Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 5, 2011 (Joint) Cirs co Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Meeting. Agenda PI CKERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe Delegations 1. Steve Gadsden Re: Transit Issues 2. John Rider Judy Duffus Whitevale and District Residents' Association Re: Seaton Part "A" PAGES Planning & Development Information Reports Information Report 19-11 1-6 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 16/11 Fonke Holdings Corporation 1565 Greenmount Street (Part of Block 76, Plan 40M-1512) City of Pickering Information Report 20-11 7-15 Subject: Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 (R2) Zoning Amendment Application A 15/11 Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited Part Lots 17 & 18, Concession 3, City of Pickering Part "B" Planning & Development Committee Reports Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact P I C K E P~,~N G Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Irobe rtse.citvofpickerino.com City 00 Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Meeting Agenda PI KERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 1. Director, Planning & Development Report PD 34-11 16-18 Maida Group Holdings Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-2312 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Recommendation 1. That Report PD 34-11 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the final assumption of the works and services within Plan of Subdivision 40M- 2312 be received; 2. That the highway being Fairport Road within Plan 40M-2312 be assumed for public use; 3. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2312, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; and 4. That the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2312, be released and removed from title. 2. Director, Planning & Development Report PD 35-11 19-45 Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected Heritage Structures on Federal Lands and the Proposed Relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park Recommendation 1. That Council authorize staff to enter into a six-month lease with Transport Canada, commencing in January 2012, for the four heritage structures identified in Report PD 35-11 as having potential for long-term use by the City, at an estimated cost of $15,000 plus applicable taxes; 2. That Council consider the cost of a feasibility analysis of the potential for long term leasing and/or sub-leasing of these four listed structures as outlined in Report PD 35-11, during the 2012 Budget discussions; Cary oo Joint Planning & Development & A Executive Committee Meeting Agenda MC PI 15 NNt' Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 3. That Council authorize staff to: a) enter into a six-month lease with Transport Canada, commencing in January 201.2, for the six heritage structures that have potential for relocation by private interests as identified in Report PD 35-11, at an estimated cost of $16,000 plus applicable taxes, and b) facilitate a relocation program for these six structures through staff resources or, if necessary, consultant services which would be approved by Council through the 2012 Budget discussions; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to pay the. costs identified in the above recommendations, and to charge these amounts to the General Government, Purchased Services account pending approval of the 2012 Current Budget; 5. That Council endorse the relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park to the federal lands property at 1607 Highway 7; and 6. Further, that the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. 3. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 37-11 46-61 Consultant Selection for the Downtown Intensification Program and for the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Recommendation 1. That the proposal submitted by Urban Strategies Inc., in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates, dated November 9, 2011, to undertake studies related to the land use framework component of the Downtown Intensification Program in the amount of $122,898 excluding HST be accepted, utilizing the City funding identified for this project in the approved 2011 Current Budget for the Planning & Development Department, Professional & Consulting, Growth Centre (Account 2611.2392.0000); 2. That the proposal submitted by AECOM, dated November 10, 2011, to prepare a Request For Proposal and provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study in the amount of $91,800 including HST be accepted as provided for in the approved 2011 Cirf o0 Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Meeting Waid Agenda PI KERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe Current Budget for the Community Services Department, Professional & Consulting, Downtown Stormwater (Account 2290.2392.0000); 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto; and 4. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report Number PD 37-11 to the Region of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their information. Part "C" Executive Committee Reports 1. Director, Community Services, Report CS 43-11 62-72 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Recommendation 1. That Report CS 43-11 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Stormwater. Management Design Guidelines be received; 2. That Council endorse the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines;'and 3. That Staff be authorized to release these guidelines to the holders of the City's Development Control Design Standards as an addendum, and to provide the electronic version to the public upon request. 2. Director, Community Services, Report CS 44-11 73-101 Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Recommendation 1. That Report CS 44-11 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports be received; C~ o~ Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Meeting Agenda PI CKERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 2. That the letter proposal from Sorenson Gravely Lowes Consulting Associates Inc. and SCS Consulting Group Ltd. for consulting services related to the technical review of the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing Stormwater Reports for the six Neighbourhoods (16 - 21), in an amount not to exceed $93,711 including HST and disbursements be approved; and 3. That appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect thereto. 3. Director, Community Services, Report CS 45-11 102-113 Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Recommendation 1. That Report CS 45-11 of the Director, Community Services regarding the installation of proposed stop signs for safe pedestrian crossings at three additional locations on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue and a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic and parking by-law 6604/05 be received.; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 7" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed addition of three additional all-way stop locations at the following intersections: • Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street • Major Oaks Road at Duberry Drive • Dellbrook Avenue at Meriadoc Drive; 3. That crosswalk pavement markings be painted at the new all-way stop locations as well as all approaches at the intersection of Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue and the south approach at the intersection of Major Oaks Drive and Duberry Drive; and 4. That community consultation be conducted, before the proposed all-way stop controls are installed, to inform the residents of the proposed changes in traffic control within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Citq oo Joint Planning & Development & 1117 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda PI rKERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30. pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 4. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 42-11 114-117 2012 Interim Spending Authority Recommendation 1. That Report CST 42-11 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the 2012 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50% of the prior year's budget, including adjustments as contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the formal 2012 Current Budget by Council; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 5. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CST 43-11 118-122 2012 Temporary Borrowing By-law Recommendation 1. That Report CST 43-11 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the temporary borrowing limit to meet 2012 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues be established at $36,000,000 for the period January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 inclusive, and $18,000,000 thereafter until December 31, 2012; 3. That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2012 be established at $32,000,000; 4. That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary borrowing of monies, be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Ctq oo Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Meeting Agenda PI KERI Monday, December 5, 2011 Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 6. Chief Administrative Officer's Report, CAO 14-11 123-147 Next Generation Common Communications Platform - "NextGen" Recommendation 1. That Report CAO 14-11 of the Chief Administrative Officer regarding the Next Generation Common Communications Platform be received. 2. That the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering confirm its commitment to participate, in conjunction with the other area municipalities and the Region of Durham, in the common communications platform being undertaken by the Region for police, fire and other services; 3. . That the Fire Chief, in conjunction with the appropriate staff, be authorized and directed to continue to participate in the "Next Gen" Common Communications Platform with the Region of Durham in anticipation of being operational in 2014; 4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign any agreements necessary, in a form acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Fire Chief, the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the City Solicitor, to ensure the City's participation in the common communications platform; 5. That staff be directed to prepare a further report on this project for presentation to and discussion with Council in advance of its inclusion in the 2013 Capital Budget; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. (II) OTHER BUSINESS (III) ADJOURNMENT City o¢ Information Report Report Number: 19-11 PICKERING For Public Information Meeting of Date: December 5, 2011 Q~ In Accordance with the Public Meeting Requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 16/11 Fonke Holdings Corporation 1565 Greenmount Street (Part of Block 76, Plan 40M-1512) City of Pickering 1.0 Property Location and Description • the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Valley Farm Road and Greenmount Street (see Location Map - Attachment #1) • the subject property has a lot area of approximately 1,450 square metres, with frontage along Greenmount Street (approximately 29 metres) and Valley Farm Road (approximately 46 metres) • the site is currently vacant • surrounding uses include single detached dwellings to the north and south, townhouse dwelling units to the east and open space to the west across Valley Farm Road 2.0 Applicant's Proposal • the applicant is proposing to amend the existing zoning to permit four 7.3 to 7.7 metre single detached lots fronting Greenmount Street (see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #2). The lots are proposed to be created through severance 3.0 Official Plan and Zoning 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan • the Regional Plan designates the subject property "Living Areas" which are to be used predominantly for housing purposes' • the proposal appears to comply with the Regional Official Plan policies 3.2 Pickering Official Plan • the lands are designated "Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas" (Brock Ridge Neighbourhood) in the Pickering Official Plan which provides for housing and related uses and activities • the density range for Low Density Areas is up to and including 30 units per net hectare; the four proposed lots have a net residential density of approximately 27 units per net hectare Information Report No. 19-11 Page 2 02 • the Official Plan anticipated, but does not require, a neighbourhood shopping facility on the subject lands • Valley Farm Road is designated as a Type C Arterial Road; Greenmount Street is designated as a Collector Road 3.3 Zoning By-law 3036 • the property is currently zoned "C4-4" - General Commercial Zone under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4377/94 • this zone permits business and professional offices, dry cleaning depots, laundromats, neighbourhood stores and personal service shops • the applicant proposes to amend the by-law to replace the commercial zone with a residential zone that will permit the development of four 7.3 to 7.7 metre lots for single detached dwellings 4.0 Results of Circulation 4.1 Resident Comments • none received to date 4.2 Agency Comments • none received to date 4.3 Department Comments Engineering Services Division • ' site servicing, grading, fence and street tree planting plans along Valley Farm Road and Greenmount Street are required 4.4 Staff Comments • in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • evaluating whether an appropriate house design, consistent with the character of the street, can be achieved with the proposed 7.3 to 7.7 metre single detached lots, or whether fewer units or a different built form (e.g. semi-detached or townhouse units) would be more appropriate 5.0 Procedural Information • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council Information Report No. 19-11 Page 3 03 • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 6.0 Other Information 6.1 Appendix No. • list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report 6.2 Information Received • The following documents are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: • Planning Justification Report • Environmental Noise Impact Study • Plan of Topographic Survey • Proposed Site, Floor and Elevation Plans 6.3 Company Principal • the owner of the property is Fonke Holdings Corporation • the applicant is SOL-ARCH (Architecture + Planning). -14A W Ashley Y ood, MCIP, R P Marg Wouters, MCIP, RPP Planner Manager, Development Review & Urban Design AY:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development 04 Appendix No. I to Information Report No. 19-1.1 Commenting Residents and Landowners (1) none received to date Commenting Agencies (1) none received to date Commenting City Departments (1) Engineering Services Division ATTACHMENT -L`.TA INFO to A'"PAN MPIMS_05 CRESCENT MAJOR OAKS PARK 0 GREENMOUNT SUBJECT PROPERTY TERRACOTT CRT ~O~?~ o O F Q F: REESORRT °cF w O J O C CSC z p Mq✓O o ALPINE LANE >d s -7 o z O w O U ~ N ~ w =j C) GAN HYDRO CCRR/DOR Q 0 C( Q O EET /0 w J l1. g z ~ 0 O o U O J 0 oC0 RT Li Of J LLJ KDALE STREET 0 0 J FINCH N U E FINCH AVENUE City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Block 76, Plan 40M-1512, Plan 40R-15611, Part 1 07\ OWNER Fonke Holdings Corporation DATE Oct. 27, 2011 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. A 16/11 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY AY At ourcee• oTeranet Entsrprteee Ine. nd It. pplten. All rlQhb Reserved. Not a plan of .urvey. PN-13 2005 MPAC and Ite eu Ilere. All rl hte Reeervad. Not a lan o7 Surve . 06 Information Compiled from Applicant's Submitted Plan - Fonke Holdings Corporation A 16/11 GREENMOUNT STREET 1.5m CONC. SIDEWALK A•i■ir . u.f.■.■..... . ■.■.■.■..r.■.■n■.■.■.■.■.■i■i■ui~i■i■ia■ia.ui■ui■i■i■i1-- • 2.76 ■ 7.32 . 7.32 . 7.32 i • i i i i i i i Ll Lv PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 J h j • .n i.n ~n!.n .nG,~ ~i O r•M Ld 6 c6i,6 c: • i i i i E • i i i i • i i i i • i i i i • i i i i • i i i i • i i i i • i i i i • 15.57 ! 7.32 ! 7.32 ! 7.32 ~L...■ .................................a..........................R .........................L.......~.............J- N/ This mop was produced by the City of Picketing, Planning & Development Deportment, Information & Support 5-ices, October 27, 2011 City Information Report Report Number: 20-11 For Public Information Meeting of PICKERING Date: December 5, 2011 07 In Accordance with the Public-Meeting Requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 Subject: Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 (R2) Zoning Amendment Application A 15/11 Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited Part Lots 17 & 18, Concession 3 City of Pickering 1.0 Property Location and Description • the subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, north of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery, in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map - Attachment #1) • the 3.13 hectares of land are the final phase of the Mattamy draft plan of subdivision which is currently under construction; the lands are identified as Block 239 in the approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 • the lands currently support the Mattamy sales pavilion and are being used as a staging area for the subdivision construction • surrounding land uses are: north - a hydro easement and lands intended for future development south - Mount Pleasant Cemetery east - detached dwellings and a village green under construction across William Jackson Drive west - a place of religious assembly, residential homes and vacant land. intended for future development across Brock Road 2.0 Applicant's Proposal • the proposal is to further subdivide the lands within Block 239 to create: • 82 back-to-back townhouse lots on public roads • 15 rear lane townhouse lots fronting William Jackson Drive • a 24-unit stacked townhouse block fronting Brock Road • a 0.74 hectare commercial block at the corner of Brock Road and William Jackson Drive (see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #2) • the proposed concept for the commercial block consists of a 3,673 square metre multi-tenant three storey building (see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #3) • the revision to the draft plan of subdivision is required to create the public roads and the development blocks Information Report No. 20-11 Page 2 08 3.0 Official Plan and Zoning 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan • the Regional Official Plan designates the subject property "Urban System - Regional Corridor and Living Area" • "Regional Corridors" are to be planned and developed as mixed-use areas, including residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities and achieving a mix of commercial, residential, employment and institutional uses while supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented development • Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128 (ROPA 128), which implements the Provincial Growth Plan, contains provisions that require significantly higher densities for identified portions of Regional Corridors; the amendment is currently under appeal 3.2 Pickering Official Plan • the subject lands are within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood of the Official Plan and are designated "Mixed-Use Areas - Mixed Corridors" • the "Mixed Corridor" designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community • the designation provides for a range of commercial uses and residential development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 units per net hectare and to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5 • the density of the proposed residential development is 84 units per hectare • the proposed commercial development has a floor space index of 0.5 • the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies for the Mixed Corridor designation require new development to: • prohibit individual private driveway access from lands on either side of collector roads in the neighbourhood, and from local roads adjacent to the Mixed Corridor for grade-related dwelling units • require higher intensity multi-unit housing forms on lands adjacent to Brock Road and restrict grade related residential development to lands adjacent to collector or local roads • provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access, and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey • require commercial development to provide a second storey functional floor space with three storey massing • require applicants to submit a Development Concept Report illustrating interim and final plans to accommodate intensification "over time and ultimate build-out; • for the focal point identified at the intersection of Brock Road and William Jackson Drive development is to contribute to the prominence of the intersection by requiring: • initial development on each property to occur at the corner of the intersection Information Report No. 20-11 Page 3 09 • the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the implementing zoning by-laws to address such matters as the location and extent of build-to-zones, mix of permitted uses, and required building articulation • the use of other site development features such as building design, building material, architectural features or structures, landscaping, public art and public realm enhancements such as squares or landscaped seating areas to help achieve focal point prominence, and • require all buildings to be a minimum of three functional storeys with four storey massing • Schedule II - Transportation Systems designates Brock Road where it abuts the subject lands as a "Type A - Arterial Road" and a "Transit Spine" and designates William Jackson Drive as a "Collector Road" • Transit Spines are recognized corridors where higher level of transit service is to be encouraged • the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan as certain elements of the proposal do not appear to meet the intent of the policies and Development Guidelines 3.3 buffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines • the approved Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (NDG) provide design objectives for the neighbourhood • the entire subject property is delineated as Brock Road Streetscape on the Tertiary Plan which encourages higher density, mid-rise and.mixed use buildings with a high level of architectural quality • the Tertiary Plan identifies the intersection of Brock Road and William Jackson Drive as a focal point that will require special design considerations including building height, massing, architectural features and landscaping; buildings at focal points are required to have a minimum of three functional floors with a four storey massing; and buildings along Brock Road should create a pedestrian sensitive/friendly environment • the creation of outdoor public space is also encouraged at focal points • all primary frontages of buildings shall front Brock Road and provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and trail along Brock Road • medium density residential development may be located behind buildings that front Brock Road, however, individual unit vehicle access from collector or local roads for grade related townhouse developments will not be permitted • single detached and semi-detached dwelling units are not permitted in the Mixed Corridor 3.4 Zoning By-law 3036 • the subject lands are currently zoned "UR"- Urban Reserve, by Zoning By-law 3037 as amended by By-law 7020/01 • this zone was implemented at the time of the approval of the zoning for the entire plan of subdivision in anticipation that further zoning approvals would be sought when detailed development plans for the Brock Road Corridor lands were advanced Information Report No. 20-11 Page 4 0 1 • the existing "UR"- Urban Reserve zone permits a temporary sales pavilion and outdoor recreation uses without buildings or structures • an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow the implementation of the proposed development 3.5 Revision to Approved Draft Plan of Subdivision Process • the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) is the Approval Authority for the requested revision to the draft approved plan of subdivision as Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 was originally approved by the OMB 4.0 Results of Circulation 4.1 Resident Comments • none received in response to the circulation to date 4.2 Agency Comments • none received in response to the circulation to date 4.3 Staff Comments • the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • conformity with the City's Official Plan policies and Development Guidelines • the conformity of the proposed grade-related housing form on public streets given the development vision for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood as a community with higher density, including pedestrian-related mixed use development along the Brock Road corridor; the Development Guidelines do not envision public roads within the Mixed Corridor • reviewing the commercial block to ensure it is appropriately sized and configured; timing of its development; and to ensure appropriate access (the current proposal has an access onto a residential lane) • reviewing the stacked townhouse block to ensure it is appropriately sized and configured • if local streets within the Mixed Corridor are found to conform with the Official Plan, reviewing the street widths to provide for sidewalks on both sides of the street and a more appropriate design to eliminate the window street to provide a more prominent building facade along William Jackson Drive • proposed sustainable development components 0 ensuring that technical submissions and reports meet City standards Information Report No. 20-11 Page 5 5.0 Procedural Information • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal or makes a decision on the revised draft plan of subdivision • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 6.0 Other Information 6.1 Appendix No. I • list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report 6.2 Information Deceived • full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: • copy of the revised draft plan of subdivision • Planning Rationale/Sustainable Development Guideline Report • Functional Servicing Brief 6.3 Owner/Applicant Information • the owners of the subject lands are Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited; Rodger Miller represents Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited • the applications have been submitted by Bryce Jordan of Sernas Associates on behalf of Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited Ross Pym, MCIP, P Marg Wouters, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Development Review Manager, Development Review & Urban Design RP:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Appendix No. I to 2 Information Report No. 20-11 Commenting Residents and Landowners (1) none received to date Commenting Agencies (1) none received to date Commenting City Departments (1) none received to date ATTAr,44 M71MT10-i- o UK Mie 13 N z PA o g o z Of z z UNESCEN1 HN N LANE 0 INDU CULTURAL C TR SUBJECT m PROPERTY LLOW DRIVE LIATRIS DRIVE DERSAN STREET U O m City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Part Lots 17 & 18, Concession 3 07\ OWNER Mattamy (Brock Road) ltd. DATE Oct. 6, 2011 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. SP 2008-01 (R2) SCALE 1:5, H 000 CHECKED BY RP V2 a ourcer eranet Enterprises Inc. and Its u pllere. All rlphts Reserved. Not. plan of survey. PN-15 005 MPAC and Its a Ilsre. Alt rP hte Rseervetl. Not o Ian of Surve . ;'7YAG4-rC4 E;NT# 2- 1 4 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN MATTAMY (BROCK ROAD) LTD. SP-2008-01 (132) 6 0 \ yam., 1A093 ° a• NT13'°0'E r Q t Ultimate Cn _ ROW c ~-7 o ART 3, PLAN 20R-2114 a' 0 ' ,w Y ~ o o~ a FUTURE MIXED US 0 ~ 12 3 9.15 9.IS 9.15 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 3 (1.927 ha - 4.7 ac.) 21 220 221 22 223 224 225 226 227 9 (o II D Sr tas yb r Gcl o n 8 217216215214213212 211 210 209 lL 0.15 9.16 9.15 9.1! 9.15 9.15 11.0 11.0 11.0 CD a 9 'STREET aw i aw aw an 6 120 9.16 9.13 9.15 9.15 9.13 11.0 11.0 1110 11.0 - 29 To s 199 200 20120 20 204 205 206 207 08 L ITI - 28 TO S ITI 198 19719619519 193 192 191 190 189 120 9.15 9.15 9.1S 9.15 9.15 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 w BL CK S am aw LC^1(~ V N a B2 T 5t ' ao° 7 2 MI ~TRFET 5 6 92 7- u - - .2 120 .1! 9.15 9.15 9.IS 9.15 11.0 11.0 IL0 11. 