, um, live music being held in a restaurant later in the evening would require a place of amusement license. And chair, if I could just add, and that's part of the recommendation today, that in a in a scenario where you have both a food premise and an amusement license, you wouldn't have to apply for both categories anymore. You would have one license. So, if I was a restaurant tour, I would uh apply for my food permit and that would include a section that incorporates having live music come on the weekend. Uh thank you chair for the question. So, our recommendations is the consolidation under the expanded activity food premise license. So, four locations that are principally a food premise that host these extra activities like live music. They would then enjoy the benefit of applying for that expanded activity food premise license class and that would be covered under that one singular license. Yes. Okay. And should I wish to do that um would I then have multiple inspectors coming, fire marshall, etc. Uh because I've got different components to my uh restaurant or would I see that get consolidated and uh and perhaps more efficient? Thank you for the question, Councelor, Mr. Chair. um through the cons consolidated process, it would require one inspection from bylaw services as a result versus multiple. Okay. And that consolidation is articulated in this report. That is the change that is being recommended is that we're going to go from an environment where we have multiple potential inspections that could be considered redundant to an environment where we would consolidate that and have one inspection. Uh that that's what this report is saying. That's what we are going to vote on. That's what's going to happen May 31st if this goes forward is that there will be one fire inspection instead of three for uh for a restaurant that has live music etc. Through you, Mr. Chair. Rather than having multiple licenses, it'll be one license for these types of situations with singular inspections. Okay. Thank you. Um, we heard comment about um, uh, homebased food handling and I think an agreement that there's not a regulation component that's desired there as that would perhaps be significant on them, but an interest in a food handling certification, which is inexpensive and fairly easy to do. Is that something that um this report would support or that we're not speaking to or that we care about? Mr. Chair, uh the certification would would potentially fall outside of the scope of of this review um because we are aren't recommending that that we impose a licensing requirement and therefore the the enforcement of of that food handling certification. our our mechanism to do that would be through licensing those businesses potentially. Um so it's not something that we're proposing at this time. Okay. And are there like provincial or federal regulations that go with food handling in general? I'm just thinking about a homebased business that would cook up some food for a celebration in the park or something like that and then a bunch of people getting food poisoning. Like is is there other standards that would help us to prevent a circumstance like that from happening? So uh Mr. Chair, part of the reason we're recommending exempting these businesses from the licensing requirement is that they continue to be subject to inspection and regulation through Ottawa Public Health. Um, and and I would again perhaps qualify that um these are specific to low-risk foods um which tend to be more uh baked goods that don't need to be temperature controlled. Um, and so, uh, to the extent that there are home-based food based businesses that are preparing high-risisk foods, those are not permitted. They are not permitted through zoning, and they are they are not, it's my understanding, they're not currently permitted through the the health uh, the HPPA, the provincial legislation. Um, we heard from one of the delegates a concern that one noise complaint could cause thousands of dollars in expenses to businesses. Uh could you just walk me through what we are about to approve in terms of how that relates to the complaint process and is it actually realistic that one uh complaint could in fact trigger a situation where a business needs to incorporate thousands of dollars in capital expenses in order to change their their internal systems in terms of noise. Thank you for the question through you Mr. Chair. one complaint, one noise complaint in a situation like this wouldn't trigger these extra uh extra enforcement mechanisms that we're looking at. These are situations of chronic non-compliance where we would try to impose these extra conditions or extra powers. Currently, one noise complaint is not going to require a sound mitigation report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Councelor Escolski. Thank you, Chair. I just had a couple of questions. So, in terms of the food premise and the amusement licenses, so you mentioned 170, 189. I'm thinking about all the businesses that, you know, run a trivia night or have a person come in and play a guitar a few times. I don't think they even recognize that there's an amusement license requirement at all. Do we have an idea of how many more businesses could be captured if this became uh a single streamlined item? I I don't have an exact number for you. I I would perhaps clarify that um food premises can continue to just be be licensed as as food premises. That these would be specific to uh to those businesses that are um that are operating as as both. And I would I would also say uh that there are further you know to the point of the delegation that that we heard here today with respect to the definition of amusement place that's one of the things that we are looking at in the context of our broader overall licensing bylaw review which will be coming forward in May. Um so there there will be sort of additional clarity uh provided to businesses about when this license is required. Um, but we I don't have a I don't have a a number to provide you. Okay. So, if I'm a