17915.l81 18 183184185 186 187188 A: • 15.5 r a Tw ,w n 8 9 5 2 178 17.9 174 173 772 171 170 169 2 7 9 120 .m gas gas gas 9.13 11.0 11.0 n.o n.9 ° - (f C PART 2, PLAN °~4 = 5611.0 7.26m ROAD WIDENING Y 55 54 53 5: BLOCK247 57 y (0.09 h5 - 0.2 ogi) 16 s'3 58 u COMMERCIAL $ Ll/ 0 o.TM9. r w N o 5 t ffK n ~~,o "O18 i5 0 OU / P _ o m r >BO r S ° zo 7.0 zo zo ae as zo zo 7. )ERSAN STREET o B D K2 6 BL ° 2 6T. ~ 6 .1- r 0.34 RESERVE r 1° ° 0.3m RESERVE >9 r. oo- SLOCK246 SLOCK245 F 7 'V FULL SCALE COPIES OF TH£ APPLIOANT'S SUBMR7ED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR HEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY 77-IE COY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORM477ON & SUPPORT SERNCE3; OCT. 6, 2011. . ATTA 1j° T'g 3 ray 20_ INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S 15 SUBMITTED PLAN COMMERCIAL BLOCK MATTAMY (BROCK ROAD) LTD. SP-2008-01 (R2) A 15/11 r ! I; {n I I !I 15--n2B TOWNS A I ! %v ra.. co N I~ STREET "C" 1 ffiiY ii Jf TY. _ lij LLJ 1 l l-l-I 11 111 l 1-1 i l -III l fl_ 7 l j I l U f~ 1~ Cammercial 0.74 ha V? g 0 - G i rjq :ST i 11: Q I i I II hl „ E I Cl,RSq - cV I d ~ l ~ n BLDG A a I I I Ir ~ ~ jy O I 4G4.bi .;i 1 of (5 000 rr" GROUND Sf I ,t XI I I!i 1 J?f. tTY litlfw_, ~W ~ ri n. BUILDING Ai R' 727.9(', srn ~ 1 ! (7 836 ROUND ^,f) FL 57 77-4.42171 RL TOWNS G G 39.79 STREET A This map was produced by The City Of Pickering Planning & Development Department, Planning Information Services Division Mapping And Design, Nov. 15, 2011. i cis Report To Planning & Development Committee PI KERIN Report Number: PD 34-11 6 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Maida Group Holdings Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-2312 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 34-11 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the final assumption of the works and services within Plan of Subdivision 40M-2312 be received; 2. That the highway being Fairport Road within Plan 40M-2312 be assumed for public use; 3. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2312, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; and 4. That the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2312, be released and removed from title. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of Plan 40M-2312. As all works and services within this plan have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to assume the road., works and services within this plan.under the jurisdiction of the City and release the developer from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement. Financial Implications: There are no new financial implications to the City as a result of this recommendation. Sustainability Implications: The final assumption of the works and services within this plan of subdivision is an administrative process that legally concludes the City's acquisition of necessary roads and other infrastructure. It does not directly impact the City's sustainability initiatives. Report PD 34-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Page 2 40M-2312 7 Background: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above- noted developer for the development of Plan 40M-2312. As the developer has now completed all works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to assume the road, works and services within this Plan. Further, it is also appropriate to release the developer from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City dated October 16, 2005 and registered as Instrument No. DR501660. Attachments: 1. . Location Map - Plan 40M-2312 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Denise ye Neil Ca P, RPP Supervisor, Property & Development Director, anning & Development Services DB:bg Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City ounci D~dtl 2 D Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Office of Sustainability Director, Planning & Development City Clerk ATTACHMENT# .70 1 8 REPORT# PO 3 l_ J~,• N CRESCENT GOLDENRIDGE Y UELINE P WELRUS STREET o o Of 0 U OJT z w of a VA N SPRUCE RUSHTON ROAD 3 x w SUBJECT- J a CL kglE'S LANE A ~ 0 0 0 ~O 0 a DUNBARTON F ON ROPO mill M SHEPPARD AVENUE ST: PAUL S ON THE HIL ANGLICAN CHURC KINGSTON ROAD BAYFAIR BAPTIST CHURCH STREET c ~M~ /NE ESC~Nj c 'ISTULA CR DRIVE J m City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 1-9, Block 10 40M-2312 OWNER Various DATE Oct. 31, 2011 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. Subdivision Completion and Assumption SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY DB N Not ° plop W wrwy. T~vn~t EnbnpA~~~ Ino. antl lt~ ~uppll-r~. All rlphh R-wrv~d. -13 PN 2003 MPAC and Ib ~u II~~. All A nt~ R~prwtl. Not ° 1°n o1 Su Report To Planning &Development Committee DICKERING Report Number: PD 35-11 Date: December 5, 2011 1 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected Heritage Structures on Federal Lands and the Proposed Relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park Recommendation: 1. That Council authorize staff to enter into a six-month lease with Transport Canada, commencing in January. 2012, for the four heritage structures identified in Report PD 35-11 as having potential for long-term use by the City, at an estimated cost of $15,000 plus applicable taxes; 2. That Council consider the cost of a feasibility analysis of the potential for long term leasing and/or sub-leasing of these four listed structures as outlined in Report PD 35-11, during the 2012 Budget discussions; 3. That Council authorize staff to: a) enter into a six-month lease with Transport Canada, commencing in January 2012, for the six heritage structures that have potential for relocation by private interests as identified in Report PD 35-11, at an estimated cost of $16,000 plus applicable taxes, and b) facilitate a relocation program for these six structures through staff resources or, if necessary, consultant services which would be approved by Council through the 2012 Budget discussions; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to pay the costs identified in the above recommendations, and to charge these amounts to the General Government, Purchased Services account pending approval of the 2012 Current Budget; 5. That Council endorse the relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park to the federal lands property at 1607 Highway 7; and 6. Further, that the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: Since August 2010, Council and City staff have been in communication with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Transport Canada staff regarding their plans to demolish vacant structures of heritage interest on the federal Pickering Lands Site. Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected 2 O Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 2 Most recently, Council in July 2011, requested that Transport Canada allow the City time to assess and document the structures to be demolished in order to determine if any of the structures were suitable for lease by the City, were suitable for potential relocation to private lands, or contained materials that may be of interest to the Pickering Museum. In addition, Council requested that Transport Canada refrain from demolishing any buildings in Brougham until the needs of a future airport were determined. The Minister has agreed to the City's requests to document the subject structures and to salvage identified artifacts for municipal uses. The Minister also .agreed to allow additional time to investigate potential leasing and relocation programs on condition that the structures of interest are leased immediately by the City, and indicated that any structures not leased by the City will be demolished. Staff has completed the assessment and documentation of all the heritage structures proposed to be demolished, and have identified a number of buildings that warrant further consideration as follows: a) Four structures are considered to be of sufficient heritage significance to warrant preservation through long term leasing by the City. Two of these buildings are also of interest to the Pickering Museum. The cost of preserving these buildings include the short term (six month) leasing costs required to protect the buildings from immediate demolition (estimated at approximately $15,000) and the cost of undertaking a feasibility analysis to determine whether the buildings have potential for use by the City, or for sub-lease by non-residential users. The cost of the feasibility analysis has not yet been determined. b) Six buildings are identified as being potential candidates for relocation by private interests. The program would include advertising the structures for relocation to the general public, and carrying out negotiations with interested purchasers. The cost of implementing the relocation program would include the short term (six month) leasing costs (estimated at approximately $16,000) and the cost of advertising and negotiating with prospective purchasers. Staff anticipate that this work will be undertaken by staff, but should the services of a consultant be required, the costs would be considered by Council during the 2012 Budget discussions. These costs may be offset by Transport Canada's contribution of an amount equivalent to their savings in remediation and demolition costs for buildings that are relocated. It is recommended that Council enter into a short term lease for these ten buildings, and consider the costs of a feasibility analysis of the long term lease potential of the four most important structures, during the 2012 Budget discussions. It is also recommended that Council authorize staff to facilitate a relocation program for the remaining six structures, either with staff resources or, if necessary, with consulting services, the cost of which would also be considered in 2012 Budget discussions. Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 3 21 At the same time, negotiations have been underway between City staff, Transport Canada and the provincial government for a replacement site for Don Beer Memorial Park in Brougham. Transport Canada has offered the 1.4 hectare property at 1607 Highway 7 as a potential site. It is recommended that Council endorse the relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park in Brougham to the property at 1607 Highway 7. Financial Implications: Immediate costs associated with the preservation of four heritage structures include approximately $15,000 for the short-term lease of the buildings, while a feasibility analysis is carried out to investigate the potential for rehabilitation and long term leasing of these buildings. The costs of the feasibility analysis would be considered by Council during 2012 Budget discussions. Costs associated with facilitating a relocation program for six heritage structures are estimated at approximately $16,000 for the short-term lease of the buildings. It is intended that the relocation program be undertaken by staff. However, should the services of a consultant be required, the costs would also be considered by Council during 2012 Budget discussions. These costs may be offset by Transport Canada's contribution of an amount equivalent to their savings in environmental remediation and demolition costs for any relocated buildings. The relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park to the new proposed site will not bring additional land lease costs to the City beyond those of the current lease. Costs of park improvements were approved by Council in the 2011 Budget, to be fully funded by the Province. Sustainability Implications: This report provides information relating to the objective of preserving buildings having cultural heritage value as an integral part of a sustainable City. In addition to the historical physical value of the buildings, the buildings also have a social value in that they form part of the community of northwest Pickering and Brougham. Preservation and re-use of the buildings retains energy embedded in the existing structures and also diverts materials from landfill sites. 1.0 Background: In January 2011 and July 2011, Council considered staff reports regarding Transport Canada's plans to demolish vacant structures of heritage value on the federal lands known as the Pickering Lands Site. To date, a total of 32 structures of heritage interest to the City have been identified for demolition by Transport Canada (see Location maps - Attachment #1 and #2). Acknowledging that the City did not have sufficient budgeted funds to undertake professional heritage assessments for all of the properties of interest, or to lease all of the significant heritage structures as was suggested by Transport Canada, but still wishing to minimize the impact of the proposed demolitions, Council requested in July 2011 that Transport Canada: Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected 2 2 Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 4 • allow City staff time and access to document all of the heritage properties • allow the City to investigate and potentially implement a limited program to assist with the private acquisition of the heritage structures for relocation to private lands • allow the City to retrieve elements of value from any heritage structures not relocated to private lands, and retain specialty salvaging companies to demolish the buildings to facilitate re-use of building materials as much as possible • refrain from demolishing any buildings in Brougham until the details respecting the future use of the Pickering Lands Site are determined, and work with City staff to find suitable tenants for buildings that have potential for rehabilitation; and • extend its September 15, 2011 deadline for demolition of the heritage structures to allow. staff sufficient time to investigate the implications of the City leasing structures of heritage interest in Brougham (see Attachment #3) In a response from the Minister dated September 16, 2011 (see Attachment #4), the Minister indicated that: • Transport Canada was willing to allow the City to implement a limited program to assist with the relocation of heritage structures to private lands, provided the City lease the structures of interest from Transport Canada, assuming all liability and security responsibilities, and that the City carry out the negotiations with private interests • Transport Canada already requires the demolition contractor to implement a waste-reduction work plan and subsequent waste audit that will identify how waste will be diverted from landfill by source separation, re-use and/or recycling • for safety reasons, the demolition of vacant structures in Brougham will proceed except for any buildings the City chooses to lease • the City's decision regarding the leasing of any structures be received by September 30, 2011, after which demolitions would commence. The Minister also acknowledged that the City had already been granted access to the properties for assessment and documentation, and salvaging. Staff subsequently completed the assessment and documentation of the heritage structures on the demolition list and met with Transport Canada staff to develop options for preserving the heritage structures of interest. Details regarding the structures of interest and the options and recommendations for preservation, are provided below. Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 5 23 2.0 Discussion: 2.1 Staff has completed the assessment and documentation of all the heritage structures proposed to be demolished and have identified a number of buildings that merit further consideration In August and September 2011, Planning, Building, and Museum staff conducted inspections of 32 structures proposed to be demolished that are listed on the City's Heritage Register, including seven structures that were assessed in 2010 by consultants retained by the City. The structures were assessed in terms of: a) their significance and potential for lease by the City, and b) their potential for relocation by private interests. Museum staff further identified various artifacts (e.g., doors, light fixtures and iron heating grates) in buildings not selected for the leasing and relocation programs, that could be salvaged for use at the Museum. Ten buildings merit further consideration for preservation, four for long term leasing or sub-lease by the City for non-residential uses, and six which may be of interest for relocation by private interests (see Attachment #5). With the cooperation of Transport Canada, staff have commenced salvaging materials considered useful to the Museum from buildings not identified for either the proposed relocation-or long term leasing programs. Staff have also advised Transport Canada that demolition permits would be released for the remainder of the heritage structures that are not of interest to the City for leasing or relocation. 2.2 Four structures are identified for potential preservation through leasing by the City or relocation to the Museum site Four structures were identified that are considered to be of sufficient significance to warrant consideration for long term leasing by the City. The structures were selected on the basis of one or more of the following criteria: • high value to the community as a cultural/historical heritage resource • high value to the community as a rare example of an historic architectural style/construction technique • high level of structural/finish integrity • location in central Brougham • quality of space available for commercial office or institutional use Structures of heritage interest that were significantly deteriorated or were too small to consider for non-residential uses were not included on this list. Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected 24 Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 6 The four structures identified for potential long term leasing by the City include: • 3570 Brock Road (Craftsman Cottage) - an exceptionally good example of an Arts and Crafts bungalow; located immediately south of the Bentley-Gibson House in Brougham (see Attachment #6) • 3970 Brock Road (Ever Green Villa) - board and batten Gothic Revival; rare architectural example in Pickering; important family history in Pickering (see Attachment #7) • 3656 Brougham Road - an Edwardian (four square) brick two storey house of a good size and in good condition, in Brougham (see Attachment #8) • 5460 Sideline 30 (1911 school house) - a landmark structure in the Altona community; of solid condition and excellent potential space for community use (see Attachment #9) The Craftsman Cottage and Ever Green Villa are also of interest to the Museum Board for potential relocation to the Museum if the buildings cannot be retained/leased on site. The Board is currently investigating potential costs associated with the relocation of these two structures to the Museum site. Staff recommend that the City lease these buildings immediately in order to protect them from demolition, and to allow for additional time to consider the costs of rehabilitation and opportunities for leasing the buildings over the long term, including possible sub-leasing for non-residential purposes. The costs of leasing the structures in the short term (i.e., for six months) are estimated at approximately $15,000, including leasing, liability insurance and security costs, with security making up the largest component of the total cost. The feasibility of rehabilitating the buildings for long term use requires further investigation. Staff recommend that a feasibility analysis be undertaken to determine the cost of rehabilitation and potential for the long term leasing and/or sub-leasing of these four listed structures. The cost of the feasibility analysis would be considered by Council as part of the 2012 Budget discussions. 2.3 Six buildings are identified as potential candidates for relocation by private interests Six structures were identified as having potential for relocation to private lands. Structures identified for potential relocation were selected on the basis of information gathered through previous private interest inquiries to the City, structural soundness, relatively few modifications and quality/materials of original construction. The stone buildings on the demolition list were included on the potential relocation list due to the high level of interest in acquisition of stone buildings from private individuals. Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected 2 [5 Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 7 The six structures include: • 4355 Brock Road (Brophy House) - stone Ontario Classic, good condition (see Attachment #10) 140 Seventh Concession Road -frame Ontario Classic, good condition, relatively intact interior (see Attachment #11) • 840 Eighth Concession Road - frame Ontario Classic, good condition, relatively intact interior (see Attachment #12) • 575 Ninth Concession Road - frame Ontario Classic, good condition (see Attachment #13) • 5050 Sideline 24 - stone Ontario Classic (see Attachment #14) • 5245 Sideline 28 - rare plank-on-plank Ontario Classic, sound condition (see Attachment #15) It is recommended that a relocation program be implemented for these six structures. The program would include advertising the structures for relocation to the general public, and carrying out negotiations with interested purchasers. The structures would be transferred in an "as is" condition. The relocation program would commence in early 2012 and run for approximately six months. A similar program is currently being undertaken by the provincial Ministry of Transportation for heritage structures within the right-of-way of the future Highway 407 extension. Transport Canada requires that these structures be leased by the City for the duration of the relocation program. The costs of leasing the structures during the six-month program are estimated at approximately $16,000 including leasing, liability insurance and security costs. Staff are currently reviewing the relocation program requirements to determine if this work can be undertaken internally. Should the services of a consultant be required, the costs would be considered by Council during the 2012 Budget discussions. Transport Canada staff have indicated a willingness to contribute the anticipated environmental remediation and demolition costs it would have incurred in demolishing the structures towards the cost of relocating the structures. These funds could potentially be applied to offset the cost of retaining a consultant to undertake a relocation program, if this is deemed necessary. 3.0 Negotiations are underway with Transport Canada and the provincial government for a replacement site for Don Beer Memorial Park in Brougham Don Beer Memorial Park, a City operated facility currently located on a 1.3 hectare federal property on the north side of Highway 7, east of Brougham Road, needs to be relocated to accommodate the future Highway 407 extension. Transport Canada has offered the 1.4 hectare property at 1607 Highway 7 (Attachment #16) as a replacement site for the park. Community Services staff support the relocation of the park to this site, and are currently in negotiations with the provincial Ministry of Transportation to fund the construction of the park at this Report PD 35-1-1 December 5, 2011 Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected 26 Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 8 location. Council approved the expenditure of funds for park development in the 2011 Budget, to be fully funded by the province. The proposed park site contains a vacant heritage structure which is on Transport Canada's demolition list and the City's Heritage Register, but was not identified by City staff as having sufficient merit for leasing by the City or inclusion in the proposed relocation program. Transport Canada is offering this house to the City for its use in the park at no additional cost beyond the nominal rental of the lands for the park. The Community Services Department is currently investigating the potential use of this structure. It is recommended that Council endorse the relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park in Brougham to the property at 1607 Highway 7. 4.0 Recommendations: Based on the discussion above, it is recommended that the City pursue the following actions in order to preserve a number of heritage structures of significance on the federal lands: • leasing four properties from Transport Canada for six months with the intention of investigating the long term potential for use or sub-lease by the City • leasing six properties from Transport Canada for six months in order to facilitate a relocation program for these six structures It is also recommended that Council endorse the relocation of Don Beer Memorial Park in Brougham to the property at 1607 Highway 7, and authorize staff to take the necessary action to implement these recommendations. Attachments: 1. Location Map Federal Lands Pickering Site 2. Location Map Federal Lands Pickering Site - Brougham 3. City Resolution of July 11, 2011 4. Letter from Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities dated September 16, 2011 5. Buildings on Federal Lands Identified for Conservation Programs - December 2011 6-15. Photos of structures identified for municipal conservation programs 16. Proposed new site for Don Beer Memorial Park Report PD 35-11 December 5, 2011 2 rI Subject: Proposed Actions to Preserve Selected Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Page 9 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Isa J es, MCIP, RPP Neil Carroll, rPP Planner II Director, Planning & Development Marg Wouters, MCIP, RPP Evere unts a PD, CMM Manager, Development Review Director, Com unity Services & Urban Design Gillis Paterson, CMA Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer IJ:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer i Recommended for the consideration erin ou i of Pick Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT # PD -fir 1 I 28 MMM5HOP OCR MI M0I0@IE - 460 5 5 695 1C95 5411 I I 4 . I r lip 7 EE ATT M NT Land Use #2 oR g E EME T Subject Property 3 Heritage 1 0 I~ No Heritage Value ® Heritage City of Pickering Planning & Development De artment PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Properties Containing Heritage Structures to be Demolished OWNER: Transport Canada FILE,No: Heritage Demolitions DATE: June 9, 2011 o =PE starp... Ra.a= Na a Peen o+.~ay . "`a SCALE: 1:46,141 e AC and da Reurvad. Not . Ian of Surve . PN-RUR ATTACHMENT # 2 TO I REPORT # PO 3J" l 29 F7 a 68 BROUGHAM 66 64 sHA oA 15601580 64 1 F GFWAV P T. RC HARD 'GHTS R E 0 1 JON STRE T Land Use Subject Property Heritage Q No Heritage Value 407 Heritage City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Location of Structures to be Demolished in Brougham OWNER: Transport Canada FILE No: Heritage Demolitions DATE: June 9, 2011 c terprises Inc. and ila supplierm. All dphtc Reserved. Not a plan of survey. ~~$OUSCALE: 1:8,500 Intl Its Iu lerm. All n hts Reserved. Note an of Sunro . PN-RUR ATTACHMENT # M REPORT # PD_ 35-11 30 Excerpts from Minutes Crq Council Meeting ° Monday July 11, 2011 7:35 PM Council Chambers (VII) New and Unfinished Business 1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 20-11 Transport Canada Response to City Concerns Regarding the Demolition of Heritage Structures on Federal Lands Resolution #138/11 Moved by Councillor Pickles seconded by Councillor Dickerson 1. That Report PD 20-11 of the Director, Planning & Development dated July 11, 2011 entitled "Transport Canada Response to City Concerns Regarding the Demolition of Heritage Structures on Federal Lands", be received; 2. That the Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be requested to: a) allow City staff sufficient time and access to document the listed heritage structures on Transport Canada's updated demolition list; b) allow the City to investigate and potentially implement a limited program to assist with the private acquisition of the heritage structures for relocation to private lands; c) allow the City to retrieve elements of value from any heritage structures not relocated to private lands; and d) retain specialty heritage salvage companies to demolish the buildings to .facilitate' re-use of building materials as much as possible in order to divert materials from landfill sites; 3. That the Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be requested to refrain from demolishing any buildings in Brougham until the details . respecting the future use-of the Pickering Lands Site are determined, and work with City staff to identify suitable tenants for buildings that have potential for rehabilitation; 4.. That the Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be requested to provide the City with sufficient time to investigate the implications to the City of leasing structures of heritage interest in Brougham; 1 ATTACHMENT if 3 TO REPORT PD 35-11 31 Excerpts from City 00 _ Council Meeting Minutes Monday July 11, 2011 7:35 PM Council Chambers 5. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 20-11 and Resolution to the Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Regional Director, Programs and Pickering Lands Branch, Transport Canada, the Region of Durham, the Region of York, the Towns of Markham and Uxbridge, MP Chris Alexander and MPP Joe Dickson and the MPs and MPPs for Markham and Uxbridge; and 6. Further, that the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Carried 2 ATTACHMENT # y TO REPORT # PD 32 Ministre des Transports,b ' Minister of Transport, de I'Infrastructure et des Collectivites~ _ Infrastructure and Communities g pp and Minister of the Economic Development Agency et ministre de I'A ence de develo ement economiclue du Canada pour les regions du Quebec ` of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Ottawa, Canada K 1 A ON5. CLERK'S DIVISION SEP 16 2011 FILE NO.: Ctrv ' Ms. Debbie Shields FORWARD COPY TO: ~tNG MAYOR INFO.TECHNOLOGY SEPfJ a City Clerk COUNCIL LEGALSERVICES The Corporation of the City.of Pickering CAO LIBRARY ~ a BY-LAW MUN. PROP & Pickering Civic Complex COR SERVICES OPERATIONS ENG OFFICE One The Esplanade CULTURE&REC PLANNING&DEV. Pickering ON L IV 6K7 cusr. cARE PRO . a Pol. OFFICEOFSUSTAINABItI V I 1 SERV. Fliit rl✓ HUMA,1!-E Dear Ms. Shields: Thank you for your correspondence of July 13, 2011, in which you provided me with the City of Pickering's Report to Council dated July 11, 2011, regarding a number of recommendations and requests pertaining to local heritage issues on the Pickering Lands Site and Transport Canada's proposed Demolition Program for 2011-12. In July 2011, City of Pickering staff requested access to inspect various properties slated `for demolition. Transport Canada and the City of Pickering have since executed a Licence Agreement allowing the City to access these properties in order to research, document and determine whether there are elements of value that need to be recorded or retrieved for alternate municipal use. Pickering Council has requested that Transport Canada allow the City to investigate and potentially implement a limited program to assist with the private acquisition of heritage structures for relocation to private lands. Transport Canada is willing to -consider this idea provided the City of Pickering lease the structures of interest from Transport Canada, as per the terms established in March 2011, and provided the City carries out negotiations with private interests independently of Transport Canada. The Department will have no involvement with any party other than the City. Furthermore, Transport Canada will assume no liability whatsoever with respect to this endeavour and will require the City to enter into a legal agreement outlining the respective roles and responsibilities of the City and the Department. In response to Council's concerns regarding diverting demolition materials from landfill sites, I should note that SNC Lavalin Operations and Maintenance, acting as the project lead on behalf of Transport Canada, requires the contractor to implement a waste-reduction work plan and subsequent waste audit. This process will identify the types.and quantities of waste that will be produced by the project. The plan will identify how waste will be diverted from landfill by source separation, re-use and/or recycling. It is expected that, as a minimum, materials such as brick, block, concrete, carpet, metal and uncontaminated wood will be diverted. i 03-0398 (1109.02) Canada - ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PD -11 33 The City has requested that Transport Canada refrain from demolishing any vacant structures in Brougham until details of the future use of the Pickering Lands Site are determined. Please be aware that structures identified for demolition on the Pickering Lands Site are vacant, dilapidated and pose a health and safety risk to the public. The future use of the Pickering Lands Site is unrelated to the current demolition program. For this reason, and in the interest of public health and safety, the demolition of identified structures in Brougham will proceed should the City choose not to pursue a lease of the structures. As stated in previous correspondence to Mayor David Ryan, dated March 22,. 2011, vacant structures cannot remain in their present state indefinitely. Vacant structures continue to pose a very real threat to the health and safety of the public, including first responders. Transport Canada will therefore continue with its proposed demolition program. As such, Transport Canada requires the City's decision regarding leasing of vacant structures no later than September 30, 2011, as previously identified by the Department. If an agreement is not reached by this date, Transport Canada will commence demolition shortly thereafter. In the interest of public health and safety, if the City chooses to forego the principles and terms of this proposal, Transport Canada will have no alternative but to proceed with demolition as stated in previous correspondence. I trust that the foregoing has further clarified the Department's position on this issue. Again, thank you for writing. Yours sincerely, : Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P. C.C. The Honourable Bev Oda, P.C., M.P. Minister of International Cooperation Member of Parliament for Durham The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P. Markham-Unionville Mr. Chris Alexander, M.P. Ajax-Pickering Mr. Paul Calandra, M.P. Oak Ridges-Markham 1 0- - 1 0 0 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO 7J 4 REPORT # PD -I - M C C C C O ca cu cu ca O ca N E E E E C a) a) E E E E E a) - - ~Y o m N N N N c6 W N (n a) C C C C C ~ aa)) -C Q O a) a) aa) p U) ~ _C (n co co (n a) a) c6 z a. Lo O O O O 4- Q ~O/ M C) te a)) tea) te a) tea) E CCS a) L U- D_' L N LL LL 0!' D! . d Of > O O O O (D a) O O ~ O 0 EU) O O C) co tr_: ~ ~ ~ O Q y"I O a) 4- .L - .L V- •L •L V O > O U m a) O O O O N w 2 Q N 2 Q = N 2 N 2 N 2 N O ~ C O N ~ O aa)) c E Y E a) a) o CU m o v°, ~c cn :E .r N > o_ U a) U O O a) N O L O a) a) o L o 0 00a)>o L2 o 0) COE^ cu 0 Q E C O L a) L L C L 4- 0 a) 21 a) -6- 0 E C a) > E L •L t L 'C3 N OC O C C •U O a) Q- a) > a) Q E p).O ~ O E O O E C ^ U L c E ~~c-a. 00 a) U U a) v ° a) o O a) c N CO N vi OT1~ o c c = ~ v c6 4- ` 0) 01 - - C co _ a)cacu0.30-0 a E E _0 U L) ° ~M c: a) a) C "O _ ;p 0 CU 4 L "O O - C f6 ' ~p, m - i'= cn 0 a) ca 3 ca o 1 -Fu . f0 (B C O m CU r- cr 6- U- cu :3 c: 0 C a) a) .Q Y O m E a) O O O L O co -2 0 U 0Cm0ca a) 0) 216 16 70 Ea ii o L- = U . - v°)i 6 cu co cu 6 ~ a) ca c a) U . N C M C L L L C O L) 147 M cu cu C y= :3 r O C C O p c: O p p O p~ p N -UU 00 c a) . •a) E N U Q a) cn L L L cn a) C O Ei fn L ^ L O -a a) a) E U U U U U p U O Y c C 2 7 O a Q a c o O N vi N N vi vi O vi v' c (D a) CD cu > ca C= C oo c ca m m m ca c6 3 O a a) ca o'a) o f ca o UU U U U oU T ~a) ~ - Ccn ~ ~ 00 0 0 0 oa)~0oe U) 0-0 v~ ¢ a)- . p c=a ~oE(D>,.cvoim T- -E:3 c~~ c}`a cua)mc'E~ J o O` cn x C~ ~-v o c) E~ C c C C c X C~ U Ld L Z CDcB~~nwocnEw 0 00 O O Oa)OU~o- d m _ m 00 m . CD It U- CU CU 4- m cu c U) W> o o c0 o 0 o N N Q N 'o Cc Y W a) a) c C U Y~~ C C a) 0, N J U O U co O a) y V U O '.0 .nO a) =rm(D co w in U) O 0m a) N.-a)._ Nc) U) s -a - o co~o~ 'aMLo U) ow ~Z 0O Lf) -0 a) cu Lo m (o p c: C) c: Lo c: m Q mMw MV MD!~~ •3 Oc~~ O~ O!- OO N 3 m U w 0 Un 0 Un u') nnnc, aura,=.TO REPORT O PO.M-71 35 ''ci+r t , . I, _ III + ~ `YYr~'' r+ ' t 1r s . ry 1 was f 3 unu 4 ~1UM~ / ■Ua i F 1 ti w "Una-, `yam ~ f .i 3570 Brock Road .j (Craftsman Cottage) ATTACHMENT 0 Z .TO REPURT S PD 35 _ I I , y 36 Nil is F'i lf' .t..l,t .J, , r; f 1,s f Y.)< t~ , c,~,r ';~y. S 'C~ ~ ~f sr'~-fir. ~ ~ 1k~ 4'. ---ta7`T~~~ •.if f'r..r „ ;i 4" e t ~ 9 i-'r t ~.-'~I , r p~ s . ` ~ ~ T' • w lr ~ . J,4~ i'j~ r* C 3L .74~ S'It ~ .r ~y Ali f' y f 1 T. `-`(DIY I y 1• ~ N~ ~ J i ~ ~ + ~ ~ r t is .r . ~ s r ? ,.fir ty v, t t'K N"', fl t ti3=Yc, rte` _ - %'"yNr li..!'. ~,''~'~'+~.7 .~"'``S✓"~ . ,.c46?'~ `r~ jr',~~'.-. ~ ♦ d'4 ~ ,~•r A ~t ti ~ r, x. ~ . rp ) kf: ~ c~~ r. ~V `fF=~~`1~.•'74~~~~- z .1 ~r,~:,.'l ,t , ILaT r,lA r ` f ~ 3970 Brock Road (Ever Green Villa) ATTACHMENT TO REPORT # PD- } 37 fF~'~] 1~j►~~p_ ' ',~I.'- , Day 7- - - ~..~v.._.. ~ _ 3Aj i pp it l! 4 t s I ate, IS =r a `7 ~ w l r~ ri: I r i i f, NO i r T e', %f ~ ~ y^1 f ,f 'Xt~y'L k 3 p .f rt r'^~ A MV?f FYc s 7-~F < ~.n ~AK 3656 Brougham Road y ATTACHMENT i TO REPURT # PD`-~ 38 t. INA S ~.l 1.♦~ ~y .l I S f 1,-] yf' (t ~,j~ 'Z . a 5 ti? S}T ~ . l t yy i n t.* JCS ' I 1hE 1 - l ^I'-• 14, x7 5460 Sideline 30 . r - t - rr- ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT I PD 35-11 f 39 r~y w y 1h. .i "s .l 1-.-. _I: •I('" ~i! _~_~i +'~l.,R.r ~Y i rs ~~~af~nT - - 1'+E 4 -Y• 7,'' C 4r`-0t + •,:41:vvt,~t, - k;vC' y: 4f ~i - `11 71, 4-t~>;,~ ~..y tt; ~.~,`:7~'i .q~,S't~ ~ ~~-t~ ~f~`~, w:r xrI•'~ - - 1 t :.1 'yam e -1 li s r J t~ J_ r1.~ a Z ~~9 `~fa. ~•i'i Y! r .~4 ~ t b,` ~~~sYk^ .Y'z w ~1 t~yt 7'L - 't ~.-~z .7 ~ + •^"1 A + t . L i { 3 Y~ ~ ~ `t 4"tl,r "J~...-.. rT~' ~~a (I ~ 'f r-a• 21, 3 j f _ 1. ~a \ ~ S `4~`L e l T V tJ lk, --.j tr~ .t• ' *•7! ~ t l MAY` _ ° ~ _ f t fa.. , qi!h w y~ 1 t JI ' a , ~~-r 4355 Brock Road t, rt 1 r~~ J Saw ATTACHMENT #_L-TO REPORT # PD-35-it 40 _ '-'lam. y, { !1' _ . 3t ,t~,.~. V~, £ -'~l`xy r t? rY ;i- H',Ead ► . i s► 1r Z r ~ Jai ~"~r,""[~c~,^i „yam. _ ~ .i.F~}-+~~`~ ~ ~ _ ,}3' I 0 j. t T-•_. yties. • eMR r~.-' y t .f y. u + 1 o j ♦y7~ t lr f' jF '6 i ~ ~ ~ r-r~.--~~--~,,.-_I ,....f 14~,r 7~~'~ t,",, ~y. i h' 1 Z~S-r._~ ~i~ 'f ~ ~.i / -+~y~.iMS Y - I~r.1t . r x.1+1 rS ♦ 4,1~~ _ F4 r{ E , ~1`~ _ ~i ~ - ~ 1 , '~f. > ryl~. 7r~~~~ l4 ,~.r1' tiSY'~' •I'~yu}xvf+•° X ~C r .•f~ 4 ~ ' x - Fl 40 Seventh Concession Road s' ATTACHMENT # 12- TO REPORT # PD_35~ Il 41 r Y.: Q .err a + x y r • a" w ♦ y + .ter + °<y ~Y ~ 1+~ I III , : . yea R 840 Eighth Concession Road ATTACHMENT TO 4 2 REPORT 0 PI) 3 I I ,1 ~a~~~ y~rr i r 'Y ti met '~S~~. F „r,... 'r I~ , lr..,~`~ ' v'~ r ' I ! !~I•)~ ~ J~# ~`~r - 'L?`~~'r>fi~'a q~ ~ .'l I ~ I I tl'• y.: { a4 ~ of -r r ~Y 11 r 4 b t, ~-~~w!fr C ~f I I _ I1 7 . 9~ •L ♦ Y 45 CCU' T~~ r ~ Y 1 , _ i r I ! , r ~ t . r t~ I f ~ ' r - r . ~t,i, I t i 3 f • t 9 j-1 I P' !if ~f II ~t s I - ~ a:t' ' n x 1c ~ d 575 Ninth Concession Road 5 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPURT # PD 3`~" I I ti 43 ray il+r ,b rS, "ti 6 'J E CRT~`• .1 y• _ y ~•~4•T ~y~'.. .~lr♦•Y~`(•~~1e ~ ~ iyt_h .lQ - 'b. - ayMh _ ~ Y'r.. - ~^.l~fbj,~C! sz 'k f i~~ M~ 7,7 •,y. l O K3" .r, .~~1.t ~`•l •~~4L ir[ K 7'.*~14 ~i. 'Ti, Ix ( t ~ l A~ ~^y si3 ! ' zS s ~6 "'M,7i~ b r I~ h 11► k~ ~ . ~ Y, ~ 5 ~ i} T r F ~R ~ Y1 . -b ~X~~s' ' Y• ~ 70t.. .f i ~+'`y r 1~~ l ~Y ~ `j(~" 1. e1~FI~~ ~ .gyp ~~.H~' `ti...->* 41. Aj r , 1A, 11 r 'y a a 1 ~ati, x 5050 Sideline 24 ATTACHMENT #TO f REPORT # PD 5- Olt 4 4 ow- 5 r t< /J•~ ~ _ 1 ~~,N ~ y y w .Y. 1 J i . f s a' f_ A 7 Sst Any ~T,. r t 5 y t'~. t , CT r 'r a. /IIFwr ~ ;ti'_+ r; t' ,s rr . oooo ~i 7 5245 Sideline 28 ATTACHMENT#-Z~L-M REPORT# PD.-'-I. - - i Revised 45 FF ; 71 L 1 1.3 ha 1 i TISHA CAD 1 1 ~u~u C HIGHWAY HIGHWAY 7 ,O i 1 ~ z L w a 1 SPRING ST. a BROUGHAM w 1 ARD HEIGHTS z RI E C i..~. ° JOH 2.4 ha STRE T u Legend HIGHWAY 407 Don Beer Memorial Park ® Existing Location ° Prop osed Location o City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Don Beer Memorial Park Relocation OWNER: Transport Canada FILE No: Heritage Demolitions DATE: Dec. 5, 2011 Data Sources- c Tenet Erderprlees Ino. and its MgVie AA rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. SCALE: 1:5781 C 2006 MPAC and ft n:. M ri ht. Reserved. Not • en of Surve . f 0~ PN-RUR 4 6:iW 4 Report To Planning & Development Committee . PICKERIlyG Report Number: PD 37-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Thomas Melymuk Director, Office of Sustainability Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Consultant Selection for the Downtown Intensification Program and for the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Recommendation: 1. That the proposal submitted by Urban Strategies Inc., in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates, dated November 9, 2011, to undertake studies. related to the land use framework component of the Downtown Intensification Program in, the amount of $122,898 excluding HST be accepted, utilizing the City funding identified for this project in the approved 2011 Current Budget for the Planning & Development Department, Professional & Consulting, Growth Centre (Account 2611.2392.0000);. 2. That the proposal submitted by AECOM, dated November 10, 2011, to prepare a Request For Proposal and provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study in the amount of $91,800 including HST be accepted as provided for in the approved 2011 Current Budget for the Community Services Department, Professional & Consulting, Downtown Stormwater (Account 2290.2392.0000); 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto; and 4. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report Number PD 37-11 to the Region of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their information. Report Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program 47 Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 2 Executive Summary: These projects are being discussed in the report as they both deal with future downtown development Downtown Intensification Program In April 2011, Council authorized staff to proceed with a Work Plan for the Downtown Intensification Program. A component of the Work Plan was to ensure that an appropriate land use framework is in place that would allow for intensification within an expanded Downtown, including lands north and south of Highway 401. Council also authorized staff to prepare terms of reference for required studies, issue request for proposals, and report back to Council regarding the hiring of consultants. The Work Plan identified transportation, stormwater management and servicing as required supporting studies. In a Memorandum to Mayor Ryan and Members of Council from the Chief Administrative Officer, dated October 12, 2011, staff proposed that a consultant be retained to undertake the planning and transportation components of the Work Plan solely with City funding. Subsequently, a Request for Proposals, RFP-6-2011 was issued on October 24, 2011 calling for proposals by consultants to undertake the Downtown Intensification Program as part of the City's Official Plan Review. The closing date was November 9, 2011. The City received six proposals from the following multi-disciplinary consulting teams: Brook Mcllroy Inc et al; Gladki Planning Associates Ltd. et al; IBI Group; The Planning Partnership et al; planningAlliance + regionalArchitects et al; and Urban Strategies Inc. et al. The Evaluation Committee reviewed all proposals against criteria outlined in the RFP. Following an interview, the Evaluation Committee found that the submission by Urban Strategies Inc. et al best met the City's needs in completing the deliverables, considering their team's strengths relative to the required work, and value for the money. Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study At the same time, Engineering Services staff requested a proposal and work plan from AECOM to undertake the preparation of the RFP and to provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. On November 10, 2011, a proposal was received from AECOM that detailed how the consulting services assignment would be undertaken for a total cost of $91,800, including HST and disbursements. AECOM was selected to prepare the RFP and manage the future Study as the project manager undertook a very similar role for the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP), and is therefore familiar with the study area and the requirements of the Study itself. It is staff's position that hiring AECOM is the best use of financial and staff resources in order to ensure that this complex Study is initiated and completed in a timely manner. Proceeding in this manner, subject to Council approval, is provided for within Section 10.05 of the City's Purchasing Policy, which states that the initiating Director may acquire consulting services without obtaining competitive written proposals if a particular consultant is desired. R rrt Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 3 It is recommended that Urban Strategies Inc. in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates be retained to undertake the Downtown Intensification Program for $122,898; and that AECOM be retained to undertake the preparation of the RFP and provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study for $91,800. Financial Implications: In regards to Recommendation #1, the 2011 Current Budget, as approved by Council, provides for an upset limit of $250,000 in the Planning & Development Department, Professional & Consulting, Growth Centre (Account 2611.2392.0000) for studies related to the land use framework component of the Work Plan. The budget provides for 50% of the $250,000 to be funded by the City and 50% to be funded by benefitting landowners. Staff is now proposing ,to move forward with the project without the funding assistance of the landowners, and solely with the $125,000 City funding portion. Staff will be recommending appropriate funds in the 2012 Current Budget to implement a zoning strategy for the downtown. In regards to Recommendation #2, the 2011, Current Budget, as approved by Council, provides for an upset limit of $150,000 in the Professional & Consulting, Downtown Stormwater (Account 2290.2392.0000) for the hiring of consulting services to prepare a RFP and provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. There are adequate funds to complete the consulting services assignment based.on AECOM's letter proposal, totaling $91,800, including HST and disbursements. Staff will be recommending appropriate funds in the 2012 Current Budget for the successful Consultant to undertake the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. Sustainability Implications: There are no specific sustainability implications in this report. However, the results of both studies will advance the transformation of the downtown into a sustainable, vibrant and transit supportive urban centre as envisioned in the Official Plan and the Provincial Growth Plan. 1.0 Background: 1.1 Council authorized staff to proceed with the Work Plan for the Downtown Intensification Program On April 18, 2011, Council received Report Number PD 12-11 and authorized staff to proceed with the Work Plan for the Downtown Intensification Program and to issue a request for proposals for required studies in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy and Procedures. Report Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 40, Downtown Intensification Program Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 4 In a Memorandum to Mayor Ryan and. Members of Council from the Chief Administrative Officer, dated October 12, 2011, staff proposed that a consultant be retained to undertake the planning and transportation components of the Work Plan without the funding assistance of the landowners, and solely with City funding. A copy of the Memorandum is attached (see Attachment #1). The results of the consultant's work will be: • a built form vision for downtown Pickering • supporting official plan policies • updated urban design development guidelines • a transportation analysis, and • a zoning strategy to implement the vision 1.2 Council endorsed the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan On April 19, 2010, Council endorsed the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP) and authorized City staff to implement the recommendations of the Master Plan subject to budget and further Council approval for individual projects (Resolution #72/10). The overall goal of the FBSWMMP is as follows: "To address long-standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the quantity and quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself." The recommended FBSWMMP consists of a suite of projects, programs and policies designed to address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in Frenchman's Bay and its' tributary watersheds. The Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study was an identified project that was listed in Phase 1 (5 Year Plan) of the FBSWMMP. The Master Plan addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. More detailed investigations are required at the project-specific level in order to fulfill the Municipal Class EA documentation requirements for the specific Schedule B and C projects identified within the Master Plan. The Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study is anticipated to be a Schedule C project as it consists of large scale diversion of stormwater flows from Krosno Creek to Pine Creek for the purposes of flood control and to allow further intensification within an expanded Downtown. As such, Schedule C projects need to fulfill Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA prior to filing an Environmental Study Report (ESR). Repo rte Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 5 2.0 Discussion: Downtown Intensification Program 2.1 A Request For Proposal (RFP) for Consulting Services for the Downtown Intensification Program was issued On October 24, 2011, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for Consulting Services for the Downtown Intensification Program at an upset limit of $125,000 excluding HST. The scope of work is provided in Attachment #2. The RFP was an open proposal call. Ten qualified consulting firms were forwarded a copy of the RFP based on their experience with similar projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). In addition, a notice of the RFP was placed on the City's website and in the GTA planning newsletter Novae Res Urbis. The RFP closed on November 9, 2011. Six proposals were received from the following multi-disciplinary consulting teams: • Brook Mcllroy Inc. in association with Macaulay Shiomi Howson and AECOM • Gladki Planning Associates Ltd. in association with du Toit Allsopp Hillier and N, Barry Lyon Consultants • IBI Group • Planning Partnership in association with Arup • plan ningAlliance + regionalArchitects in association with The Sernas Group Inc., Poulos and Chung and Sorenson Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. • Urban Strategies Inc. in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates 2.2 Urban Strategies Inc. in association with HDR/iTrans and Halsall Associates is recommended for selection On November 14, 2011, the Evaluation Committee consisting of the Director, Office of Sustainability; the Manager, Policy, Planning & Development, the Principal Planner - Policy, Planning & Development; and the Buyer, Supply & Services reviewed the proposals against the criteria, as outlined in the RFP. Although the Evaluation Committee was impressed by the quality of all six proposals received, the proposals of Brook Mcllroy Inc. in association with Macaulay Shiomi Howson and AECOM, and Urban Strategies Inc. in association with HDR/iTrans and Halsall Associates were the two highest scoring proposals. The Evaluation Committee held interviews with representatives from Brook Mcllroy Inc. on November 17 and Urban Strategies Inc. on November 21, 2011 and heard responses to a set of questions that was circulated to the two firms beforehand. Following the interview, the consultant that received the highest score was Urban Strategies Inc., in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates, and is recommended that Council accept this proposal. Report Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program 51 Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 6 Urban Strategies Inc. is the lead firm with significant experience in sustainable city building and has put together a team that includes strong skills in official plan review, urban design, graphic presentations, public consultation and sustainability. Also, Urban Strategies Inc. was responsible for delineating the urban growth centre boundaries for the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the preparation of the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines. Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study 2.3 Funds for consulting services to prepare the RFP and provide project management for the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study were approved in the 2011 budget In the 2011 Current Budget, funds were approved to retain consulting services to prepare the RFP and provide project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study, as there are limited staff resources to complete the work due to other high priority city projects and commitments (i.e. Duffin Heights, Seaton and other FBSWMMP projects). City staff requested a proposal and work plan from AECOM to undertake the work. In accordance with Section 10.05 of the City's Purchasing Policy, the initiating Director may acquire consulting services without obtaining competitive written proposals if a particular consultant is desired, subject to Council approval. AECOM is appropriate to prepare the RFP and manage the future Study as the project manager undertook a very similar role for the FBSWMMP, and is therefore familiar with the study area and the Study itself. It is staffs position that hiring AECOM is the best use of financial and staff resources in order to ensure that this complex Study is initiated and completed in a timely manner. 2.4 Proposal and Work Plan from AECOM A proposal was received from AECOM dated November 10, 2011 (see Attachment #3) that detailed how the consulting services assignment would be undertaken at a cost of $91,800, including HST and disbursements. The Work Plan was provided in two distinct phases briefly outlined below: Phase 1: Project Initiation This phase will consist of reviewing all relevant background material and information; meeting with the City to establish key objectives of the Study; preparing an Expression of Interest (EOI) and RFP documents including full Terms of Reference, reviewing and shortlisting EOI submissions; reviewing and evaluating submitted proposals; and preparing a brief report documenting the rationale used in the selection of the preferred consultant. 52 Report Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 7 Phase 2: Project Management Phase 2 will consist of the overall project management of the Study, from start-up to completion. Some key tasks of this phase are: preparing, organizing and facilitating all project meetings, Public Consultation Forums and coordination meetings with City's consultant for the Downtown Intensification Program • monitoring the Study's progress and expenditures • undertaking technical reviews of submissions from the consultant during the course of the Study, including the draft and final submissions of the ESR; and • coordinating all other reviews including outside agencies (i.e. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of .the Environment etc.) 3.0 Recommendations: j It is recommended that the team led by Urban Strategies Inc., in association with HDR/iTrans, and Halsall Associates be retained to undertake the Downtown Intensification Program and that AECOM be retained to undertake the preparation of the RFP and project management of the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. It is further recommended that staff be authorized to enter into any agreements as required to give effect hereto. Attachments: 1. Memorandum from the Chief Administrative Officer, dated October 12, 2011 2. Excerpt of Appendix E from RFP-6-2011 3. Letter of Work Plan from AECOM regarding the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study, dated November 10, 2011 Report Number PD 37-11 December 5, 2011 Downtown Intensification Program 53 Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Page 8. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: RPP Grant McGregor, MCIP, PP Neil Carrol I P /I Principal Planner - Policy Director, Planning & Development 67 Catherine Rose, MCl , RPP Tom Melymuk MCI , RPP Manager, Policy Director, Offic of Sustainabil' Marilee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.),P. Eng Everett Buntsma, NPD, CMM Senior, Water Resources & Director, Community Services Environmental Engineer rd Holb n, P. Eng Gillis Paterson, CMA on Head, Engineering Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer 2:MG:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering C' Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer I ATTACHMENT #__L_TO 54 REPORT # PD-3-7-11 PICKERING Memo 1811 BICENTENNIAL 2011 To: Mayor Ryan and October 12, 2011 Members of Council From: Tony Prevedel Chief Administrative Officer Copy: Directors Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Manager, Policy Principal Planner - Policy Subject: Consulting Assistance Required for the Downtown Intensification Program - File: D-1210 To assist in implementing the Council-approved work plan for the Downtown Intensification Program, staff proposes to issue a request for proposals for planning and transportation consulting services. Staff will report on the recommended consultant at the December Planning & Development Committee meeting. In April 2011, Council considered Report PD 12-11 on the Work Plan for the Downtown Intensification Program. The first component of the Work Plan is ensuring an appropriate land use framework is in place that will allow for intensification within an expanded Downtown, including lands north and south of Highway 401. Council authorized staff to: proceed with the Work Plan (see copy of attached); and • prepare terms of reference for required studies, issue request for proposals, and report back to Council regarding the hiring of consultants Originally, staff anticipated using consultants primarily for technical expertise that staff do-not have. However, due to other workload priorities, staff have been unable to advance the Program and propose that a consultant be retained to undertake the planning and transportation work of the first component. A request for proposals is being prepared for release next week. The result of the' consultant's work will be: • a built-form vision for Downtown Pickering • supporting official plan policies • updated urban design development guidelines • a transportation analysis, and • a zoning strategy The study is expected to take up to 8 months; at an upset limit of $125,000, excluding the HST. Council approved $1125,000 for this project in the 2011 Budget, although a matching contribution of $125,000 from landowners was contemplated at that time. Staff are now proposing that the project be undertaken solely with City funding. i ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PD 37-11 .55 If you require further information, or have any concerns or comments, please contact Catherine Rose at extension 2038. Tony Prevedel MW\CR1jf J:\Documents\DmelopmerMD-2000\D-2000.014\MW -CAOMemoReRFP110ct11.doc Attachment October 12, 2011 Page 2 Consulting Assistance Required for the Downtown Intensification Program ATTACHMENT # TO 5 6 REPORT # PD--7-7-11 c6 04 (V a E E a) H A` a) 0 O a O ? ON a) a) (D (A Z O N Q I I I -0 0 C14 U U QN QN Q ON X C N Q co (n Q C C L U) O O (n Y) d D U U O 0 -0 . C :3 U p N ca 0 a) ~ (6 N m ca (n U) (n N fn fn C ~ v c o (n ca • F c? N cu c cu = p, (U c (n a) .Q (1) (U cli CL 0 =3 -c 5 1-- o (n C N v7 O a_0Cn a) -p = Z 3 y o cvio~v (U +0+ L a) cu Zo v N (n OL a) CU E 3 0 v(n C v, 0meN_0 v 3 c o a o~ rj a) o E °QE E mc:aoiEc~ooa i O S L ~-0 d Q U (n O E U O Q U U N L L N 4- _ p D O C O 0 C C c cn c cu c (n C) (V cu O O:3 CL) N-t -O c (0 O 0 J C O a -0 C c .