restaurant today that runs trivia night every now and then and I only have a food premise license or let's say you have a guy come and play guitar every now and then in the corner of the room. So, you do not have an amusement license because you don't think it's triggered like nothing has prompted you to go and get one and you are going in now May potentially for renewal of your business of your food premise license. you see this new option called expanded activity license and then you're prompted to look at it and go well what are these activities and then I imagine the activity if you're thinking trivia like the stuff that you just described would then I think if I was that business owner I would be then checking that box does that represent a cost a new cost to this business owner that may not have seen that before thank you councelor Mr. there. Um, there would be there is a consolidated cost for the second permit, but it comes at a discounted rate. So, what would be the cost today if I was just food premise and tomorrow I'm now food premise expanded? So, currently um you're looking at uh the the the the combined licenses is $448 um with a savings of $130. Um, currently, my apologies, counselor, the the cost of the just the food premise license, it would be there would be $130 extra if you were to buy them separately. So, $200 and something for a food premise license, and now it's $448. Uh, thank you, chair. So, currently it's $233 for a food premise license, and it's 215 for an amusement place license. So the consolidated fee of $448 combines those. The savings comes in the application fee. So as you're now applying for one license instead of two, you're charged the lesser of one administrative fee, which is a small savings, but the true savings come from the person coming forward on saving the time of making multiple applications and such. Okay. So I my concern comes in the ambiguity of the definition then that it then prompts a whole lot more businesses to check that box and now it increased their cost of their regular operation from 233 to 448. Um I have another sort of line of questions around um like events or I guess um situations like a rural fair where you have food and entertainment. Does does anything about these licenses change what like what they would have to do today? Uh thank you chair for the question. Uh what you're describing would typically be our mobile vendors um refreshment stands, mobile cantens and such. Um they're not within scope of this review. No. Okay. Um Okay. Well, that's helpful. So that kind of kills that line of questioning. Thank you for now. Thank you very much, uh, Councelor Divine. Thank you, uh, Chair. Um, I'm going to follow up, uh, with some of the same questions my colleagues asked. Um, and I will I will, uh, start off by saying I think it's somewhat, uh, ironic, I suppose. We're here talking about an expanded food premises license, but we're talking so much more about noise than about food. The one food issue it seems we're talking about is whether or not a homebased business requires safe handling. Um, and you're saying that it's outside the scope of the bylaw, not because it's not merited, but because the bylaw review focused more on something other than that, not on homebased businesses. As Yes, indeed. Um, as far as I know, even if I just wanted to operate a community barbecue, myself or whoever flips the wieners has to have a a food safe certificate, as far as I know. Um um I would can I if the food premises bylaw includes broadly within the scope does it include broadly within the scope homebased businesses. Mr. Chair, most homebased food businesses are not permitted and due to recent changes in the provincial legislation, now homebased b food businesses preparing low-risk foods are permitted and so they are subject to inspection by Ottawa Public Health and we are not recommending that we license them as a business. It would be a new requirement. Currently, there are no home-based food businesses that are licensed, but with the forgive me if I'm wrong, with the passing of the zoning bylaw, there may soon therefore be. Correct. Only the lowrisk uh food businesses low risk could be baking cookies. Correct. Which you can certainly get sick from if they're not handled properly, any food. So can I ask knowing that even if lowrisk baking of cookies just like lowrisk flipping of hot dogs if flipping of hot dogs requires a food state certificate according to city of Ottawa as I understand it why therefore would we not because we're talking about having no you're talking about having concern over the imposition of a $25 fee but we're not talking about having a concern over the imposition of a $200 fee for expanding food premises to amusement. So, just so I understand, why would staff not have a concern that anybody baking cookies in their homebased business not have the same kind of safe handling certificate that I think you need for flipping hot dogs? Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chair, if I can address the question. Uh, so under the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act, as well as its food premise regulation, these homebased food businesses are required to register with the local public health unit. uh public health, I don't believe they're here today, can speak to that, but my understanding is their intention is to have an online registration portal for these homebased low-risk food businesses. And on that website, there is information relating to safe food handling where they could obtain it. Um, but they're currently regulated under different legislation under the Health Protection Promotion Act and its food premise regulation. They're not required either by the province or by us. The province advises recommendations and guidelines, but not required. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Can you clarify the question? I'll move on to a different topic. Um, counselor, I'll just say uh Ottawa Public Health is here. So, if there are questions for Ottawa Public Health, I can ask uh their representative to step forward. Can I ask you down? I'll question go slow. Um, according to Ottawa Public Health, would somebody operating a homebased business, uh, once it's permitted under zoning, a homebased business to bake cookies and or whatever low-risk foods, would Ottawa public health require that that homebased business have, um, food safe food handling certification? So, under the food premise regulation, low-risk uh, operators or owners uh, are actually exempt from have having by law requirement for food handler training. It's highly encouraged for anyone. Um, you mentioned the barbecuing. They're not required to have it, but it is strongly encouraged. I think it just that knowledge, that education is important. All right. Thank you. It's not I I appreciate that. So, uh, there is no uh discrepancy. Thank you very much. Um, going back to um um the restaurant that just wants to have the solo guitarist play on the weekend and they might therefore um um pay the extra $100 to have the expanded license. Can I assume then that they would be subject to all of the provisions whether it be I mean if they were a repeat violator that they would be subject to the provisions regarding relocation of equipment andor reports if they were a repeat violator. The the recommendations would be for licensed uh licensed expanded activity food premises. So on those, so it's those two uh issues, those two powers within the expanded bylaw, the possible relocation of equipment and the requirement of acoustic reports. That's what we heard, you know, time and time again from delegates. Can I just get um crystal clear clarity on that? Is it staff's recommendation that those conditions only be applied in cases of repeat violations? Because what we heard from from delegates was that they had the perhaps the fear or the concern that just by being the operator of art house or by just starting a new cafe that they would be subject de facto to these provisions that they might have to out of nowhere staff might come in and say move that there and where's their acoustic report. Is that not the case? chair. Um, we seek compliance through education first. It's only in extreme cases where we see repeated violations where we would consider uh adding conditions to uh an existing license. Okay. Further to my colleagueu's question um about could um the definition of repeat violations as I understood um complaints from one complainant would not trigger would not uh be defined as repeat violations but may I just get clarity on that would multiple complaints from one complainant could that fall into the category of repeat violations that could trigger these powers? Thank you for the question, councelor through you, Mr. Chair. Um, depending on the situation, we can't they're not always the same. Now, if we had say a large a large gathering of one evening and it resulted in 20 complaints, could that sort of trigger it? I would say no. Repeat fences would would span over a period of time, not just tied to one event. Yes, repeat offenses over a period of time. But if those repeat if those repeat offenses are triggered by a singular complaintant, would that still fall in the definition of of would that trigger this these powers through you, Mr. Chair? And it possibly could through one complaintant. Okay. And I I think that might be the concern that that is possibly being raised here. Um, now if if all of these delegates spoke even out of misunderstood concern about what was in the powers of what was in the language of the bylaw, it does sound to me like to some degree it might be in the lack of precision of the language of the bylaw. Um, that they're all responding to the same concerns from I presume the same document they read. between now and council. Um, does staff have any response to what was a collective raising of concern here that might have staff looking at their language and saying perhaps we weren't clear. Mr. Chair, we um we have incorporated flexibility that's consistent with with enforcement mechanisms uh in into the report. We will certainly take away what we've heard here to today and and certainly welcome continuing those conversations. Thank you. Um I appreciate the fact that staff have made clear that it's only in extreme cases of repeat violations that these demands would ever be imposed. What I'll probably do is go back to community, go back to delegates and see if that satisfies their concerns. Um and if they're like, "No, look at this language here. We are subject to this. Even if we do nothing at all, look at that language. If they have that concern still, I'll probably come back. But if delegates are like, "Okay, we didn't get it. I'm fine now." Um, I'll probably be fine as well. Um, thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councelor Divine. Uh, Councelor Kelly, your hand was up. Did it come down by accident? No, I put it down because it was covered during uh my former call or my colleagues. Um, fair enough. I just wanted to double check. Councelor, much appreciated. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Lul. Thanks, Shar. understanding that there are other types of small businesses that uh that also require uh an amusement place license um that don't primarily serve food but may serve food uh from time to time. Uh you know, I'm thinking of uh coffee shops uh and local breweries. Are you doing the same sort of consolidation with the amusement place license with those businesses at the same time or are they going to have to apply for two licenses and still go through the same rigor that you're trying to prevent for for food premises? Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, this review is of of food premises, which could potentially include cafes. Um, it would it does not extend to breweries, which would more likely be an an amusement place on their own. Um, and so there are different licensing requirements that would would provide, but but uh certainly the the goal of this review is to provide consistency among the two license categories. I think it could be argued that like many of the smaller local breweries around uh the city aren't primarily amusement places, but are like tap rooms um that happen to have some seating capacity. Um it would just I think that it would make sense that if we're doing this sort of consolidation at a place that primarily serves food that we would do uh the same for these sort of smaller tap rooms. Mr. Chair, so if the if the brewery were to serve food, it's it's very possible that they they fall under this this food premise uh category. if um there's there's questions about non-f food premises that could would uh fall under amusement places or if if there's a potential other licensing category. That's certainly something that we would be happy to look at um in in the context of our our broader licensing uh bylaw review. Okay. I would suggest that if we're doing this sort of consolidation with places that are that have amusement as sort of an ancillary activity um that we look at all places that have amusement as an ancillary activity and try to do that consolidation for each rather than having this sort of standalone license that some are now going to have to apply for and some aren't. It's for me it's about I think it should be about consistency and providing the same sort of opportunity uh for different businesses that have entertainment as an ancillary activity. Um and I think that that's something that we may have maybe inadvertently or maybe just by design uh overlooked through this review because we're looking specifically at places that are serving food. Um, but if we're going to be doing consolidations like this in one area, like all all businesses, regardless of what they do, if they have entertainment as an ancillary activity, not their main activity, um, that we should have this sort of hybridization as well. Thanks. Thank you, Councelor Lulaf. Um, Vice Chair Hill, back to you. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the responses so far, staff. Um so just piling on a few of the comments from my colleagues. Um is there is there essentially like an easily definable line on the spectrum of entertainment that would that would be definable between like a massive Taylor Swift party at the CTC versus you know the local grade 10 music student that comes in to play the guitar on a Friday night. you know, are there certain components of that that we could simply like wave as part of being a restaurant or a food premise? You know, so, you know, there's a couple gimmies in there, but then if you're going to go beyond that, you're going to have a rock concert and you're okay, that's not it. But like are there is there a place where we could maybe define that just to make the permitting process a bit easier and frankly a bit more cost effective so that the honest restaurant that's making this application doesn't get forced into this ethical dilemma of okay I know that I'm going to have a trivia night on Saturday uh but really do I want to pay an extra $200 for this when it's it's a minor thing and nobody's going to find out anyway. chair. I think staff could take that away and we could look at that as part of our business licensing bylaw review. So, as uh Samantha mentioned earlier, we have another report coming uh before this committee. I'm just looking over here. I think it's May. Uh so, in the month of May, uh food premise is one of our licensing schedules within the broader business licensing bylaw. Uh I want to say we're at 36 or 37 schedules right now, somewhere in that ballpark. One of those schedules being the amusement license schedule. So we could look at uh that definition of amusement license uh as part of that broader review of our business license. Uh today's focus was really before bringing that bylaw review before this committee was just cleaning up our food premise license category and then we'll bring the fullome bylaw uh back to this committee in May. Okay. Thank you. Um we heard from the music industry uh four uh recommendations. Um a formal recogniz recogn recogniz recognition as a distinct looking at some definitions adopting an agent of change um status and alignment with modernizing the noise bylaws. I was wondering if staff could comment on the feasibility of incorporating some or all of those recommendations and what that work would constitute. Maybe I'll start chair and I'll hand it over to Jake. Um I think one of the items that we're looking at right now and it's a very high priority item for the department is uh implementing our new online business licensing solution. Um, so I I think we had a few speakers today speak to, you know, having to go into industrial and and fill out these forms. So, we're looking to streamline that process and modernize it and have uh have the technology available to uh to make it easier for these licences uh to be able to renew their their licenses and get new uh licenses. But maybe I'll see if Jake has anything to add. Thank you, Ryan, and through you, Mr. Chair. really just B services is really looking forward to the online business licensing solution that we plan on implementing in November and this will make the application process much easier for residents to be able to apply. Thank you very much. And actually that was going to be my next question. So I appreciate the comment about online registrations. I've spoken to a number of businesses about their concerns about the uh in-person process. I think that will be very well received. Did you have a timeline on that? Currently, it is scheduled for November of this year, and that's just following our May uh bylaw review update that we'll be doing. So, we're doing all the paperwork in May and getting lined up to uh imple implement the technology uh later on in the fall. Okay. Thank you very much. And my last um probably more a comment. Um one of your slides, you spoke about liability coverage and an increase to liability coverage. Um, and and I just wanted to put forth and I don't think it's within our jurisdiction, but I I I put it out as a consideration when we're