-r--. c ILE5 0 C U C O_ a) U) "O V N 0 C.4 c: (1) 0 CL > E.F D CL cu CL) a) 0 U) 0 -0 O C C O (n O C O O 0) 0 :3 C co ~Q O C C` O ~C - (Q 4) 0) E a) N a O a) ` N C. a) c N L L U L- CL E a O cu .U 32 + C ca 4-- 0) (D i O X N 1Z co O O M N 0 (n (UN C ns o `u a) C- C_ N cu c O Q Co co c O` a) c c0 U O cu - 3:c= O Fn u N w E ~ .U E .O c? o N c0 N r CL -p E 0> C 3. U C a) W -O U- U~ -0 (0 V N U -p c CL q-- O ao o o00 0~c oMo a) o~c c c~= N a Lv IZ-a au o U O (n E in O aaa_ i- o (n arn(n c C7 C O c N c = c ~ co co cu -0 co LU -he co c: U) c a) d O- a) ca c C 75 O > U O a) d O c"Jo (n ac) U c0 ~ O = Y iv ~ 0 C (n U Q 3 vi ~ a) 0 C U O c3) E O U L 0 V ,c 0 (D O a) c c - C U o as f (L J a°N ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PD 3 7- 11 57 rn C ~ c (D cu a) cu a) -c CUQ M-0 ~vE _ E ~-aE E o m O o cLa o cu o m o rn 'p rn rn 0)5 rn 0 cr 0- 0- ~-O°'a p a00 ca)" c°L ~a O ~a O ~a c. m •c • > m cn W fn L fn - cn 7 U) L) L c c i o f11 O O (L) U a) L N V N V C U -a (D U' v7 (n o fn U) N (n N N C • i • • • O O O U to -a 4.0 C N U N V- N N a) O > ca ca ( -a CL ca c U) cu (3) ca O O C m a) Q (n a) O I L- L •a (D Eocaov a) cac~ Uin (6 C > 2 0) c :3 E a) cu N ° O a 'r Q 5a- Q. o o tn a) 0- oa -c a) a a) L2 0 o"cnc~ ° vrnc c • y • • • (D > C O 0) c 3 c N C 4- ° O c o o a) a) c 3 D)o -0 tq c c ~ c~ R ° o° -le o 0 cn c cv., ~ C O C Min o c d Q- 0 3 CL -°o N> aci C 0° m a cu 0 in o ~ c » - -a (D ca a) N -a a) L) U m o 0) c cm E o O in a) cn C cn cnU°`,.°a.° cEE.0° a)--oQ C p ~ :3 3 a) oc ~ a) T) o cY N O ~ :3 ° m a`) Co 0 H a°) iCQV°,_ aa)icov"i~a'i °~>~~c~ ~'~a a ca v o 2 m CL o a E.E oa a)~ a i~ v c a c Y a) L L O C a) co C cn O c a) C a) N ca m m F- m U O C y ca CL c: (A ca fA > a) O r. y c (n A:i 0) U) O :uE O cc 3:a)c ca) _ °i~ vc•- oE a) ~ v c: > c: E cu U 0 rn 0 0 v° cu 0 0 ~d (U U ATTACHMENT # 2 TO 1`~I 58 REPGRT # PD Excerpt from Appendix E - RFP Particulars of RFP-6-2011 A. Scope of Work and Deliverables The Consultant shall undertake the scope of work and submit the associated deliverables: 1. Develop a Built Form Vision for Downtown Pickering • Within the Pickering Urban Growth Centre/Downtown limits, consider past and recent visioning work undertaken for lands both north and south of Highway 401, as well as work being undertaken by the City through the ongoing Official Plan Review. • Review relevant completed and ongoing studies (e.g., Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan, the Region of Durham's Highway 2 Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment (EA); the Province's Strategic Rehabilitation of Highway 401 from Warden Avenue to Brock Road, and Metrolinx's Mobility Hub guidelines) to identify matters that may affect the City's downtown vision. • Prepare a built form vision for the Downtown at a sufficient level of detail to identify recommended land use, density and built form for the Downtown as a whole, and on a property-by-property. basis, and taking into consideration the objectives of the City's Sustainable Place-Making framework. • Ensure the built form vision is aligned with the Urban Growth Centre requirements of the Provincial Growth Plan and the Region of Durham's Growth Plan conformity amendment (ROPA 128); as well as Metrolinx's Mobility Hub guidelines. • Identify the likely phasing of development (pre and post 2031), consistent with the Growth Plan and ROPA 128. Deliverable: A Downtown Pickering Built Form Vision, including: • written description of the recommended vision for Downtown Pickering • visual representations of the vision (for report and presentation purposes) • the rationale underlying the vision (including summary of work undertaken) 2. Undertake Transportation Analysis • To support the vision, identify transportation network impacts, opportunities and constraints to 2031, and identify innovative solutions to address impacts and constraints through the review of completed transportation studies or new analysis, if required. Deliverable: A Transportation Brief summarizing the transportation analysis supporting the vision., and recommending solutions to identified impacts and constraints. ATTACHMENT # 2 TO REPORT # PQ 37 11 59 3. Draft Official Plan Policies • Prepare a draft amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to amend general and neighbourhood policies and schedules reflecting the updated vision for the Downtown and the Urban Growth Centre requirements of the Provincial Growth Plan (e.g., amending the boundaries, amending height and density policies, etc). Deliverable: A Report containing a Draft Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan, including general policies (Parts One and Two of the Plan), neighbourhood policies (Part Three of the Plan), and Schedules and Maps, to implement the vision. 4. Update Development Guidelines • Update existing Development Guidelines for the Downtown, to illustrate the vision and provide guidance for evaluating development applications. Deliverable: Sustainable Place-Making Development Guidelines, including consideration of the public realm and built form, and green/sustainable infrastructure and buildings. 5. Prepare a Zoning Strategy • Prepare a zoning strategy to implement the vision as outlined in the updated Official Plan policies and Development Guidelines; the zoning strategy will provide options and recommendations on minimum and mandatory standards, types of appropriate zoning by-laws (e.g., form-based vs traditional) and timing of zoning (e.g., pre-zoning or on a site-specific basis). Deliverable: A report outlining a proposed Zoning Strategy. 6. Prepare and Implement an Innovative Community/Stakeholder Engagement, Program • Prepare and implement an innovative program to engage a broad range of stakeholders including: the public; area residents; regional and municipal departments; agencies; utilities; organizations; and major developers/landowners who may be instrumental in `building' the Downtown. • Formally consult with the public, the area.landowners and Council at appropriate intervals during the study; and also allow for informal feedback from the community and stakeholders throughout the process. Deliverable: A report providing a summary of community/stakeholder engagement. ATTACHMENT # 3 TO 6 0 REPORT # PD 37-11 AEcom AECOM 300 - 300 Town Centre Boulevard 905 477 8400 tel Markham, ON, Canada UR 5Z6 905 477 1456 fax www.aecom.com November 10, 2011 Ms. Marilee Gadzovski, P.Eng. Senior Water Resources & Environmental Engineer City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7 Dear Ms: Gadzovski: Project No: 04001336.4050.46234.003 Regarding: Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study Further to our recent discussions, we are pleased to confirm our understanding of the terms of our engagement to provide professional consulting services in regard to the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study. The Study will complete Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA required for the stormwater diversion that forms part of the approved Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan, which fulfilled Phases 1 and 2. AECOM's role will be to assist the City of Pickering (the City) with the overall management of the Project, from start-up to completion. As discussed, the assignment will be carried out in two Phase consisting of the following specific tasks. go -ROUMUMOM i) Collect and review all relevant background information relating to the downtown area of the City. ii) Meet with City staff to discuss the project background, review previous studies and undertakings, identify sensitivities, establish the key objectives, and formulated an overall approach for the consultant selection process. iii) With input from the City, prepare a Request for Expression of Interest, which will include evaluation criteria for shortlisting the submissions. iv) Prepare the Request for Proposal document that will include the Terms of Reference for the Project, the scheduling and contractual requirements, and the submission evaluation criteria. v) Assist the City with the evaluation and shortlisting of the Expression of Interest submissions, the evaluation of Proposals, and the selection of the preferred consultant to undertake the Project. vi) Prepare a brief report outlining the process that was followed to select the preferred consultant together with the underlying rationale in support of the decision. i) Organize and participate in the start-up meeting with the successful Consultant, and assist with the preparation of the Consultant agreement. ii) Organize and facilitate Project meetings with the Technical and Steering Committees, which will include preparation of agendas, minutes, and follow-up on action items. © 2011 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This proposal Is supplied by AECOM Canada Ltd. ("AECOM") and Is confidential. This proposal cannot be provided to anyone other than the addressee (Including its employees) without AECOM's written consent. 04001336.4050.46234.003_Nov10-11_L_Letter City Of Pickering -Work Pian.D= ATTACHMENT # 3 TO 6 1 REPORT # PD .37-11 COM Page 2 A November 10, 2011 I iii) On behalf of the City lead the organization and co-ordination of Public Consultation Forum(s) needed to meet the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process. The associated activities will include: the review of the consultant's presentations, displays, and handout material; leading the presentations, and facilitating the interaction with attendees. iv) Attend progress meetings with the consultant in conjunction with City staff, which will involve the review of submitted material, the review of the meeting minutes prepared by the consultant, ensuring that submitted comments are fully addressed, and following-up on action items. v) Assist with the organization, and participate in required co-ordination meetings with the City's consultant team that will be conducting the Downtown Pickering Intensification Program, which is aimed at the development of a built-form vision for the Downtown area. vi) Monitor the project progress and expenditures relative to the schedule and budget, and apprise the City of any deviations. vii) Undertake technical reviews of submissions from the consultant during the course of the Project, and of the draft and final submissions of the Project documentation, and co-ordinate review efforts with City staff, and other agencies, as required. The above work plan will be undertaken principally by Mr. Joseph Puopolo, P. Eng., PMP, with some assistance from technical and other support staff on an as-required basis. As we discussed, budgetary requirements for the above work will depend on the level of involvement requested by the City on each of the individual tasks. And, we are prepared to adjust our level of effort as the projects proceeds to accommodate the City's needs. For project planning purposes, we anticipate the budgetary requirements to be as follows Fees Disbursements HST (13%) Total Phase 1 $36,900 $1,200 $4,950 $43,000 Phase 2 $42,000 $1,200 $5,616 $48,800 We would like to thank the City of for selecting AECOM to assist on this most interesting assignment, which will have significant implications for re-development in the City's Downtown area. We look forward to working with you to bring the project to a successful conclusion. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Joe Puopolo, P.Eng., PMP Senior Environmental Engineer Joe.Puopolo@aecom.com JP:mm cc Mr. Richard Holborn, P. Eng. - City of Pickering © 2011 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This proposal is supplied by AECOM Canada Ltd. ("AECOM") and Is confidential. This proposal cannot be provided to anyone other than the addressee (Including Its employees) without AECOM's written consent. 04001336.4050.46234.003_NOV10-11_L_Letter City Of Pickering - Work Plan.Doac i l Cif Report To Executive Committee 6 2 ICKERING Report Number: CS 43-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 43-11 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines be received; 2. That Council endorse the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines; and 3. That Staff be authorized to release these guidelines to the holders of the City's Development Control Design Standards as an addendum, and to provide the electronic version to the public upon request. Executive Summary: The Stormwater Management Design Guidelines were prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc. for the City and they represent the best-practices and standards for the design of stormwater management facilities and storm drainage infrastructure, and are consistent with guidelines currently being used in other Greater Toronto Area municipalities. The guidelines will ensure that newly constructed stormwater management facilities and storm drainage systems in Pickering are robustly designed using standardized procedures, are operating in conformity with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval prior to assumption, and that the City's future operation and maintenance costs are minimized. Due to the length of the document it was not included as an attachment. However, the Table of Contents is attached for reference. Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications to the City on endorsing the Stormwater Management Guidelines, however through the adherence to these guidelines in the designs of stormwater management facilities and storm drainage infrastructure, reductions to future operations and maintenance costs will be achieved. b ~ort CS 43-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stormwater Management Design Guidelines . Page 2 The guidelines will be incorporated into the City's Development Control Design Standards. The City currently charges a fee of $50 for a hard copy of the Development Control Design Standards. Those that have already purchased a copy of the Development Control Design Standards will be sent a complimentary copy of the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines. Sustainability Implications: The Stormwater Management Design Guidelines are consistent with the City's five sustainability objectives of a healthy environment, society, economy, responsible development and responsible consumption. The guidelines represent a more sustainable approach to stormwater management through implementing a treatment train approach and maintaining the water balance. Furthermore, the guidelines are in conformity with the City's corporate priorities, particularly with respect to financial management, corporate best practices and sustainable placemaking. Background: The field of stormwater management has evolved rapidly since it was introduced in Ontario in the 1980s and it is now a regulatory requirement of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA). Due to constraints on Pickering's urban area, the City has not experienced the rapid growth and the accompanying stormwater management infrastructure that surrounding Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities have experienced over the last two decades. As a result, the City does not currently have Stormwater Management Guidelines and relies upon guidance from the MOE, TRCA and MNR. In the coming years, the City of Pickering will be undergoing a period of rapid urban expansion through the development of the Seaton lands. Due to the presence of Red Side Dace, which is protected by the Endangered Species Act (MNR, 2007), the stormwater management requirements in Seaton will be some of the most stringent in Ontario. The regulatory requirement for stormwater management will result in a large amount of new stormwater management infrastructure, including potentially over 60 stormwater management facilities as well as numerous Low Impact Development facilities as Seaton develops. These facilities will be operated and maintained by the City following assumption of services. The majority of municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) have developed stormwater management guidelines to ensure that stormwater management infrastructure is designed to their specifications. The purpose of this project was to review the best-practices from GTA municipalities and produce stormwater management guidelines for the City of Pickering, which reflect current industry standards and minimize the City's future operations and maintenance costs. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 43-11 December 5, 2011 64 Subject: Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Page 3 Regulatory Compliance: The MOE requires that a Certificate of Approval (C of A) is obtained for all new stormwater management facilities. The C of A is a legal document specifying the expected performance of the stormwater management facility. Through the assumption of services, the City assumes the legal responsibility for ensuring that the stormwater management facility is, and continues to be, in compliance with the C of A. The need for monitoring to prove that a stormwater management facility is functioning in accordance with the C of A has been a requirement of other GTA municipalities, most notably the Town of Richmond Hill, since the early 2000s. In the case of the Town of Richmond Hill, their monitoring program has identified numerous deficiencies which developers were required to address prior to their stormwater management facilities being assumed. Other GTA municipalities experiencing rapid urban growth, such as the Town of Ajax and the Town of Oakville, have followed Richmond Hill's lead in terms of requiring a monitoring program prior to assumption of stormwater management facilities. The MOE has recently begun the process of enforcing C of A's issued for stormwater management facilities. Recently, the Town of Ajax, the Town of Whitby and the City of Guelph have been asked to provide documentation to demonstrate C of A compliance on their stormwater management facilities. To ensure that all future stormwater management facilities assumed by the City are in compliance with the C of A prior to assumption, the City has developed requirements for monitoring them as part of the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines. The purpose of the monitoring program is to protect the City from the significant financial liability of MOE ordering the retrofit of stormwater management facilities which are not in compliance with the C of A. Highlights: The major changes to existing Pickering standards resulting from the preparation of the guidelines are as follows: • Standardized methods for completing hydrologic and hydraulic calculations will be used; • Storm sewer pipes will be sized using local rainfall data; • Increased protection against basement flooding; • Formal flooding depth and velocity criteria for major system flow on roads; • Access roads will be built to all new stormwater infrastructure to facilitate future maintenance; • Warning signs will be posted at all stormwater management facilities to inform the public of the potential hazards; CORP0227-07/01 revised ~pport CS 43-11 December 5, 2011 J Subject: Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Page 4 • Prior to assumption by the city, new stormwater infrastructure must demonstrate through a monitoring program that are in compliance with the C of A; and • Detailed design guidelines for stormwater management ponds. Development: The new guidelines were developed by Valdor Engineering Inc. and the Engineering Services Division in consultation with.the Operations Section of the Community Services Department and Development Control Section of the Planning and Development Department. The new guidelines are a culmination of existing standards used in Pickering and elsewhere throughout the GTA (Ajax, Toronto, Richmond Hill, Markham, Vaughan, Barrie and Kitchener) and they represent industry standard approaches to stormwater management and storm drainage systems. In developing the guidelines, an effort was made to be consistent with guidelines from bordering municipalities - most notably the Town of Ajax, which updated their stormwater management guidelines in early 2011. As the content of the guidelines is currently being applied in other GTA municipalities, a formal consultation process with engineering consultants and regulatory agencies was not deemed necessary. Applicability: The Stormwater Management Design Guidelines will be incorporated into the City of Pickering's Development Control Guidelines to provide a "One-Stop Shop" for developers and their consultants with all the information required to meet the City's development standards. In addition to greenfield development, the guidelines will also form the basis for undertaking stormwater management studies for small infill developments located throughout the existing urban city centre. Standard methodologies are required to simply, but accurately, reflect the on-site requirements for water quality and quantity control as well as water balance and in-stream erosion control. To the extent practical, the guidelines will be'applied to City initiated projects where stormwater management infrastructure is being constructed or upgraded as part of retrofit projects. The guidelines will be periodically updated to ensure that they are reflective of best practices in stormwater management. Attachments: 1. Table of Contents - Stormwater Management Design Guidelines CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 43-11 December 5, 2011 66 Subject: Stormwater Management Design Guidelines Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Tom Dole, P.Eng. / Everett Buntsma Water Resources Engineer 0 Director, Community Services V Marilee Gadzovski, M.Sc. ng.), P.Eng. Senior Water Resources and Environmental Engineer Richfard Holbor', P.Eng. DFsion Head, Engineering Services TD:td Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering ty Council / ko mi, ~ Z 21, ZD/( Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACH MENT# TO REPORT# CS L43-11 of _ 0 67 ICI 1 I PICI~ERUNG STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES 15 November 2011 fiTTACHMENT#1'OREPORT# CS 43-11 68 Table of Contents 1.0 GENERAL POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES 7 1.1 INTRODUCTION 7 1.2 DESIGN RESPONSIBILITIES 7 1.3 THE NEED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 8 1.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES 9 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING 10 1.5.1 Introduction . 10 1.5.2 Environmental and Land Use Planning 10 1.5.3 Watershed Plan 10 1.5.4 Master Environmental Servicing Plan 12 1.5.5 Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports 12 1'.5.6 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports 12 1.5.7 Stormwater Management Report 12 1.5.8 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment 13 2.0 LEGISLATION - ACTS AND REGULATIONS ...................................................15 3.0 STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................17 3.1 MINOR SYSTEM 18 3.1.1 Storm Sewer Design 19 3.1.2 Foundation Drains 24 3.2 MAJOR SYSTEM 26 3.2.1 Roadway Crossings 30 4.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA 31 4.1 WATER QUANTITY CONTROL CRITERIA 31 4.2 IN-STREAM EROSION CONTROL CRITERIA 32 4.3 WATER QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA 33 5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES .................................34 5.1 SOURCE CONTROLS 35 5.1.1 Reduced Lot Grading 35 5.1.2 Roof Leader Discharge to Surface 35 5.1.3 Roof Leader Discharge to Soakaway Pits 35 5.1.4 Rear Lot Ponding 36 5.1.5 Greenroofs 36 5.1.6 Rooftop Storage 36 5.1.7 Surface Storage 36 5.1.8 Detention Vaults 37 City of Pickering Page 2 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (15 Nov 2011) ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# CS I 69 3 of 5.1.9 Porous and Pervious Pavement 37 5.1.10 Bioretention 37 5.1.11 Soil Amendments 37 5.2 CONVEYANCE CONTROLS 38 5.2.1 Oversized (Super) Pipes 38 5.2.2 Pervious Pipe Systems 38 5.2.3 Bioswales and Enhanced Grassed Swales 38 5.3 END-OF-PIPE CONTROLS ...................................................................................'39 5.3.1 Infiltration Trenches 39 5.3.2 Sand Filters 39 5.3.3 Vegetated Filter Strips 39 5.3.4 Oil/Grit Separators 5.3.5 Extended Detention Wet Ponds 41 5.3.6 Dry Ponds 41 5.3.7 Infiltration Basins 41 5.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES (WET PONDS AND WETLANDS) 42 5.4.1 General Siting Guidelines 42 5.4.2 Length-to-Width Ratio 42 5.4.3 Grading (Side slope) and Retaining Walls 42 5.4.4 Water Levels 43 5.4.5 Permanent Pool, Quality and Quantity Storage Requirements 43 5.4.6 Forebay ......................................................................................................44 5.4.7 Berming 45 5.4.8 Sediment Drying Area 46 5.4.9 Maintenance Access Roadway 46 5.4.10 Fencing .......................................................................................................47 5.4.11 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................47 5.4.12 Warning Signage 47 5.4.13 Inlet Structures 47 5.4.14 Outlet Control Structures 48 5.4.15 Emergency Spillway 49 5.4.16 Major System Overland Flow Routes 49 5.4.17 Anti-seepage Collars 49 5.4.18 Existing Groundwater Elevation 49 5.4.19 Liners 50 5.4.20 Fire Use 51 5.4.21 West Nile Virus 51 5.4.22 Thermal Impacts .........................................................................................51 5.4.23 Trails ...........................................................................................................52 5.4.24 Maintenance and Inspections Protocol 52 5.4.25 Naturalized vs. Manicured SWM Facilities 52 5.4.26 Fountains and Bubblers 52 5.4.27 Stormwater Management Facility Planting Guidelines 52 City of Pickering Page 3 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (15 Nov 2011). ATTACHMENI'g,__ - TOREPORT# ~S 3--11 of 7 0 6.0 GUIDELINES FOR HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 53 6.1 GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 53 6.2 HYDROLOGY 55 66.2.2.1 Event Based Hydrologic Models 55 6.2.2 Continuous Models 56 6.2.3 Rational Method 56 6.2.4 Rainfall ................................................................60 6.2.5 Time of Concentration 61 6.2.6 Calculation of Model Parameters 67 6.3 HYDRAULICS 73 6.3.1 Minor System Hydraulic Calculations and Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis.. 75 6.3.2 Culvert l Bridge Hydraulic Analysis 79 7.0 CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL METHODS 80 8.0 ENGINEERING SUBMISSION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (DRAINAGE DESIGNS, SWM REPORTS, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS) 82 8.1 GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF THE ENGINEERS' SEAL 82 8.2 SUBMISSIONS TO EXTERNAL AGENCIES 84 8.3 GUIDELINES ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 85 8.4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCEPTUAL/ PRELIMINARY SWM PLANS (PRELIMINARY SWM REPORT, FUNCTIONAL SWM REPORT, FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT) 86 8.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DETAILED SWM PLANS (DETAILED DESIGN)....... 90 8.6 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SWM FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS (DETAILED DESIGN) 95 8.7 DESIGN DOCUMENTATION FOR NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN 98 9.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PERFORMANCE MONITORING 99 9.1 GENERAL ..........................................................................................................99 9.2 SWM POND 99 9.3 BIOSWALE .......................................................................................................102 9.4 INFILTRATION TRENCH 102 10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................104 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................................................107 City of Pickering Page 4 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (15 Nov 2011) ATTACHIIENT9 K- REPORT # ! S L[.3 71 m of List of Tables Table 1 - Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Pipes .................................................19 Table 2 - Pipe Size and Pipe Materials 20 Table 3 - Hydraulic Losses for Alignment Changes 21 Table 4 - Major System Criteria 28 Table 5 - Permissible Depths and Velocities for Major System Flow Paths 28 Table 6 - Roadway Crossing Hydraulic Requirements 30 Table 7 - MOE Particle Size Distribution 41 Table 8 - Pond and Wetland Depth Requirements ........................................................43 Table 9 - Pickering Standard Runoff Coefficients by Land Use 58 Table 10 - Pickering Standard Runoff Coefficients by Ground Cover and Slope 59 Table 11 - Pickering Standard Runoff Coefficients for Pervious Areas 59 Table 12 - Pickering IDF Parameters 60 Table 13 - Manning's "n" Roughness Coefficients for Overland Flow 65 Table 14 - Intercept Coefficient for Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation 66 Table 15 - Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Channelized Concentrated Flow 67 Table 16 - Curve Numbers for Selected Land Uses 67 Table 17 - Initial Abstraction / Depression Storage 69 Table 18 - Typical Impervious Values by Land Use 69 Table 19 - Typical Parameter Values for Horton Infiltration Method 71 Table 20 - Typical Parameter Values for Green-Ampt Infiltration Method 72 City of Pickering Page 5 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (15 Nov 2011) AI-TACHMEN1-4._._.I a °fOREPORT4-c-S-43-1I of 72 List of Figures Figure 1 - Land Use Change and the Hydrologic Cycle (US EPA, 2007) 8 Figure 2 - City of Pickering Environmental Planning Process .......................................11 Figure 3 - Overland Flow Components 6,1 Figure 4 - Examples of catchments that may be subject to partial area effects (Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, 2007) 63 Appendices Appendix A - Storm Sewer Design Sheet and Standard Drawings Appendix B - OF Data, Design Storms, CN Value Conversion Table Appendix C - Design Examples Appendix D - TRCA Planting Guidelines City of Pickering Page 6 Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (15 Nov 2011) 7 300, Report To Executive Committee PICK ERING Report Number: CS 44-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Everett Buntsma .Director, Community Services Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 44-11 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports be received; 2. That the letter proposal from Sorenson Gravely Lowes Consulting Associates Inc. and SCS Consulting Group Ltd. for consulting services related to the technical review of the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing Stormwater Reports for the six Neighbourhoods (16 - 21), in an amount not to exceed $93,711 including HST and disbursements be approved; and 3. That appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: As part of the Minutes of Settlement for the Central Pickering Development Plan Conformity Amendment, the City is required to process the Draft Plans and prepare a draft zoning by-law for Seaton in a short time frame. In order for Draft Plans of Subdivision to be approved and processed, it is typical for them to be supported by the appropriate technical reports. For Seaton, these reports are known as the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs), which themselves fulfill the recommendations of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment (MESPA). The developers have stated that they will submit the MESPA before the end of 2011, which will address comments provided by the City and TRCA on the original Master Environmental Servicing Plan document that was submitted in August 2010. Due to the significant amount of work that remains to be completed and reviewed, including the MESPA, staff requires additional consulting assistance to complete an in- depth technical review of the NFSSRs for Seaton Neighbourhoods 16 - 21 in order to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness, suitability of the designs and/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content in a timely manner. It is also important that the technical review be conducted such that all NFSSR's are reviewed with a consistent approach as the NFSSR's are being prepared by three different consulting firms. At this Report CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood 74 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 2 time, all six NFSSR's are anticipated to be submitted early in the New Year with a required 8 week review period. As the review of the NFSSRs occurs in conjunction with the review of Draft Plans, and the review of Draft Plans is already part of the City's contract with Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. (SGL), staff see efficiencies for the City continuing to use SGL and SCS Consulting Group Ltd. (SCS). It is recommended that the firms of SGL and SCS be retained to undertake the technical review of the NFSSR's for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. Proceeding in this manner with Council approval, is provided for under the Purchasing Policy. Financial Implications: 1. Approved Source of Funds Item Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required Seaton Technical 2290.2392.0000 Other Revenue $85,000 $84,390 Review for (Developer Stormwater Contributions) Management Total $85,000 $84,390 2. Estimated Project Costing Written proposal from SGL and SCS $82,930 HST (13%) $10,781 Total Gross Cost $ 93,711 HST Rebate (11.24%) 9.321 Total Net Project Cost $84,390 3. Project Cost under (over) approved funds $610 The 2011 Current Budget included $85,000 for the Seaton technical review for stormwater management, therefore, there are adequate funds to complete the consulting services assignment. In addition, this budget included $40,000 in related staff costs. These costs will be offset by $125,000 in revenue from the Seaton developers for MESPA and NFSSR review. CORP0227-07/01 revised I R port CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 3 Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable Background: 1. Work Program for the City's Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review Through the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review, which is being undertaken by SGL, in association with various sub-consultants, including SCS, staff has consulting assistance to complete the review of the draft plans of subdivision. When preparing the terms of reference for the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review, staff anticipated completing the technical review of the NFSSR's under a less aggressive time frame and with limited consulting assistance. In light of the significant amount of work that remains to be completed and reviewed, including the MESPA, staff requires additional consulting assistance to complete the technical review of the NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. At this time, all six NFSSR's are anticipated to be submitted early in the New Year with a required 8 week review period. 2. Technical Review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21 In the 2011 Current budget, funds were approved to retain consulting services to undertake a technical review for Seaton with respect to stormwater management. City staff recently provided SGL and SCS with a Terms of. Reference and Scope of Work (Attachment 1) and requested a letter proposal and work plan to undertake the work. In accordance with Section 10.05 of the City's Purchasing Policy, the initiating Director may acquire consulting services without obtaining competitive written proposals if a particular consultant is desired, subject to Council approval. SGL and SCS are appropriate to complete the technical review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. It is staffs position that hiring SGL and SCS is the best use of financial and staff resources in order to ensure that the technical review of these complex reports are completed in a timely manner and is consistent with other work completed through the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review. Staff is pleased with the work that SGL has done to date. SCS was part of the consulting team put together by SGL and assisted in preparing the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans, which will be extremely beneficial when completing the technical review of the NFSSRs. Also, the consultant has extensive experience in the preparation as well as technical review of similar size Functional Servicing Stormwater Reports. A letter proposal and work plan was received from SGL and SCS dated November 15, 2011 (Attachment 2) that detailed how the consulting services assignment would be undertaken at a cost of $93,711, including HST and disbursements. It is recommended that the City retain SGL and SCS to complete the technical review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 76 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 4 Attachments: 1. City's Request for Proposal for Consulting Services, dated October 19, 2011 2. Letter Proposal from SGL and SCS, dated November 3, 2011 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: 6 A:: ~ ~ L-- - ~C-) U- Mar ee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. XEverettB ntsma, NPD, CMM Senior Water Resources & U _Director, Community Services Environmental Engineer Cat erine Rose, MCIP, R P Neil Carro , I RPP Manager, Policy Director, ing & Development Ril and Holb n, P. Eng. Gillis A. Paterson, C.M.A. Di ion Heat, Engineering Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer MG:mg Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering ity Council ~UtJ- Zp~ Zo/! Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# CS of t3 7-7 J1 ~ The C crjmrzatio of the pity of P9C:~~ring 'irke ring Civic C o n,nlex Picacffiiii3, 0\ I..l V bi<7 ai. HI(:.E:N'rr-E'°vt,,NAl, 2011 r.iTyoipi(kc ang.(om 7nii7l; & Dt.v(xlcprnrnl Daptjrfrice.itM,...~.,,,~.~..,~,.,.,..,m,.. 905.420.4617 it;Ii''rc'e i.ti(>n.(fi3.27(~0 T1'Y 905.120.1739 sx 905.420.7648 41 1arail plan&devl@city,ofpickering.com CITE ;lC October 19, 2011 Paul Lowes, MCIP, RPP Principal Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. 509 Davenport Road Toronto, ON M4V 1 B8 Subject: Request for Proposal for Consulting Services Additional Scope of Work Related to the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review File: D-1100=064 The City of Pickering is requesting additional consulting assistance from your firm and your engineering subconsultant (SCS Consulting Group) currently working on the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review (SNPR). We require assistance with the technical review of the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs) in a timely and coordinated manner with the upeorning review of the Draft Plans of Subdivision and fine-tuning of the Neighbourhood Plans. Subject to receipt of a satisfactory proposal, we are prepared to recommend to Council that this scope of work be added to the current contract you have with the City, without going through the City's purchasing policy and issuing a general Request for Proposals. Since the review of NFSSRs occurs in conjunction with the review of Draft Plans, and the review of Draft Plans is already part of the City's contract with Sorensen Gravely Lowes Consulting Associates Inc. (SGL), staff sees efficiencies for the City continuing to ! use SGL with SCS. With your team's familiarity with the SNPR, start up time should be quicker and overall costs should be less. ! In July 2011, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) set a hearing date for mid January 2012 for Seaton related matters. The parties also established an aggressive schedule for delivering and reviewing various reports. In that schedule, the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) were given two months to review the NRSSRs from the date of their receipt, anticipated to be November 30, 2011. C~ 1C;krJ (t"•r;t '.t~" 78 A TACHMEN`f# TOREPORT#14 -1 2, ' of 3 I~Iage 2 I . However, thwi sf;hedule also anticilY° ted receipt by the City of an Amendment to the Seat ri wu- r4"iC st .r Envi<<<r r-°icinr, flan (ME SPA) on Sept(-.mber g, 2011 The i; ty has not yet received the MESPA as discussions around the hydrological modelling continue 'with the Seaton Com,,tilting Team, he 1(~C:A and the City. Consequently, it is anticipated there: will be some delay in the preparation and delivery of the NSSRs. Nonetheless, upon receipt; staff anticipates an aggressive, and intense period of review generally in keeping with the original two month period in the OMB schedule. i. Please find attached a memorandum to me from Marilee Gadzovski, the City's Senior Water Resources& Environmental Engineer, providing additional background on the Seaton, process, and the requirements for this consulting assignment. Please prepare a proposal which addresses items 2 to 6 of her memorandum. We i would, appreciate receiving five copies of your proposal by November 3rd so that we have time for review, and negotiations if necessary, and make our December Report to Council deadline. If you of SCS staff have any questions or require additional information, please contact either myself at 905.420.4660 extension 2038, or Marilee Gadzovski at extension 2067. Yours truly t Catherine Rose, MCIR RPP Manager, Policy CR:jf - d;tthniimr+tlnWMwkDmaMJ.1-•pDIH~_i0➢sU t9c-fEa iSratan Welp7{.mi.rMmd Ptar31GR. Pwpus'&IPaa1~53itTednk.&~'~gvlzw.9a Attachment Copy: Steve Schaefer, SCS Consulting Group Chief Administrative Officer Directors Division [lead, Engineering Services Manager, Development Control Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Senior'VVater Resources & Environmental Engineer Water Resources Engineer. ~ ATTACHMENT#__,.._ - TO REPORT# cs 4-11 - of 7q I ICE I N 1811 AICi;hd'rk`NNIAI. 20111 To: Catherine Rose October 18, 2011 Manager- Policy From: Marilee Gadzovski Senior Water Resources & Environmental, Engineer Copy: Division Head, Engineering Services Principal Planner - Policy Water Resources Engineer Subject: Seaton NFSSR Technical Review Terms of Reference/Scope of Work - File: D-8000-04-11 1. Background In May 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) was approved by the Province of Ontario under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994. The CPDP required the preparation and adoption of Neighbourhood Plans concurrent with, or prior to, the processing of Draft Plans of Subdivision. As part of Neighbourhood Planning a number of background studies were required including a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the study area. In August 2008, a Phase 1 MESP (Existing Conditions) report was completed by the Seaton Consulting Team on behalf of the Landowners and reviewed by the stakeholders, namely, the City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA): It included data and analysis of the aquatic communities, fluvial geomorphology of the streams, terrestrial communities at existing and proposed road crossings of the Natural Heritage System,•site geology and hydrogeology, hydrology and hydraulics, existing municipal services and the existing transportation system within Seaton. In August 2010, the Seaton Consulting Team on behalf of the Landowners completed the Phase 2 MESP, which was submitted for review. The MESP provided input into the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review being undertaken by the City of Pickering, and the Regional Services Class Environmental Assessment being undertaken by the Region. of Durham. In January 2011, Minutes of Settlement were signed by the Seaton Landowners, the City of Pickering, the TRCA, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Ontario Realty Corporation represented by the Minister of Infrastructure, agreeing to request the that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approve the Pickering CPDP Conformity Official Plan Amendment (OPA) as a modification to the OPA Applications filed by the Landowners. In addition, the Landowners have agreed to amend the MESP to address comments provided by the City and TRCA and resubmit a Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment (MESPA). _ _ _ _ I AT Ti HME l-r®KE_r0RT#_.~Y ,'T{ -of 80 As part of the Minutes of Settlement, the City agreed to process the Draft Plans and prepare a draft zoning by-law for Seaton in a short time frame., In order for Draft Plans to be approved and processed, it is typical for them to be supported_by the appropriate technical reports. For Seaton, these reports are known as the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs), which themselves fulfill the recommendations of the MESPA. 2. Purpose' The City of Pickering requires assistance to complete an in-depth technical review of the NFSSRs for all six Seaton Neighbourhoods 15,.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 in order to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness,. suitability of the designs acid/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content in a timely manner. It is also important that the technical review be conducted such that all NFSSR's are reviewed with a consistent approach' as they are being undertaken by several different consulting firms. 3. Study Program The Table of Contents (TofC) for the NFSSRs, has been agreed to by the Seaton Consulting Team and Landowners, TRCA and the City of Picke(ng, and is attached for reference. City of Pickering staff have identified the areas within the<TofC that the review should be focused on and includes the following. • Section 1'.0 Introduction a) Purpose and Scope of Work b)` Study Area • Section 2.0 Summary of MESPA Findings and Direction c) SWM and Infrastructure Direction from the MESPA • Section 3.0 Existing Conditions a), Hydrology/Hydraulics b) Channel Morphology and Streambank Erosion c) Geotechnical Conditions d) Hydrogeological Conditions Items b), c) & d) to be reviewed with respect to how those items relate to SWM infrastructure • Section 4.0 Municipal Servicing and Grading a) Conceptual Grading Pfan c) Conceptual Servicing Plan g) Phasing/Implementation of Services Section 6:0 Stormwater Management Strategy a) through g) exclusive of the Feature Raised Water Balance Assessment noted in c) Section 7 Summary a) NFSSR Compliance with City's OPA b) NFSSR Implementation of MESPA Requirements Future Study Requirements October 18, 2011 Page 2 Seaton N>=SSR Technical Review - ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # O 44-11 of 13 81 Several items in the TofC have been excluded from the focused review as those areas are believed to be within the mandate of the TRCA. The technical review consultant should examine the above-noted Items together with the complete TofC and comment on the completeness of this focused review for the City's purposes. The technical revir w (onsultant shall review tl°ie !T EE's, (mideline: Profe,ssional Engineers Conducting feet (,f Technical Reviews (draft April 2009), to make thurnselves aware not only of the procedures of a technical review process but of the professional responsibilities and ethical obligations as described in that guideline. The technical review is intended, at a minimum, to make the following assessments of the NFSSRs: « Whether the completed work has met the objectives of the agreed upon NFSSRs TofC, the City of Pickering's Conformity OPA requirements.and the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines, « Whether there were other options that should have been considered by the authoring engineer, « Whether the evaluation of options was comprehensive, unbiased and.rigorous, « Validity of any assumptions made by the authoring engineer, « Validity of the technica[calculations, « Validity and appropriateness, innovation, efficiency and economics of the design, specifically with respect to the long-term operations and maintenance of the proposed SWM facilities; Validity of conclusion and recommendations and « Whether the design, conclusion and recommendations of a NFSSR is consistent with (or impacts) those a neighbouring NFSSR as the Neighbourhoods do not follow watershed boundaries. 4. Scope of Work The technical review consultant shall prepare a proposal that includes the following: • A detailed work plan on how the technical review will be conducted, • The documents to be reviewed, • Resources available to the reviewer, • Methodology of the review, • Format of the review report, « Protocol of communications between the reviewer and the other parties, « Confidentiality considerations, « Statement of conflict of interest, Schedule for review. October 18, 2011 Page 3 Seaton NFSSR Technical Review ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT i of 5. Deliverables- Technical Review Report 82 The>key deliverable is a Technical Review Report for each of the six NFSSRs. Each Report shall document the reviewer's findings and shall fully describe the information upon which the opinions are based. The reviewer shall reference particular legislation, code, standards or good engineering practices or standard conventions, upon which the findings are based. As the Review Reports contains statements of engineering judgement, and are therefore an engineering document, the Reputts will be required to be sealed. By sealing the Reports, the technical review consultant is accepting responsibility for the opinions in the report, riot for the work that was reviewed. 6. Fee Proposal The technical review consultant shall provide the estimated cost of the Technical Review services as outlined herein inclusive of all sub-consulting fees, mileage, disbursement allowances and HST. In addition, the consultant shall provide the hourly rates all personnel that may be used during this retainer including a brief summary of their expertise and potential input. Attachment /mg i October 18, 2011 Page 4 Seaton NFSSR Technical Review ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT#- CS y4-II ^:.of_I-~-- 83 June zn11 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report (NFSSR) Final Annotated Table of Contents This annotated Table of-Contents (TOC)-details the scope of work required.for each NFSSR that will be prepared for the neighborhoods within Seaton. It was agreed that this annotated TOC would fulfill the agencies' request for a Terms of Reference for the NFSSRs and the scope of work has been determined in consultation with both the TRCA and the City of Pickering, The organization of* the TOC, as presented below, should not constrain the presentation of information In any specific NFSSR. During the preparation of an NFSSR, it maybe determined that an alternative order of presentation provides a better format in terms of clarity of information. However, all topics as outlined below must be addressed in the NFSSR, to the level of detail indicated, regardless of report organization. 1. Introduction a) Purpose and Scope of Work A standard introduction text will be provided to be utilized for all NFSSRs which will: Outline the context and objectives of the NFSSRs; Provide a brief description of the City of Pickering's Conformity OPA Requirements, specifically: City policy on Seaton NHS, grading in NHS, SWM/infrastructure etc - Table 3; City policy regarding development - Section 11.37 (g) through (k); City-policy on Sustainable Water Management - Section 11,44 (a) & (b); City policy on Stormwater Facility Considerations - Section 11.45 (a) through 0); City policy on NFSSR - Section 11.73 a) through r). - Provide a'background review, of the MESPA recommendations; and, - Provide a brief outline of the NFSSR format (i.e., components/ sections). b) Study Area - Provide a brief description of the NFSSR study area and relationship to Neighbourhood Plan boundaries (i.e., relationship to. crossings, SWMFs and subwatershed/watershed boundaries). . Prepare a `Key Plan .showing Neighbourhood Area, land ownership, watercourses, roads etc. - Provide a discussion, on the conformity of the proposed Graft Plans with the City's Neighbourhood Plans. - Provide a brief description of the NFSSR Study Area.and its relationship to the Staged Servicing and Implementation Strategy and the Regional EA for Water, Sewer and Transportation (i.e., acknowledge that NFSSR work is integrated with these studies; specific elements addressed in the Servicing section). i ATTACH MENIT#__L_ TO REPORT #-L-440/ of J.- •84 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final ,June 1, 2011 Page 2 2, Summary of I[VIESPA Findings and Direction a) Natural Heritage System Provide a description of the NHS and sensitivities of the features within the Neighbourhood area. - Indicate which features require special consideration; with respect to water balance, crossing, erosion, etc. b), ESA Specific Requirements Summary of recommendations from'MESPA re: Endangered Species Act requirements for the NFSSR area, specifically; Identify Redside Dace occupied reaches and recovery habitat; Identify applicable components of Redside Dace overall benefit plan that are to be addressed in NFSSR area; Identify applicable components of bobolink overall benefit plan that are to be addressed in NFSSR area; Identify known locations of butternuts and restrictions that apply; Identify other ESA species known to be present and restrictions that apply (i.e., additional species that maybe classified as ESA, if NFSSR completed in the future). c) SWM and Infrastructure Direction from the;MESPA, Describe the requirements for the specific NFSSR re: stormwater management, and roads and servicing crossings of the NHS, 3. Existing Conditions a) Hydrology/Hydraulics identify any refinements to subratchmeht, catchment and subwatershed areas from the MESPA based on more detailed topographical mapping, - Prepare a drawing showing existing drainage conditions for the neighbourhood including subcatchment, catchment and subwatershed areas, drainage areas to features, regulatory floodiines for all reaches and topography. b) Channel Morphology and Strearnbank Erosion Determine meander belt widths in areas where required for unconfined systems. i Surnmary of field work, characterize the findings and constraints (erosion sites, scars, slumps, small ephemeral streams etc.). c) Geotechnical Conditions l - Describe geotechnical conditions of NFSSR area (geotechnical report(s) to be included as an appendix), Characterize the soil types. - Identify'geotechnical issues that may affect stormwater management. Identify' the erosion hazard limit for confined systems (long term stable top of slope), including any toe erosion allowance. - Determine -appropriate setback requirements from the Iroquois shoreline (where .applicable). ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# C_54V-/l of 85 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Storrnwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final Jane 1, 20 f 1 Page 3 d) Hydrogeological Conditions Describe local groundwater flow conditions (flow directions, depth to water table, recharge and discharge conditions, hydraulic conductivity) and their relationship to the sensitivities of the natural features. e) Feature Based Water Balance Describe surface water drainage including identification of drainage to local wetlands, woodlands and watercourses including headwater drainage features. Refine existing conditions MESPA feature based water .balance models (QUALHYMO) based on more detailed 'topographic mapping to confirm feature based water balance requirements. f) ESA Conditions - Butternut Trees. - Inventory all trees outside of NHS, and within the NHS where infrastructure and grading -are proposed to be located, to identify if butternut trees are present. If butternut trees are found, assess condition, determine need for protection and/or apply for permit and/or follow conditions set out in regulation, when ten or less apparently healthy trees are proposed for removal and prepare a planting plan as required (re: regulation modification that is proposed to come into force at the end of May, 2011). 