thinking about this issue of liability at large because it's often liability that kills these small businesses, right? Because as soon as you look at the insurance on this uh you know whether it's community associations or small uh you know art businesses, small restaurants at home businesses um the coverage costs as a result of current you know liability insurance requirements is is sometimes simply cost prohibitive and it kills these these uh opportunities which I do think are aligned with some of the strategies we want to revitalize downtown things like that. So my comment would be I think we should look at this from the the opposite side. We should be looking at this from the perspective of governance or advocacy to address the up the high end of liability so that that can be brought down. And I think that's an advocacy issue that we need to look at from a city perspective across many domains because I'll take slip and fall injuries, I'll take food injuries, I'll take you name them. The upside, liability, risk to small businesses is massive. And as a result, those premiums that they're forced to pay are again, they kill opportunity. So, I really think that's something we should be taking away to look at how we can we can advocate. Maybe it's through FCM or AMO or something uh to address the issue of liability. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, Councelor Johnson, I just saw your hand. You're back. Go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Sorry, it came down there. Um, I just wanted to um take the opportunity to thank staff for updating the uh the bylaw to reflect some of the challenges that businesses have seen in their shared commercial spaces. I think that's a great modernization of this policy and and knowing some businesses that actually take a lot of pride in sharing their uh facility uh with other smaller uh you know upstart. It it just generates that sort of first um uh first few years of financial success to be able to share the facility. But but there has been times where it's been taken advantage of. And so I know the businesses that I've spoken to have been um uh very pleased to see the city find a mechanism by which they can address some of those bad actors and and they have kept good records of those rentals and so on and and worked quite closely with inspections at that time. So I just wanted to uh put that forward to say this is a really great step. I know that um bricks and mortar is very expensive to maintain and we often encourage our nonprofit sectors to collaborate and work together in in uh in different facilities and this is a way that we can support those small businesses, those small those small food producers um to uh save on cost and and perhaps be able to invest more in um the ingredients that they're providing given, you know, how expensive groceries are. So I think this is this is great and and um just to to encourage you know I know that you take an education first approach in everything that you do and just to recognize that that will be assisting other give or um involvement are we are all I I keep keep hearing in different uh committees that or match people who are applying for grants or whatever. like have you ever been in situations where you've gone into shared spaces and been asked to match with other people looking for commercial kitchens or um has that not really come across your desk? Did you catch all that councelor Johnson? You did freeze for a little bit there, but I'm just saying I'm sorry. I do also talk. She's Oh, she's now off. Um I mean, obviously, Councelor Johnson has the ability to uh reach out to staff between now and uh council to follow up with any questions. So, I'm sure staff will be receptive to those. I don't want to take the vote uh without councelor Johnson with us. I'm going to wait uh a second or two. Is staff able to give her a call by any chance? Okay. I'm just going to get an opinion from the clerk's office. If we have councelor Johnson on speaker phone, will her vote be counted? Chair, if I could have a moment to uh check with legal to just confirm that's in conformity with the the clerk's okay uh procedures for virtual participation. All right. Thank you. In the meantime, I'll I'll just uh read the motion before us to make sure it's clear for all committee members. So, the motion that we're about to vote on is that the Emergency Preparedness and Protective Services Committee recommend that council approve the following amendments to the licensing uh bylaw number 2002-189 as amended. It's two parts. First, new and updated definitions and regulations in the bylaw and in schedule 7 relating to food premises as described in this report and the general form set out in document one. And part two, updated regulations in schedule 5 relating to amusement places as described in this report and in the general form set out in document two. So that's the recommendation and councelor Johnson can vote uh by speakerphone because it's live. Excellent. Okay. So is the motion before us carried? Okay. Thank you. And as a reminder, this goes to council on April the 8th. Yes. 2 weeks and change. So, if there are any uh potential amendments to this motion, uh again, colleagues, please give notice to staff, myself, uh so we can work on that sooner rather than later. Okay. Item six, I'm not aware of any in camera items. Item seven is notices of motion. I believe councelor Divine, you have a notice on behalf of councelor Manard. Is that correct? We can get that on the screen for you. This is a notice of motion. So whereas the city of Ottawa's bylaw review work plan identifies regulatory bylaws for review or development in each term of council. And whereas pursuant to section 129 of the municipal act 2001, a municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to noise, vibration, odor, and dust. And whereas the city's noise bylaw regulates noise in order to preserve, protect, and promote public health, safety, welfare, and the peace and quiet enjoyment of property by residents of the city of