4. Municipal Servicing and Grading a) Prepare a Conceptual Grading Plan and cross-sections, illustrating major system drainage, road grades and slopes, lot types (split, walkout, front drainage etc.), limit of grading, sloping greater than 5%, and trails. Major system flow paths should be indicated and designed ensuring all requirements are met (ie, some roads may require one lane of traffic to be open during emergencies etc.), and any capacity restrictions should be identified: Routing of any external flows through the site as well as any interim servicing conditions =must also be identified. b) Note areas where grading is proposed within the NHS and provide discussion regarding impact mitigation and restoration of the NHS. c) Prepare a Conceptual Servicing Plan and cross-sections, where applicable, illustrating storm, sanitary and water-main servicing including sewer obverts, road grades, direction of flow, trunk servicing, and drainage divides. d) Provide construction practices recommendations as required for servicing and infrastructure having regard for Redside dace and ESA requirements, and identify compensation, mitigation or restoration plans for crossings of the NHS as applicable. e) Outline conceptual requirements for erosion and sediment control consistent with TRCA Guidelines and having regard for Redside Dace and ESA requirements, and development phasing in vicinity. ATTACHMENT#.J.m TO REPORT#L/1/'// L42 _ of 8 6 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page 4 f) Provide an overview of non-municipal utility requirements including butnot limited to hydro, cable, gas.and telephone, g) Prepare a figure showing the phasing for the implementation of the required neighbourhood -spine services including any interim and temporary . measures. 5. Transportation 5.1 System Design a) Prepare a figure.showing the transportation system for the neighbourhood including all roads, the transit system (if applicable), trails, sidewalks and bike lanes. b) Include typical details for the required road right-of-way sections (both rural and urban) and indicate where these are applicable within the Neighbourhood. c) Provide discussion on transition zones between rural and urban cross sections. '5.2 Natural Heritage System Road Crossings a) Complete a preliminary design of all roads that are not part of the Regional Eft that cross through. the NHS; including plan and profile elevations and required grading (including grading beyond the right of way). b) Complete the NHS Roads Checklist provided in the MESPA for each road crossing of the NHS for all roads'that.are not part of the Regional EA as indicated in the MESPA as per the Neighbourhood Plan. c) Prepare a NHS Road Crossing figure (template to be provided)' illustrating the following: - All constraints' and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope, fisheries setback); Proposed road plan and profile elevations (rural or urban cross-section); Infrastructure and intersections with trails; Flood elevations (existing and proposed); and, Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required [after review of original survey work]; geotechnicai boreholes); d) If ;identifietl in the NHS Roads Checklist as, being required, complete the investigations required by the Checklist for each crossing of the NHS; and include as an appendix, to determine the crossing structure details. e) Provide a summary table of all crossings considered within the Neighbourhood including the location, size of the opening, length of the crossing structure and type of structure, and other design elements. ATTACH M ENT #__L TORE PORT IL of `87 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table- of Contents F=inal June 1, 011 Page 5 6. Stormwater Management Strategy a) Outline the stormwater management design criteria (i.e, 2-100 year quantity control, Regional Storm quantity control, erosion, water quality, ESA/Redside Dace, groundwater and surface water balance from the MESPA), b) Undertake an assessment of stormwater management alternatives, having regard to the MESPA Stormwater Management Options. Strategy. Components may include wet SWM ponds, dry'SWM ponds, LIDS, OGS, etc. In addition, alternative component measures can be considered if feasible and applicable to the NFSSR'area, c) Complete a' quantitative analysis for each alternative SWM scenario to evaluate compliance with the design criteria outlined in a) above, including: Hydrology Model Update: Update the post-development conditions Visual Otthymo model with the site I specific drainage areas, land use and SWM facility information for each alternative scenario. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the peak flows at key flow nodes downstream. Erosion Analysis, Update the MESPA Qualhymo Erosion model with the site specific drainage areas and land use for post development conditions. Complete an exceedance assessment utilizing the erosion thresholds at the most sensitive reach in each subwatershed (West Duffins, Whitevale, Ganatsekiagon, Urfe and Brougham Creeks) as identified in the MESPA (number of exceedances and exceedance hours comparison between pre and post-development conditions, with and without mitigation); iterate as necessary to achieve optimal SWM strategy. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the erosion exceedance assessment. Feature Based Water Balance Assessment: If required for wetlands, woodlands. and/or headwater drainage features identified in the MESPA, update the MESPA Qualhymo feature based water balance model with the site-specific drainage areas and land use for post development conditions, with and without mitigation measures. I Complete a feature based water balance assessment (i.e., the comparison of pre- development conditions as per the MESPA and post-development conditions runoff volumes, with and without mitigation); iterate as necessary to achieve optimal SWM strategy for maintenance of natural heritage features and functions, as per the recommendations of the MESPA. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the feature based water balance assessment. . TO REP©RT_# CS / ATTACH Mf`NT# ~2 ofd Seaton Community " 3 Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page q d) Complete is Life-Cycle Cost Analysis on the SWM scenarios which meet the design criteria with an emphasis on the Long-Tew Operations and Maintenance costs (i.e., specific details -on the `operations and maintenance costs and expected service life of the facilities will be forthcoming from the City of Pickering), e) Select the "preferred SWM strategy based on a number of evaluation criteria, including the fife-Cycle Cost Analysis, and in consultation with the City. Prepare a plan illustrating the preferred SWM strategy including SWM facility, SMP and LID measure quantities, locations, types and drainage areas, f) Prepare a SWM Facility Details figure (template to be provided) for each facility servicing the neighbourhood including,the following: - Drainage area.(ha) and assumed percent impervious (to be based on actual draft plan); All constraints and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top. of slope, fisheries setback); Summary of geotechnical conditions, identification of geotechnical issues for SWMF construction including soil types, slope stability, pressures, need for dewatering, pond iners, etc.; Summary of hydrogeological conditions, discussion.of infiltration characteristics of the , surficial soils in study area for SWMF measure selection and design; - Preliminary grading and servicing including maintenance access road, sediment drying area, emergency spillway, high flow by-pass etc.); Required and provided storage volumes (permanent pool, extended detention, quantity); Determine appropriate block sizes for SWlvt facilities and grading; Outfall location and treatment (i.e. wetland flow spreader, bioswale - reference to LID figure if applicable); Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required [after review of original survey work]; outfall location; geotechn.ical boreholes); and, Identify special design. considerations for groundwater management (i.e., liner, perimeter drains etc.). g) Prepare a LID Measure` Details figure (template to be provided) for each LID servicing the neighbourhood including the following: - Description of local soil and groundwater conditions; All constraints and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope, fisheries setback); Summary of geotechnical conditions, identification of geotechnical issues for LID construction incuding soil types, slope "stability, pressures, need for dewatering, pond liners, etc.;' Summary of -hydrogeological conditions, discussion of infiltration characteristics of the surficial sails in study area for LID measure selection and design; - Preliminary grading and servicing;° - Drainage area (ha) and assumed percent impervious (to be based on actual draft plan); Required and provided storage volumes (if necessary); Design flow rates and velocities (if necessary); and, ' ATTACHMENT #--L TO REPORT# .89 Seaton Communib;+ Neighbourhood Function=al Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page 7 Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required (after review of original survey work]; outfall location; geotechnical boreholes). 7. Summary a) NFSSR Compliance with the'City of Pickering's OPA For the relevant OPA sections outlined in Section 1.0, present the relevant section in full, and describe how each section has been met through completion of the NFSSR (tabular format). b) NFSSR Implementation of MESPA Requirements Indicate how the NFSSR implements the MESPA recommendations (tabular format). c) Infrastructure Intrusions into the NHS - Prepare a drawing that identifies all locations and extent of all infrastructure and grading within the limits of the NHS. 8. Future Study Requirements Include a listing of Future Study Requirements applicable to the individual draft plans within the Neighbourhood including, but not limited .to, the following if required: - Stormwater Management Facility and LID Measure Design Brief; - Stormwater Management Facility and LID Measure Operations and Maintenance Manual; - Stormwater Management "Facility and LID Measure Monitoring Program; - Design Brief for NHS Crossings (if applicable including hydraulic, geomorphic, fisheries and terrestrial passage design); I - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Report including phasing in the vicinity; - Grading Plans and Cross Sections; - Edge Management Plans; and, Restoration Plans/Compensation Plans. i ATTACH MENT# 2- TO REPORT#_~ 1 Of 90 r► Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~T Planning Associates Inc. l,J Principals: Warren Sorensen, P.Eng, MOP, RPP 509 Davenport Road Catherine Gravely, MES, MOP, RPP Toronto, Ontario M4V 1 B8 Paul Lowes, MES, MOP, RPP Telephone (416) 923-6630 Carol-Anne Munroe, MOP, RPP Facsimile (416) 923-6916 November 3, 2011 Ms. Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP The Corporation of the City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON, L 1 V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: Re: Proposal for Engineering Services - Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing & Stormwater Reports (,NFSSRs) Technical Review Further to your request of October 19, 2011, we are pleased to provide you with the following proposal to provide our civil engineering and planning services in support of the technical review of the NFSSRs for six Seaton Neighbourhoods. Project Understanding We understand that the City is requesting an extension to our consulting assignment to assist with the technical review of the NFSSRs in conjunction with the review of the Draft Plans and completion of the Neighbourhood Plans that we will be conducting with City staff. Six NFSSRs will be included in the review program (one for each of Seaton Neighbourhoods 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). The reports will be prepared by several consulting firms, however the review approach will ensure a consistent approach to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness, and suitability of design and/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content. We understand that all of the information required for the Technical review will be included within the NFSSRs. Project Schedule As part of the timelines set out upon consent of all parties to the OMB appeals to the Neighbourhood Plans, the City is to review the NFSSRs within two months of their receipt, which was originally anticipated to be November 30, 2011. We note that this schedule may be delayed due to the on-going discussions regarding the hydrological modelling through the Master Environmental and Servicing Plan (MESP). 9 1 ATTACH MENT#--!?L- TOREPORT#15-44-1/ of I_ Sorensen Gravely Lowes -TL Planning Associates Inc. page 2 Staffing The following key personnel will be assigned to the project. Please refer to the enclosed curricula vitae for more detailed information. Steve Schaefer, P. Eng., Principal, SCS - Steve will supervise the NFSSR technical review and quality of services delivered. Steve has been in the consulting engineering industry since 1989 and has a background in both water resources and municipal engineering. He has been responsible for numerous Functional Servicing Plans throughout his career. Paul Lowes, MCIP, RPP, Principal, SGL - Paul as the project manager of the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans will ensure that this technical review is coordinated with the finalization of the Neighbourhood Plans and the review of the landowners draft plans of subdivision. He will also act as an advisor to the technical team on policy matters and provide a link between the technical review and the planning review of the draft plans of subdivision. Sarah Kurtz, P. Eng. - Water Resources Project Manager, SCS - Sarah will be the Project Manager, responsible for review of the Stormwater Management portion of the NFSSRs. Sarah is a professional engineer specializing in Water Resources and has been involved in the completion of many Functional Servicing Reports and Master Environmental Servicing Plans for both large and small developments throughout the GTA. Sarah, together with her team will be responsible for completion of the technical reviews and completion of the associated reports. Malcolm Catto, P. Eng., Principal, SCS - Malcolm manages the detail design group, which is responsible for preparation of detail design drawings for a variety of subdivision and site plans throughout the GTA. Malcolm's team has also been responsible for technical review services of detail design drawings for residential subdivisions in the Town of Markham as well as numerous drawing reviews undertaken for various clients. Malcolm will provide input to the technical review of the grading and water/sanitary/storm infrastructure preliminary design within the NFSSRs. Scope of Work We propose to undertake the following scope of work in accordance with the procedures of a Technical Review process and the professional and ethical obligations as described in PEO's Guideline: Professional Engineers Conducting Peer or Technical Reviews (draft April 2009): 1. Preparation We will undertake the following initiatives prior to receiving the NFSSRs to prepare ourselves and the process to be used to review the documents: Review the PEO's Guideline: Professional Engineers Conducting Peer Review or Technical Reviews (draft April 2009) and confirm the relevant requirements and objectives of a "Technical Review"; ATTACHMENT TO REPORT#_O...S~-/ ~ 3 Of ~ 92 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 3 H Review the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines; Review the City's Development Control Guidelines; Review the MESPA findings and direction; Develop an understanding of the City's Conformity OPA, the Neighbourhood Plans and the policy framework for detailed technical studies through the assistance of Paul Lowes; Prepare a review matrix to be'used for each of the NFSSRs to ensure a consistent approach for the Technical Review; Prepare a draft report outline for use on each of the NFSSRs to ensure a consistent commenting approach and content; Provide the draft review matrix and report outline to the City for review and comment; and Meet with the City to confirm the review approach (Meeting #1). 2. NFSSR Review We assume that all six NFSR's will be provided simultaneously to facilitate a uniform review of the documents. The following procedure will be undertaken to: - Confirm the objectives of the agreed upon NFSSRs Table of Contents, the City's Conformity OPA requirements and the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines have been met; - Determine if other options should have been considered by the authoring engineer; - Confirm if the evaluation of options are comprehensive, unbiased and rigorous; - Confirm the assumptions made are valid; - Confirm the technical calculations are correct; - Confirm if the proposed designs are valid, appropriate, innovative, efficient and economically sound, specifically with respect to the long term maintenance of the proposed SWM facilities; - Confirm the conclusions and recommendations are valid; and - Confirm the conclusions and recommendations are consistent with those neighbouring NFSSRs with overlapping watershed or servicing boundaries. Introduction - Confirm that the purpose of the reports and study area are adequately and correctly described. Summary of MESPA - Confirm that the S WM and Infrastructure Direction from the MESPA is adequately and accurately described. 'Existing Conditions o Hydrology - Review the accuracy of the following: Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the topographic mapping; ■ Model inputs (soil types, Tp, Ia, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. 9 3 ATTACHMENT#_-~ TO REPORT#CL44'11 _ of Sorensen Gravely Lowes Z Y Planning Associates Inc. page 4 o Hydraulics'-. review of the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA, if updated or new hydraulic mapping is included, the review will include: • General cross-section locations and configuration (not including a detailed review of each section coding); • Roughness coefficients; • Flow inputs (aerial reductions where appropriate); • Floodline plotting on the topography; and • Description of the model in the text of the NFSSR. o Channel Morphology and Streambank Erosion - review of background data to confirm a consistent approach and recognition of the 100-year erosion limits as a constraint factor to the future limit of developments or creek crossings (field confirmation of all erosion sites will not be undertaken as part of this review). We assume that the accuracy of the morphology and streambank erosion assessments will be reviewed by TRCA. o Geotechnical Conditions - review the Geotechnical Report and confirm that the soil types, hydraulic conductivity have been accurately reflected in the NFSSRs (with regard to the association with the proposed LID and SWM measures). The review will also confirm the existence of any adverse soil conditions and the recommended treatment. We assume that the slope stability will be reviewed by TRCA, however we will include a general review of the general slope stability issues identified within the report and flag any areas of concern early in the review process to allow the appropriate peer review to be undertaken. o Hydrogeotechnical Conditions - review the Hydrogeotechnical Report to confirm that the areas of discharge or recharge and the associated hydraulic conductivity of the soil types as well as the groundwater levels and any potential existing well impacts have been adequately and accurately reflected within the NFSSRs (with regard to the association with proposed LID and SWM measures). We assume that the water balance and impacts of recharge or discharge areas on adjacent creeks will be reviewed by TRCA. Municipal Servicing and Grading o Conceptual Grading Plan - review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Confirmation that the plan demonstrates major system drainage paths, road grades and slopes, lot types (split, walkout, front drainage etc.), limit of grading, sloping greater than 5% and walls. ■ Confirm that sufficient grade points are provided to demonstrate that the grading concept is feasible. ■ Conformity with municipal standards related to road and lot grades including slope transitions on roads, maximum slope/berms on lots. ■ General review of areas within the grading plan for numerical accuracy of slopes and grades (not inclusive of every grade and slope on the drawings). ATTACH MENT# a! TOREPORT# CS 4q-11 94 of Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 5 ■ Complete numerical review of all areas of steep slopes or significant grade transitions through lotting or against limits of development. ■ Confirmation that the lot grading and lot sizes accommodate the Acoustical Study berming requirements. ■ Confirmation that boundary conditions are adequately addressed with regard to drainage, grade transitions, future urban streetline grades on boundary roads. ■ Confirm there are no trapped drainage areas both within the plan and on external boundary road low points. ■ Review the need for any overland flow routes and that the associate block widths are adequate. ■ Review the overland flow capacity calculations for major overland flow routes along right of ways to ensure the flow is maintained with the right of way and that sufficient travel portions of the lanes are available where necessary. o Conceptual Servicing Plan - review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Sanitary & Water (we assume that Durham Region will undertake a technical review of the sanitary and water design and associated criteria and tributary population) • Confirm the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain layout does not result in any conflicts with the City's storm sewer system or road layout (i.e. deep sewer, crossings, sewers outside of right of way etc.). • Review proposed creek crossing locations and ensure no conflicts with the City's road infrastructure. ■ Storm Sewer • Confirm that an adequate storm servicing plan is provided including the storm sewer location, direction of flow, obverts, road grades, trunk servicing, drainage divides and cross sections where applicable. • Confirm that the City's design criteria have been noted in the document. • Confirm that the storm sewer layout is in accordance with municipal criteria and effectively conveys drainage to the SWM facilities or storm outfalls. • Ensure external drainage is accommodated. • Review the need for any major system capture points. • Review the recommendations regarding the use of inlet controls. • Review the need for foundation collectors or sump pumps due to shallow storm sewers or outfall elevations (review alternatives). • Review the need for any storm sewers outside of the right of way and that the associated block widths or easements provided are adequate. ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT#CS 9 (a of 121 Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 6 • Review the need for RLCB's and that they can be adequately accommodated. • Confirm that the storm sewer layout is consistent with the proposed drainage boundaries and grading plan. ■ Phasing/Implementation • Confirm that a phasing and implementation plan is included in the NFSSRs. • Review the need for any interim storm outfall locations or SWM facility requirements. • Review the need for any interim road connections or turning circles. • Review the need for any interim servicing easements or blocks. r-~ Stormwater Management Strategy o Criteria - Confirm the SWM objectives and design criteria as confirmed in the MESPA are adequately and accurately referenced in the reports. o SWM Assessment - Review and confirm that an assessment of appropriate SWM and LID methods was undertaken based on the MESPA Stormwater Management Options Strategy and the relevant site opportunities and constraints (i.e. soils, vegetation, water balance. requirements, topography, groundwater table etc.). Ensure that any SWM or LID measures proposed are compatible with the City's current design criteria and accepted practices and that long term maintenance can be adequately accommodated. o Hydrology - Review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the proposed grading and storm sewer layout of the draft plans; ■ V02 Model inputs (soil types, Tp, la, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; ■ Ability for the proposed SWM facilities to meet downstream peak flow targets at all nodes identified through the MESPA; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. o Erosion Analysis - Review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the proposed grading and storm sewer layout ■ Qualhymo Model inputs (soil types, Tp, la, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; ■ Ability for the proposed SWM facilities to meet downstream exceedance targets at all nodes identified through the MESPA; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. o Lifecycle Costs ■ Review the lifecycle analysis to ensure that the expected maintenance intervals are accurately and consistently described. ATTACH MENT# ~ TO REPORT#_Q6__q4"11 of Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~?L Planning Associates Inc. page 7 ■ Review the cost analysis provided to ensure the City's rates were appropriately incorporated. o SWM Facilities Detail Figures ■ Confirm that the SWM facility figure include the following: Adjacent constraints and natural hazards and buffers including floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope and fisheries setback. ■ Confirm that a summary of the applicable soil type and groundwater condition is described and accurately translated from the Geotechnical Report. ■ Confirm the Geotechnical related design implications for the SWM facilities have been incorporated into the preliminary design, including soil types, slope stability, pressures, dewatering, liners etc. ■ Confirm that the Hydrogeological conditions have been accurately and adequately addressed and incorporated into the design, including a discussion of infiltration characteristics related to the design of the facility. ■ Ensure that the SWM facility figure accurately and adequately demonstrates that: • The grading meets municipal and geotechnical requirements;, • The required volume is provided for all components of the SWM facility (permanent pool, forebay volume and configuration, extended detention, quantity control, infiltration volume etc.); • Maintenance access is provided to all necessary areas; • A sediment drying area is provided; • An emergency spillway is provided from the facility; • Storm sewer and overland flow drainage into the facility are appropriately shown; • A high-flow by-pass is provided; • The 100 year level in the SWM facility is sufficiently below the storm sewer infrastructure to avoid HGL issues; and • The SWM facility outfall structure adequately takes into consideration the backwater elevations in the receiving watercourse. ■ Confirm that the SWM Block is adequately sized to accommodate the above requirements. ■ Confirm that the outfall location and treatment are in accordance with the LID recommendations and include measures such as wetland flow spreaders or bioswales (Note: Appropriate outfall measures within TRCA regulated areas will be subject to review by TRCA and MNR). ■ Confirm that appropriate fieldwork requirements related to the outfall have been listed in the NFSSRs including (staking of wetlands, driplines, steep slopes, creek configuration and invert/bank elevations). ■ Confirm if any special design considerations were required and are adequately identified in the report. ATTIACHMENT#-L TOREPORT# CS L44-/I 97 g of~Z Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 8 ■ Review and confirmation of overland flow route and spillway velocity and depth calculations including a review of hydraulic jumps. o LID Measure Detail Figures ■ Confirm that the LID facility figure include the following: Adjacent constraints and natural hazards and buffers including floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope and fisheries setback. ■ Confirm that a summary of the applicable soil type and groundwater condition is described and accurately translated from the Geotechnical Report. ■ Confirm the Geotechnical related design implications for the LID facilities have been incorporated into the preliminary design, including soil types, slope stability, pressures, dewatering, liners etc. ■ , Confirm that the Hydrogeological conditions have been accurately and adequately addressed and incorporated into the design, including a discussion of infiltration characteristics related to the design of the facility. Ensure that the LID facility figure accurately and adequately demonstrates: • The grading meets municipal and geotechnical requirements; • The required volume is provided for all components of the LID facility (if applicable, including quantity control, infiltration volume, oil-grit separator preliminary sizing etc.); • Maintenance access is provided to all necessary areas (for LID's on municipal lands); and • Storm sewer and overland flow drainage into the facility are appropriately shown. ■ Confirm that adequate flow rates and velocities have been demonstrated (where necessary). ■ Confirm that the LID Block is adequately sized to accommodate the above requirements or that use of LID's on private property are identified appropriately and that homeowner education programs are recommended. ■ Confirm that the outfall location and treatment are in accordance with the LID recommendations and include measures such as wetland flow spreaders or bioswales. (Note: appropriate outfall measures within TRCA regulated areas will be subject to review by TRCA.) ■ Confirm that appropriate fieldwork requirements related to the outfall (where required) have been listed in the NFSSRs including (staking of wetlands, driplines, steep slopes, creek configuration and invert/bank elevations). i AT ACHMENT4 a!._ 1'OREPORT# Q y4'11 of 12.2 98 Sorensen Gravely Lowes KY Planning Associates Inc. page 9 Summary o Ensure that the relevant OPA requirements are addressed. o Ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of each NFSSR and the corresponding critique are consistent with the draft plans of subdivision and the City's and consulting teams critique of the draft plans. o Ensure that the MESPA recommendations are summarized in tabular format and that an adequate description of how each item was implemented through the NFSSR is included. o Confirm that the overall assumptions and conclusions are valid. o Confirm that the conclusion and recommendations of each NFSSR are consistent with the any abutting draft plans of subdivision with regard to shared servicing or drainage conditions. Future Study Requirements o Confirm a list of future study requirements is provided, including but not limited to: ■ SWMF and LID Measure Design Brief; ■ SWMF and LID Measure Operations and Maintenance Manual; ■ SWMF and LID Measure Monitoring Program; ■ Design Brief for NHS Crossings; ■ Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Report including phasing in the vicinity; ■ Grading Plans and cross-sections; ■ Edge Management Plans; and ■ Restoration Plans/Compensation Plans. To ensure efficiency and consistency in the report review, we propose to employ a consistent reviewer for the various components of the reports (i.e. grading, SWM ponds etc.). For this reason, it would be beneficial to receive three copies of each report to allow simultaneous reviews to be undertaken. A series of meetings will be held between SCS and SGL and with City staff to coordinate the review of the NFSSR's with the review of the draft plans of subdivision. SGL will coordinate these meetings with City staff (Meeting #2 and #3). The technical review comments will be compiled into separate report for each NFSSR and will be provided to the City in a draft format for review. A meeting with the City is anticipated at this time to explain and discuss the proposed review comments (Meeting #4). Due to the extent and number of the reports, the meeting with City staff may need to occur over multiple sessions and days. A final report will be prepared following the City's review. Should further meetings be required with the City or the authoring engineers or if additional reviews are required for future re-submissions of the NFSSRs, we can provide an updated scope at that time. / A3'TAChMENT#- ~ TO~PORT#C.