Ottawa. And whereas the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Cons conservation and parks has published provincial environmental noise guidance including publication NPC300 environmental noise guidelines stationary and transportation sources approval and planning respecting the control of noise emissions from stationary sources and related land use planning considerations. And whereas one stated purpose of NPC 300 is to provide sound level limits that may be incorporated into municipal noise control bylaws developed under the municipal act. And whereas NPC 300 distinguishes between daytime and nighttime assessment periods and recognizes that nighttime conditions are particularly sensitive for residents due to lower background sound environments and sleepreated impacts. And whereas residents in neighborhoods adjacent to newly built apartment buildings, including but not limited to 275 Carling Avenue, the Clemo in Ward 17, and 1354 Carling Avenue, the Talisman, in Ward 16, have reported recurring seasonal rooftop mechanical and air conditioning noise that may be inconsistent with the recommendations of NPC 300, but that has not resulted in an actionable enforcement outcome under the city's current noise bylaw. And whereas similar concerns have been raised in W 9, including situations where residents of 330 Titan Private and 120 Grant Carman Drive report late night and overnight rooftop mechanical and refrigeration noise originating from a nearby commercial property that may also be inconsistent with the recommendations of NPC 300, but that have likewise not resulted in an actionable enforcement outcome under the city's current noise bylaw. Bless you. And whereas municipal noise bylaws are primarily designed as complaint-driven enforcement instruments, and in practice, enforcement outcomes can depend on whether noise exceeds prescribed thresholds at the time and location of measurement, which may unintentionally create expectations among residents that bylaw enforcement alone can resolve technically stationary source noise conflicts. And whereas NPC 300 emphasizes a proactive approach to minimizing conflicts between noise sensitive land uses and stationary noise sources at the earliest stages of land use planning and development approvals. Suggesting that planning stage controls such as equipment sighting, noise studies, and mitigation measures secured through development approvals may in some cases be more effective than after the fact enforcement alone. Therefore, be it resolved that staff include a review of the noise bylaw, including any disparities with the recommendations of the NPC 300 guideline as an item for consideration is part of the development of the bylaw review plan to be approved by the next term of council. God. Thank you, councelor Divine. So, that um motion will be considered at our next meeting, which is April 16th. Are there any other notices of motion? Are there any inquiries? Go ahead, please. Councelor Divine or sorry, Councelor Hill. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is an inquiry to emergency protective services. Uh, a recent CTV news story found that roughly 55 fires were started by lithium batteries over the last two years. With lithium batteries being an active part of most Ottawa residents day-to-day lives, it would be valuable for council to better understand the impact these devices have on the Ottawa Fire Services. With that in mind, please consider the following questions. Of the 55 fires identified by OFS to be started by lithium batteries, how many resulted in structural damage to a home or vehicle? To better understand historical trends, how many fires per year were generated by lithium batteries since 2023? What percentage of total fires responded to each in each of those years were caused by lithium batteries? What factors make a home more vulnerable to a significant fire caused by lithium batteries? What devices are most frequently found to have issues with lithium batteries fires in Ottawa? And how does OFS and the city of Ottawa currently communicate the dangers of lithium battery fires to the public? How does the service track the effectiveness of its outreach efforts? And does OFS require additional resources or support from council or other levels of government to respond to lithium battery fires or to reduce their frequencies? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, vice chair. Are there any other inquiries? I have one uh which I've written out and I'll give to our committee coordinator in a second. Uh HVAC noise emanating from the recently built and inhabited Talisman apartments at 1354 Carling Avenue have created chronic noise concerns in the warm months when the uh A is running. The HVAC system is wrapped on the north, east, and west sides, but exposed or unwrapped on the south side, which faces the residential community. Ongoing decibel readings from Ottawa bylaw are at or very close to 50 dB. Would staff in Ottawa bylaw and regulatory services please summarize work to date in monitoring and enforcing noise concerns at this location. What additional steps can autolaot take with this property owner to mitigate noise from their HVAC system? Thank you. Okay, seeing no other inquiries, uh I'm not aware of any other business before we adjourn, just um to let you know what's coming up next month. So, our next scheduled meeting is Thursday, April 16th. At that meeting, the committee will receive the 2025 annual reports for both public safety service and bylaw and regulatory services. The very next day, there will be a joint meeting of our committee with PEWIC public works and infrastructure on April 17th to receive the safe access to social infrastructure bylaw review report, also commonly known as the bubble bylaw report. that committee meeting on the 17th. Uh we're expecting to be a longer day. So we're going to start at 9:00 and we'll be in council chambers for that joint meeting. So given that the business of today's agenda is complete, we stand adjourned. Thank you everyone.

Full Transcript