= 99 i of Q Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 10 3. Review Report Format A separate written Technical Review Report will be provided in a letter format for each of the six NFSSR's and will include the following format: o Introduction (identify the individual who authorized the review, the authoring engineer, the study being reviewed, the purpose of the review being a "technical review", documentation provided, communications made during the review, a description of our methodology for conducting the review and the particular legislation, code and standards upon which the findings are based) o Comments (using the approved Table of Contents as a format, provide a written summary of all relevant technical comments or opinions. Each comment or opinion will be identified with a separate number to facilitate a response to the comments). In accordance with the PEO's guidelines, the report will not include any specific recommendations or changes to the authoring engineer's design or report. The report will only identify problems and concerns regarding errors, omissions or failure to meet the City's expectations or noncompliance with standards and regulations. If alternate opinions are suggested in the report, they will be clearly identified as such. Reasons will be given for the opinion and will include clear indication of the constraints within which the opinion holds, and the relevant qualifying circumstances, facts and assumptions. A qualifying statement of liability will be include in the report to document that any opinions suggested by our firm are for the consideration of the authoring engineer and if implemented are to be considered as their own design. The review matrix tool developed for our implementation of the NFSSR reviews will not be included in the report since the report will only focus on required or suggested changes as opposed to acknowledging which sections are acceptable. The report will be written in a positive and constructive manner. The report will be sealed by a professional engineer. 4. Protocol for Communications between the Reviewer and Other Parties Unless directed otherwise, our sole point of contact will be with the City of Pickering. No direct contact will occur between our firm and the Seaton landowners or their consultants. Any meetings, discussion or correspondence from the landowners or their consultants will be facilitated through the City's staff. Clarification of issues may be helpful during the review. If necessary, contact with the authoring engineer will be facilitated through the City. I AT T/-,Cl-iMENT#_A.) EOREPORT# -l~ of _1L n, 0 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 11 5. Confidentiality Considerations Any information received from the authoring engineer will be treated as confidential disclosures. Information included in the reviewed reports will not be relied on in the future by our firm. All reviewed information and prepared reports will be kept in our archived work files upon completion of the assignment. 6. Statement of Conflict of Interest As you are aware, we are currently retained by the City to undertake the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review. This assignment will be a continuing role as your consultant and therefore we do not foresee any conflict of interest with the role. 7. Schedule for Review Based on our understanding that the City has been given a 2 month review time for the NFSSRs .through the timeline agreed to amongst the parties to the OMB appeals of the neighbourhood plans and that our review will be consolidated with the City's overall review of the reports, we suggest the following schedule based on a receipt of the NFSSRs on November 30, 2011: Item Duration 1 Review of background documents and preparation Weeks 1 - 3 (3 weeks) of review matrix and report templates to the City's satisfaction 2 Initial review of the six NFSSRs review (including Weeks 4 - 10 (7 weeks, on-going coordination with the City as required) excluding the week between and provision of draft reports to the City Christmas and New Years 3 City review of the draft reports Week 11 1 (1 week) We recognize this is a very short timeframe for review. We will need to discuss this further with City staff. 4 Update of the draft reports if required and Issue to Week 12 (1 week) the City The above schedule is approximate. We will endeavour to complete the reviews in Item 2 as soon as possible, with 7 weeks being the maximum timeframe. Work will commence by December 2011. Fee Based on the potential variability of the scope of work associated with this assignment, we propose to proceed on a time basis based on our hourly rates included in the attached ATTACHMENT #--2!- rOREPORT#~4-// of 12, 1 0 '1 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ;,X Planning Associates Inc. page 12 Appendix A. For your budgeting purposes, we estimate the cost will be $82,930 including disbursements plus $10,840 HST based on the following breakdown: Item Estimated HST Total Fee Preparation $6,900 $900 $7,800 NFSSR Review 6 reports) - Introduction and Existing Conditions $12,210 $1,590 113,800 - Municipal Servicing and Grading $6,000 $780 $6,780 - SWM Strategy $27,000 $3,540 $30,540 - Summary and Future Study $2,520 $330 $2,850 Requirements - Report Preparation $13,200 $1,740 $14,940 - 4 Meetings $15,100 $1,960 $17,060 Total $82,930 $10,840 $93,770 Fees and disbursements will be subject to H.S.T. Recoverable expenses assumed to be included in the fee above include travel ($0.52/lon), courier charges, printing of reports and final drawings, and purchased documents. Expenses will be billed at cost. We note that this fee estimate is consistent with the anticipated scope of work above and excludes further meetings with the City and authoring engineers or additional reviews of resubmitted reports. We look forward to the opportunity of providing our services for this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, SORENSEN GRAVELY LOWES PLANNING ASSOCIATES INC. PAw-, MCIP, ItPP Principal cc: Steve Schaefer, SCS Consulting Group Attachments: Appendix A - SCS Fee Schedule Appendix B - SCS Fee Agreement Conditions Curriculum Vitae 102 ON 4 Report to Executive Committee I KERIN Report Number: CS 45-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Amendment to By-law 6604/05 -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 45-11 of the Director, Community. Services regarding the installation of proposed stop signs for safe pedestrian crossings at three additional locations on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue and a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic and parking by-law 6604/05 be received; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed addition of three additional all-way stop locations at the following intersections: • Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street • Major Oaks Road. at Duberry Drive • Dellbrook Avenue at Meriadoc Drive; 3. That crosswalk pavement markings be painted at the new all-way stop locations as well as all approaches at the intersection of Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue and the south approach at the intersection of Major Oaks Drive and Duberry Drive; and 4. That community consultation be conducted, before the proposed all-way stop controls are installed, to inform the residents of the proposed changes in traffic control within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Executive Summary: On October 17, 2011 Council passed Resolution #169/11 directing staff to review, complete community, consultation and determine opportunities for safe crossing points through the establishment of stop signs or other means on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Staff 1 Report CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 2 have completed a review of existing information, conducted additional traffic reviews and observations, and commenced, but was not able to fully engage the community in consultation activities. Based on the review, staff recommends placement of all-way stop controls at Dellbrook Avenue at Meriadoc Drive and Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street and Duberry Drive, subject to the completion of community consultation. Financial Implications: The addition of stops signs, advance warning signs, stop bars and crosswalk pavement markings can be accommodated within the Roads current budget. Sustainability Implications: The concerns as presented and the recommendations, as generated by staff; address traffic safety issues within the corporate healthy society objectives. Background: The residents of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood have expressed safety concerns with traffic volume, vehicular speed and safe opportunities for pedestrians to cross Major Oaks Drive and Dellbrook Avenue. The Brock Ridge Neighbourhood encompasses the roadways between Third Concession Road to the north, Finch Avenue to the south, Valley Farm Road to the west and Brock Road to the east. Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue are both collector type roadways. The posted speed limit on both Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue and all roads within the area is 40 km/h. On October 17, 2011 Council passed Resolution #169/11 (Attachment #1) directing staff to review, complete community consultation and determine opportunities for safe crossing points through the establishment of stop signs or other means, looking at the following intersections as potential frequent crossing locations warranting the placement of stop signs: • Major Oaks Drive at Duberry Drive and WiIdwood Crescent (north intersection) • Dellbrook Avenue at Denby Drive and Meriadoc Drive Currently there is only one all-way stop location, at the intersection of Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue, which provides for a safe pedestrian crossing location within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. In response to Council's resolution, staff have reviewed Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue to determine safe locations for pedestrian crossings. The review included the following: Report CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian 104 Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 3 • a review of existing traffic counts and speed studies and completed additional traffic studies as required • a review of sightlines at key intersections • observations of vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout the corridors • a review of current locations of Durham Region Transit and school bus stops • a review of the five year reported collision history • a review of existing signage and pavement markings • a discussion with one of the school crossing guards in the neighbourhood Major Oaks at Duberry Drive Traffic counts on Major Oaks Road just west of Duberry Drive were collected from November 8, 2011 to November 11, 2011. The traffic counts indicated that daily vehicular volumes on this section of roadway are approximately 4,800 vehicles per day with recorded average speeds near 45 km/h and an 85th percentile traffic speed (the speed in which 85 percent or the bulk of traffic travels at or below) near 57 km/h. . There is a hill, with a 5.5 percent grade, on Major Oaks Road west of Duberry Drive, which may be contributing to vehicular speeding when travelling eastbound down the hill. This is of considerable concern at the Major Oaks Road and Duberry Drive intersection since the intersection has a lot of activity occurring within and around it including the following: • Durham Region Transit buses stop at the intersection on both sides of Major Oaks Road. • School buses stop at the intersection on both sides of Major Oaks Road. • Many elementary school age children from St. Anthony Daniel Catholic School and Valley Farm Public School cross the intersection as the intersection falls within a school zone. • Many other pedestrians cross the intersection to access the schools, parks and plazas within the neighbourhood. • Many vehicles turn at the intersection from Major Oaks Road to Duberry Drive and from Duberry Drive to Major Oaks Road. A school crossing guard is also present at Major Oaks Road and Duberry Drive. The guard has expressed concerns about the operation of the intersection noting that an all- way stop may assist in alleviating some of the issues at the intersection. There have been three reported collisions at Major Oaks Road and Duberry Drive in the last five years. Two out of the three collisions were single motor vehicle collisions not correctable by the installation of all-way stop controls. One minor incident involved a pedestrian at Duberry Drive that may have been preventable by the use of an all-way stop. 1Port CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 0e Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 4 The majority of collisions on Major Oaks Road involve a single motor vehicle or a single motor vehicle and an unattended or parked vehicle. ' Sightlines at Major Oaks Road and Duberry Drive are satisfactory if motorists drive within a reasonable speed. Observations at the intersection indicate that Durham Region Transit buses, school buses and turning vehicles can all safely come to a stop at the intersection without difficulties..Also, when the crossing guard is present, vehicles have been observed coming to a safe stop on the hill. Therefore, an all-way stop at Major Oaks Road and Duberry Drive, although not ideal due to the hill, is recommended. Major Oaks Drive at Greenmount Street and Wildwood Crescent Traffic counts were also completed on Major Oaks Road in front of Major Oaks Park from August 8, 2011. to August 12, 2011. These traffic counts indicated that daily vehicular volumes on this section of roadway are approximately 4,200 vehicles per day with recorded average speeds near 41 km/h and an 85th percentile traffic speed near 48 km/h. Wildwood Crescent and Greenmount Street are in the vicinity of Major Oaks Park. Observations show that many pedestrians cross near Greenmount Street and Wildwood Crescent. Major Oaks Road at both Greenmount Street and Wldwood Crescent are good locations for an all-way stop to promote safe pedestrian crossing points. Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street is the busier of the two intersections in terms of vehicular traffic since it has a direct link to Valley Farm Road. The north intersection of Wildwood Crescent however, has a path to Major Oaks Park, which leads to Valley Farm Public School that many pedestrians use. Durham Region Transit stops are present on Major Oaks Road near both Greenmount Street and Wildwood Crescent. School buses also stop at both intersections in both directions. Both Greenmount Street and Wildwood Crescent are very close to one another, therefore only one all-way stop, at either intersection, would be feasible. The five year reported collision history indicates that there have been two collisions at the intersection of Major Oaks Road with Greenmount Street, only one of which was preventable by an all-way stop. There have been no collisions at Major Oaks Road at the north intersection of Wldwood Crescent in the previous five years. A manual eight-hour turning movement count at Major Oaks Road and Greenmount Street was completed on October 19, 2011 to determine if the intersection had met municipal warrants for an all-way stop. The time periods counted within the eight-hour count include 7:00 am to 9:00 am, 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, and 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm. The results indicate that the municipal warrant has been met for traffic volumes during the 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm time period and anytime between 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. The eight- Report CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian 106 Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 5 hour turning movement count also showed that the peak hour for traffic throughout the day was 7:45 am to 8:45 am and 2:45 pm to 3:45 pm, coinciding with school peak hours. Also, 64 pedestrians were counted crossing Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street through the duration of the eight-hour count. Based on the municipal warrant for vehicular volume only, it is recommended that an all-way stop be placed at Major Oaks Road and Greenmount Street instead of the north intersection of Wildwood Crescent. Dellbrook Avenue at Denby Drive Traffic counts were conducted on Dellbrook Avenue at Denby Drive from June 13, 2011 to June 17, 2011. These traffic counts indicate that daily vehicular traffic volumes are about 3,300 vehicles per day with recorded average speeds near 44 km/h and an 85th percentile traffic speed near 51 km/h, which is typical for a collector type roadway. In June 2011, warrants for an all-way stop control was investigated at the intersection of Dellbrook Avenue and Denby Drive. The review indicated that traffic volumes at the intersection did not meet the established warrants for all-way stop controls. Also, there is a concern to place an all-way stop at this intersection due to the combined road grade and curvature of the roadway when travelling eastbound. The grade and the curvature of the roadway on Dellbrook Avenue near Denby Drive cause sightline deficiencies at the intersection, not only for pedestrians crossing from the Durham Region Transit stop on the north side of the roadway but also from vehicles turning from Denby Drive and for vehicles travelling eastbound on Dellbrook Avenue. The five year reported collision history at the Dellbrook Avenue and Denby Drive shows one single motor vehicle collision occurring that isn't correctable by an all-way stop. The majority of collisions on Dellbrook Avenue involve a single motor vehicle. Although stop signs can be installed to assist vehicles and pedestrians on side roads where sightline difficulties exist due to curvature in the roadway, the curvature plus the roadway grade make it difficult to install at this location and is therefore not recommended. If another all-way stop was to be placed along Dellbrook Avenue near Denby Drive, the ideal location would be to have it at Tawnberry Road, where the roadway curvature and grade is not an issue. This location, however, is not known for its frequent pedestrian crossings and would not be warranted based on municipal warrants. Dellbrook Avenue at Meriadoc Drive The intersection of Dellbrook Avenue and Meriadoc Drive is another location under consideration to assist pedestrians in crossing Dellbrook Avenue. No recent traffic volumes or municipal all-way stop warrants were completed for this intersection, however, observations show that it is a location where pedestrians cross and many RRe~ort CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 6 vehicles turn at the intersection from Dellbrook Avenue to Meriadoc Drive and from Meriadoc Drive to Dellbrook Avenue. Vehicles and pedestrians crossing from Meriadoc Drive also have difficulty crossing at the intersection not only because of the roadway grade but also because some vehicles park on the north side of Dellbrook Avenue west of the intersection making it more difficult for pedestrians and vehicles from Meriadoc Drive to see eastbound vehicles. However, vehicles travelling either direction on Dellbrook Avenue usually have a good view of vehicles turning out, unless they are travelling at high rates of speed. The five year reported collision history at this intersection shows one collision, which was correctable by installation of an all-way stop. Based on all the information regarding the intersection and to assist pedestrians in crossing Dellbrook Avenue, staff recommends that the Dellbrook Avenue and Meriadoc Drive intersection be change to an all-way stop control to alleviate sightlines for pedestrians and vehicles crossing Dellbrook Avenue and to provide a safe pedestrian crossing point at this location. Overall, based on the investigation, Engineering Services staff recommends that the municipal traffic and parking by-law (By-law 6604/05, as amended) be further amended to include all-way stop controls at the following locations: • Major Oaks Road at Greenmount Street • Major Oaks Road at Duberry Drive • Dellbrook Avenue at Meriadoc Drive Crosswalks and stop bars will also be painted at the proposed all-way stop locations where appropriate. In addition to the proposed all-way stop controls, it is recommended that crosswalk markings at the existing all-way stop at Major Oaks Road and Greenmount Street be added to all approaches and that.a crosswalk is painted on the south leg of Duberry Drive where it connects with Major Oaks Road. Advance stop warning signage will also be required for the new all-way stop controls. The proposed recommendations are shown graphically in Attachment 2. In addition, community consultation will commence immediately for the locations presented by staff to inform the residents of the proposed changes in traffic control within the Brock Ridge neighbourhood. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule 7 of by-law 6604/05 is attached (Attachment #3). Report CS 45-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Stop Signs for Safe Pedestrian 108 Crossings on Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue Page 7 Attachments 1. Resolution #169/11 2. Proposed All-Way Stop Controls, Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue 3. Draft By-law Amendment - Schedule 7, Stop Signs Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Evere B sma NPD, CMM, Nathan Emery Coordinator, Traffic Operations Director, Community Services arr Selsky, C. .T., CMM III Rich rd W. Ho orn, P. Eng Supervisor Dion Head, Engineering Services Engineering & Capital Works Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Council Z2_1 Z_0// Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Al-T CHMENT# - TOREPORT# CS 109 of Legal and Legislative Services Clerk's Office Directive Memorandum October 20, 2011 To: Everett Buntsma Director, Community Services From: Debbie Shields City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on October 17, 2011 Notice of Motion Frequent Pedestrian Crossings of Major Oaks Drive and Dellbrook Avenue Council Decision Resolution #169/11 WHEREAS: the residents of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood have expressed safety concerns with traffic and safe opportunities for pedestrians to cross Major Oaks Drive and Dellbrook Avenue between Brock Road and Valley Farm Road; and WHEREAS: there are a number of amenities for pedestrians to access including: two elementary schools; Valley Farm Public School and St. Anthony Daniel Catholic School; three neighbourhood parks, Centennial Park, Major Oaks Park and Brock Ridge Park, and Dellbrook Plaza, that necessitate crossing Major Oaks Drive and Dellbrook Avenue to access; and WHEREAS: there is presently only one stop sign location at the intersection of Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue that provides for a safe crossing location, and that this intersection is too far out of the way and impractical for most pedestrians crossing to the amenities noted above; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT staff be directed to review and complete community consultation in the matter regarding frequent pedestrian crossings of Major Oaks Drive and Dellbrook Avenue'and determine opportunities of safe crossing points through the establishment of stop signs or other means - especially looking at the following intersections as potential frequent crossing locations warranting the placement of stop signs: ATTAGE-iMENT#~~ TiOREPORT# 2of~ 110 a) Major Oaks Drive at Duberry Drive and Wildwood Crescent b) Dellbrook Avenue at Denby Drive and Meriadoc Drive ; and 1. That staff report back to Council in December with a summary of their investigation including a proposed by-law for the placement of new stop sign locations as appropriate. Please take any action deemed necessary. 2n - 1~1~ Debbie Shields ds/Ir Copy: i 1 i lam m s _ , R Harrowsm agsib ! q r xisti ► . 4,4 ® n a = > i~A! - ay top.,%;, - In. Pepp«4i0d •~f :.r,.., la w~:k .t'=,`' ' _ -Valley Farm': °o 71 c*E Tswrdkbrry Kb no 's~ "Z\ c1pos A1 i t, a ` 6 DellbrookAvenue 5 Ori.n~neunt 4A =Lf-ZZ rs.. _II. _j Trrrseotta 4 ~r•r_ ' . Tom.. ~NIOr /-.00 -h.' :.%E''• * A•`.mpln. , '.y0i0r'~--f` Mesrady ; m ak. i--[~jFl1 r ~.r•, ~"~~h h!' . ~~~t ~v J ~111a.A..^•r ~ ! , - `-V• Fr opos d - 46 2. ay ~o iel ~ r• w--i h.d..~ ~,-ter • ~ AV "I COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT A#k ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION Proposed All-Way Stop Controls DATE: Major Oaks Road and Dellbrook Avenue NTS November, 2011 r ATTACHMENT# 3- TOREPORT# L'S q5-~ / of __9'___ 112 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a By-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 7 Stop Signs Column 1 Column 2 Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic Add Dellbrook Avenue @ Dellbrook Avenue, eastbound and westbound Meriadoc Drive Major Oaks Road @ Major Oaks Road, eastbound and westbound Duberry Drive Major Oaks Road @ Major Oaks Road, northbound and southbound Greenmount Street ATTACHMENT# 3 _ TOREPORT#_!~'45 113 of 2. This By-law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council of The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are installed. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 12th day of December, 2011. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Report To Executive Committee TAT- ~ ~ - 14 1 1 CKERIN Report Number: CST 42-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2012 Interim Spending Authority Recommendation: 1. That Report CST 42-11 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the 2012 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50% of the prior year's budget, including adjustments as contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the formal 2012 Current Budget by Council; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: Adoption of the interim current operating spending authority will provide funding authorization for the payment of salaries, overhead and such other accounts as may be necessary for the normal day-to-day operations of the City pending approval of the 2012 Current Budget. Financial Implications: Adoption of the interim current operating appropriations does not constitute approval of a formal budget but rather is required to provide funding authorization at the transitional stage. At the conclusion of the Budget process, all interim current operating appropriations are nullified and replaced with the appropriations as approved by Council. Sustainability Implications: Interim Spending Authority is required to maintain the operations of the City, pending approval of the 2012 Current Budget. Without this approval, the City is unable to continue its operations during this period. f ~R~ export CST 42-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: 2012 Interim Spending Authority Page 2 Background: Each year, pending approval by City Council of the annual Operating Budget, it is necessary to provide expenditure authority respecting the payment of accounts for the interim period from January 1 until the Budget is adopted by Council. Such authority is in the form of interim current operating appropriations to meet estimated expense requirements of the individual departments, agencies and boards. The 2011 Current Budget was considered by Council in April 2011. The 2012 Budget may prove to be as challenging as 2006 to 2011 due to the City's unique fiscal situation. Therefore, we are seeking approval to provide for interim spending authority for up to the first six months of 2012 or when Council approves the 2012 Budget, whichever occurs first. The Roads cost centre has been adjusted to reflect greater than six months of the annual budget due to the seasonal nature of this cost centre, and past spending patterns. This has been reflected on Attachment 1. With the requirements of the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) on tangible capital assets being effective since January 1, 2009, small capital items previously included under the Capital Budget have been gradually transferred to the Current Budget in the last two years. The 50% interim provision is sufficient to cover this change. Under the same PSAB requirements on tangible capital assets, the library materials have been deemed capital and included in the Capital Budget starting from 2010. In the library business, the publishing cycle demands that materials be purchased while they are "in print". As a result, certain materials must be purchased in a timely manner, and it is essential for the Library to continue purchasing materials throughout the year. On this basis, a greater than 50% of last's year library capital materials has been included in the interim appropriations and reflected on Attachment 1. A minor provision has been included for small capital expenditures from current funds. Specific capital projects proposed prior to the approval of the 2012 Capital Budget will require specific approval by Council. Attachment: 1. 2012 Interim Appropriations for Current Budget Operating Expenditures Report CST 42-11 December 5, 201 ) 16 Subject: 2012 Interim Spending Authority Page 3 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By. Caryn Kong, CGA Gillis A. Paterson, CMA Senior Financial Analyst - Capital & Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Debt Management GAP:ck Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council QDV'.. 20, 20 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 1 1 7 ATTACHMENT #-L-To PEpoRT#j.,=qQ,- it i CITY OF PICKERING 2012 INTERIM CURRENT OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS 2011 Approved 2012 (Jan. 1 - June 30) Budget Interim A ro riation Mayor Ryan 144,481 72,241 J. O'Connell, Reg. Coun. - Ward 1 91,331 45,666 B. Mclean, Reg. Coun. - Ward 2 86,030 43,015 P. Rodrigues, Reg. Coun Ward 3 83,481 41,741 K. Ashe, City Coun. - Ward 1 80,081 40,041 D. Dickerson, City Coun. Ward 2 86,649 43,325 D. Pickles, Cit Coun. - Ward 3 78,881 39,441 Council Support 348,659 174,330 2121 C.A.O. Office 453,114 226,557 2129 Customer Care Centre 327,887 163,944 2139 Human Resources 640,706 320,353 2141 Health & Safety 133,673 66,837 2125 Legal & Legislative Services 322,484 161,242 2122 Clerks Office 454,310 227,155 2191 Records Mana ement & Elections 101,698 50,849 2199 Print Shop/Mail Room 400,254 200,127 2220 By-law 768,336 384,168 2293 Animal Services 417,842 208,921 2240 Fire Protection 14,019,478 7,009,739 2241 Emer . Operations-Claremont 175,925 87,963 2192 Office Of Sustainability 994,240 497,120 2127 Finance Accting, Taxes & Payroll 3,058,099 1,529,050 2133 Supply & Services . 354,699 177,350 2196 Information Technolo y 1,514,166 757,083 2710 Community Services - Admin. 280,331 140,166 2290 Engineering Services - Admin. 1,854,201 927,101 2230 Crossin Guards 364,550 182,275 2430 Environmental Services 155,574 77,787 2711 Cult. & Rec. Admin. 1,125,678 562,839 2712 Programs 2,631,491 1,315,746 2744 Museum 585,380 292,690 2572 Senior Citizens Centre 343,940 171,970 2713 Dunbarton Pool 359,341 179,671 2719. Community Centres 702,410 351,205 2731 Recreation Complex - Central Core 2,705,075 1,352,538 2733 Recreation Complex - Pool 930,124 465,062 2500 Facilities Admin 787,256 393,628 2124 Civic Complex 504,794 252,397 2132 Property Maintenance 742,464 371,232 2315 Operations Centre-Municipal Garage 1,067,305 533,653 2320 Roads 5,917,774 3,550,664 2323 Sidewalks 25,000 12,500 2325 Street Lights 851,000 425,500 2715 Don Beer Arena 1,038,222 519,111 2718 Parks 3,716,024 1,858,012 2735 Recreation Complex - Arenas 788,301 394,151 2610 Plan & Develop - Admin 842,990 421,495 2611 Planning 2,924,753 1,462,377 2612 Building Services 1,054,788 527,394 2613 Development Control 610,584 305,292 2630 Committee of Adjustment 9,831 4,916 2743 Heritage Pickering 11,980 5,990 2745 Libraries 4,747,973 2,373,987 Various-Gen Government 13,408,767 5,868,571 Ca ital-Libra ,Materials 440,350 264,210 Capital-Equipment & Furniture 200,000 Total 76,664,755 38,332,378 ear Report To - Executive Committel 18 PICKERITNG Report Number: CST 43-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2012 Temporary Borrowing By-law Recommendation: 1. That Report CST 43-11 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the temporary borrowing limit to meet 2012 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues be established at $36,000,000 for the period January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 inclusive, and $18,000,000 thereafter until December 31, 2012; 3. That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2012 be established at $32,000,000; 4. That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary borrowing of monies, be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: Council approval is required to undertake temporary borrowings, if necessary, for current operations and capital projects in order to meet the expenses of the City for 2012 until the taxes are collected and other revenues are received. Approval is always sought at the end of the fiscal year (calendar) in order to be prepared, in the event that loans are necessary as we proceed into the New Year. Financial Implications: At this time, it is difficult to estimate the interest costs as it is uncertain how much temporary financing may be required and for how long. With internal borrowings being limited, we will be undertaking external borrowing from the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) in 2012 for approved capital expenditures. For current purposes, the $34 million limit for 2011 has been increased to $36 million for 2012 and the $17.3 million has been increased to $18 million. The limit for capital purposes for 2012 has been established at $32 million based on the first draft (dated Report CST 43-11 December 5, 2011 1 Sub ect: 2012 Temporary Borrowing By-law Page 2 November 2, 2011) of the 2012 Capital Budget. This may have to be adjusted once the 2012 Capital Budget has been approved. Sustainability Implications: Council approval to undertake temporary borrowings, if necessary, for current operations and capital projects is necessary in order to financially sustain the City's operations. To date, it has not been necessary for the City to undertake such temporary financing measures. Background: The borrowing of funds for current and capital purposes may become necessary during the normal course of operations during 2012. Under the provisions of Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001, (the Act), the Council of the City of Pickering may pass a by-law to provide for the temporary borrowing of funds to meet current operating expenditures, pending receipt of taxes and other revenues of the City. Under the Act, the Corporation may also undertake temporary borrowings under individual project approvals, and for capital projects pending permanent financing. Current Budget Financing The amount of such temporary borrowing outstanding at any one time is generally limited by the Act, unless otherwise approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, to 50% of the estimated annual revenues from January 1 to September 30 and to 25% thereafter. Until the current year's estimates are adopted, the limitation may be calculated upon the revenues set forth in the estimates adopted for the preceding year. Based upon the 2011 estimates of the Corporation, the allowable level of temporary borrowing outstanding under legislation is estimated at $36 million from January 1 to September 30 and $18 million thereafter. The requested $36 million should be sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the City until the levies for 2012 are received. It is hoped that this amount will provide a sufficient level of temporary borrowings taking into account the potential effects of taxation legislation and its impact on cash flows. Capital Budget Financing Borrowing for capital purposes under the Act can only be undertaken on projects approved by Council and will only be undertaken in the event that sufficient funds are not available at the time they are required. Recommendation 3 provides the authority for the Treasurer to obtain additional temporary interim financing (internal or external) for capital projects approved by Council. The $32 million capital borrowing limit would provide sufficient funds to cover the estimated 2012 capital expenditures. Report CST 43-11 December 5, 2011 120 Subject: 2012 Temporary Borrowing By-law Page 3 Attachment: 1. By-law to authorize the temporary borrowing of.monies to meet the current and capital expenditures of the City of Pickering for the year 2012 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Caryn Kong, CGA Gillis A. Paterson, Senior Financial Analyst - Capital & Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Debt Management GAP:ck Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering CI Council ;~O, 201/ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT#=TO REPORT# `i-I 121 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to authorize the temporary borrowing of monies to meet the current and capital expenditures of the City of Pickering for the year 2012. Whereas Section 407(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, provides that the Council of the City of Pickering may by by-law authorize the Mayor and Treasurer of the Municipality to borrow from time to time by way of promissory note such sums as the Council may deem necessary to meet, until the taxes for the current year are collected and other revenues are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for the year, including the amounts required for principal and interest falling due within the year upon any debt of the Municipality, and the sums required by law to be provided by the Council for any local board of the Municipality; Whereas Section 407(2) limits the total of such borrowings to not exceed 50% of the estimated annual revenues from January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 and 25% thereafter; Whereas it is deemed necessary by the said Council to borrow the sum of thirty-six million ($36,000,000) to meet, until the taxes for the current year are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for the year 2012, including the amounts and sums aforesaid; Whereas the said sum of thirty-six million ($36,000,000) plus any similar borrowings that have not been repaid, is less than 50% of the total amount of the estimated revenues of the Municipality from January 1 to September 30 as set forth in the estimates adopted by the said Council for the year 2011 exclusive of revenues derivable from the sale of assets, borrowings or issues of debentures or from a surplus including arrears of levies and eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) is less than 25% thereafter; Whereas the Municipal Act, 2001, provides that if a municipality has by by-law approved an undertaking to be financed in whole or in part by incurring long-term debt, the Council may by by-law authorize temporary borrowing to meet expenditures made in connection with the undertaking; and, Whereas it is deemed necessary by the said Council to borrow the sum of thirty-two million ($32,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures approved by Council. T - - 122 By-law No. Page 2 Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: The Mayor and Treasurer of the City of Pickering are hereby authorized to borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding thirty-six million ($36,000,000) to meet, until the levies for the year 2012 are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for such year, including the amounts required for principal and interest falling due within the year upon any debt of the Municipality for the period January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 inclusive and eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) thereafter until December 31, 2012. 1. The Mayor and Treasurer of the City of Pickering are hereby authorized to borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding thirty- two million ($32,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures as approved by Council, of the Municipality including the amounts required for principal and interest. . 3. Any promissory notes made under the authority of this by-law shall be sealed and signed in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and may be countersigned in writing by the Manager, Accounting Services of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the.said Act. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the first day of January, 2012. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 12th day of December, 2011. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Caq Report To Executive Committee PI KERING Report Number: CAO 14-11 123 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Tony Prevedel, P.Eng Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Next Generation Common Communications Platform -"NextGen" - File: A-1440 S-5000 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 14-11 of the Chief Administrative Officer regarding the Next Generation Common Communications Platform be received. 2. That the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering confirm its commitment to participate, in conjunction with the other area municipalities and the Region of Durham, in the common communications platform being undertaken by the Region for police, fire and other services; 3. That the Fire Chief, in conjunction with the appropriate staff, be authorized and directed to continue to participate in the "Next Gen" Common Communications Platform with the Region of Durham in anticipation of being operational in 2014; 4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign any agreements necessary, in a form acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Fire Chief, the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the City Solicitor, to ensure the City's participation in the common communications platform; 5. That staff be directed to prepare a further report on this project for presentation to and discussion with Council in advance of its inclusion in the 2013 Capital Budget; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: This report will update Council on the ongoing development of a new approach to emergency communications that will link Pickering's Fire Services with Durham Regional Police Service (DPRS) and other emergency services in Durham, while reducing overall costs for communications. The reason for researching a new communications system is that the current one, hosted by Oshawa and shared amongst the lakeshore municipalities in Durham is approximately 10 years old, is nearing the end of its life and will no longer be supported Report CAO 14-11 December 5, 2011 124 Next Generation Common Communications Platform Page 2 by Motorola after 2014. A replacement system must be identified, agreed upon and be operational by then. At the same time,. Durham Regional Police are also looking at a new common communications system, encompassing Police together with Fire and other services of all 8 area municipalities, which would be of maximum benefit to all parties. Under the proposed agreement for the new system, the Region of Durham will pay for the capital costs of the fixed infrastructure. Pickering will pay only for its required user equipment, representing a considerable cost saving for the City, and its share of annual operating costs. Since the new system will require a Memorandum of Agreement, it is imperative that the partners involved communicate their commitment to the project, so that system requirements are known and actual costs can be calculated. This report asks for that commitment from Pickering Council. The proposed system has the following benefits: • Interoperability with Durham Regional Police Service, Durham Emergency Management Office, Durham Region services, and the Fire Services of other Durham municipalities. • Improved safety for first responders in emergencies. • Reduced yearly operating costs for Pickering (from $110,950/year to $84,000/year) • Significant capital cost avoidance, since the current 800 MHz system and its infrastructure do not need to be replaced. • Collective purchasing power, resulting in lower equipment prices. • Room on the system for additional users, such as By-law Services, Animal Services, Operations, and Ontario Power Generation. Although the system will not be implemented until 2014, Council should understand the costs and benefits of the new system in advance, so that financial planning can continue. Fire Services is confident that the NextGen system is the best option financially and operationally for the City of Pickering, and will contribute to improved community safety. Financial Implications: The costs associated with this project are significant, but the option to stay on our current system or to move to a newer Fire Services shared system would be much higher. The current emergency communications system will need to be replaced in 2014. Maintaining the status quo would cost Pickering approximately $2 million. Pickering shares the current 800 MHz radio. system with Ajax Fire & Emergency Services, Whitby Fire & Emergency Services, Oshawa Fire Services, and Clarington Report CAO 14-11 December 5, 2011 Next Generation Common Communications Platform Page 3 Fire Services. Motorola will not support the current system past 2014. If all the partners retain the existing system, infrastructure replacement costs would total about $10 million (Pickering's share would be about $2 million). If the other partners move to a new system, and Pickering maintains the existing system, the City would be financially burdened with increased operations and maintenance costs, plus the significant costs associated with moving all the infrastructure to Pickering. Up-front costs for linking to the proposed NextGen system include purchasing or reprogramming equipment, totaling approximately $800,000 based on current estimates, plus a contingency of $200,000. The costs associated with the move to the NextGen system are for new or reprogrammed user equipment and annual operating and maintenance costs only, since the Region of Durham will pay for the capital infrastructure. It would also be prudent to keep at least $200,000 in the budget as a contingency, earmarked for additional costs for the new system, such as voice recording in.dispatch, additional repeaters for areas with poor radio reception, station alerting upgrades, call- back paging, and current system de-commissioning. More information will become available in March 2012, when the Regional RFP is completed. At this time, it is projected that the costs for user equipment will need to be included in the 2013 budget. The NextGen consultant has provided the following cost estimates. Equipment * Number Estimated Estimated Total Unit Cost $ Cost Range $ New mobiles 20 3,000 - 5,000 60,000 - 100,000 New portables 80 5,000 - 7,000 400,000 - 560,000 New dispatch consoles 3 25,100 75,300 - 75,300 50.2% Pickerin 's Share Repeaters 2 20,000 40,000 - 40,000 Contingency 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 Estimated Total 775,300 - 975,300 *Prices include antennas, chargers, and bases. The above capital cost estimate assumes all radios will require replacement, on a conservative note. Should some of the newer radios only need re-programming; there will be some capital savings. The above estimate includes a contingency of $200,000. Operating costs for the NextGen system will be shared by all users, representing a potential saving for Pickering of approximately $26,000/year compared to the current system. Each user's percentage share of the costs will be based on the number of radios they have on the system. The NextGen radio consultant has estimated that the annual cost of operating and maintaining the NextGen system would be $1,500,000. This Report CAO 14-11 December 5, 2011 126 Next Generation Common Communications Platform Page 4 is an estimate and the consultant expects that the actual costs will be lower. This amount will be divided up amongst all users. Pickering's share would be 5.65% or $84,750/year, compared to the current cost of $110,950/year, for a saving of $26,200/year. This amount could be reduced further if other groups such as Ontario Power Generation (OPG) become part of the user group. At this time, it is not anticipated that there would be any significant capital costs beyond those. identified in this report. Current operating costs will remain relatively unchanged, perhaps decreasing slightly. The capital costs will be debt financed over a 10 year term with estimated annual debt retirement costs of approximately $125,000 commencing in the 2014 Budget. Sustainability Implications: Approximately 25% of our current radio inventory is a newer programmable style of Motorola radio. It is hoped that we can reprogram these radios and continue to use them on the new system. The other 75% are an older-style Motorola radio that will not accept reprogramming. The project consultant has suggested that Pickering' could realize some value from the old radios by offering them to municipalities that are still using a system similar to our current system. Background: The Region of Durham and its municipalities came together in 2009 to commence discussions a new system that would connect firefighters with police. In 2009, discussions began between Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) and Durham Region Fire Chiefs with a view to a new joint radio platform that would facilitate communications among responders at emergency scenes. Timing was perfect for this initiative, as both DRPS and the Durham Regional Fire Chiefs knew that their current radio systems would be unsustainable after 2014. The group approached the Region's CAOs and prepared report 2009-A-47 (see Attachment #1) for Regional Council. Regional Council agreed in principle: 1. To further study a potential shared communication platform as outlined in report 2009-A-47 from the Chief Administrative Officer. 2. To support staff involvement on the appropriate groups, as detailed in the proposed structure. 3. To follow the Region of Halton model of capital funding whereby infrastructure costs are funded by the Region. 4. To request that staff provide, at the appropriate time, detailed project recommendations with associated cost estimates for Council's consideration. Report CAO 14-11 December 5, 2011 127 Next Generation Common Communications Platform Page 5 5. To provide, along with other partners to the project, its share of funding costs associated with the Project Manager, support staff, and consulting services. Pickering spends $110,950/year on its current radio system, which does not allow for communications with Durham Regional Police Services. Pickering Fire Services currently uses an 800 MHz Motorola radio system for communication, shared with Ajax Fire & Emergency Services, Whitby Fire & Emergency Services, Oshawa Fire Services, and Clarington Fire Services. The system has been in place since 2002. The five Fire Services work together under a Memorandum of Understanding to share maintenance and operational costs. In 2011, Pickering's share of the annual operations and maintenance costs for the current system was $110,950. With the current system, Pickering Fire Services staff can talk to the other Fire Service partners, but cannot communicate with DRPS or other services. The 800 MHz system will not be supported by Motorola after 2014. This means that new parts will be unavailable for maintenance or repairs. A significant investment would be required in 2014 to improve technology and the system infrastructure. Furthermore, Pickering Fire Services currently uses a radio tower at our Operations Centre. With the projected move of the Operations Centre, a significant investment would also be required to construct a new radio antenna in a strategic location. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $10 million to replace the system infrastructure of the 800 MHz radio system that we share with the other four partners. That would require each partner to contribute at least $2 million towards the infrastructure of any new Fire Services radio system. Further work in 2010 and 2011 determined the scope of the new system. The Region of Durham is currently preparing an RFP, due in March 2012. In 2010, a Joint Management Team (JMT) of senior officers from the various stakeholder groups was formed to oversee the project. A project consultant came on board in 2011 and helped the stakeholders decide what was required in the new common communications platform. In report 2011-A-27 (see Attachment #3), the Region of Durham estimated the costs for infrastructure of the NextGen radio platform and user equipment for DRPS and Regional Departments at between $25 million and $40 million. Although the Region will be responsible for the infrastructure costs, each municipality will be required to pay for equipment used by their respective emergency services personnel. In July 2011 a technical consultant was brought on board to help prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Region. In October, 2011 Regional Council approved four pre qualified bidders to participate in the RFP which will be completed in March 2012. This step will bring further clarity to the project. Once the RFP is completed, we will be able Report CAO 14-11 December 5, 2011 123 Next Generation Common Communications Platform Page 6 to'budget more precisely, as we will have a more accurate assessment of equipment costs. There is a window of opportunity to leverage collective municipal purchasing power to procure a system cost-effectively while enhancing community safety. The ability to share operating and management costs will ensure the costs are borne throughout the Region by many partners, reducing the pressure on the operating budgets of both the Region and each individual municipality. Operationally, the new system will enhance first responder safety and community safety by allowing communication between emergency response agencies throughout the Region. Fire Services is confident that the NextGen is the best option both financially and operationally for the City of Pickering. Attachments: 1. Region of Durham, Report 2009-A-47 re Potential Share Communications Platform 2. Region of Durham, Report 2011-A-1 re Shared Communications Platform 3. Region of Durham, Report 2011-A-27 re Procurement of Next General Common Communications Platform 4. Region of Durham, Report 2011-A-43 re Procurement of Next Generation Common Communications Platform Prepared By:, Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council William T. Douglas Fire Chief Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Jon agg De ty ,Opera 'ons I 7/w Gillis . Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer 1 2 9 A-T_~ ACHM ENT # _._TO REPORT## GAO 14- ~t !v D ~ The Regional Municipality of Durham To: Finance and Administration Committee From: Chief Administrative Officer Report No.: 2009-A-47 Date: November 04, 2009 i Subiect: Potential Shared Communications Platform RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the Finance and Administration Committee recommends to Regional Council: a) THAT Report 2009-A-47 of the Chief Administrative Officer be received for information; b) THAT Regional staff and Durham Regional Police Services determine interested partners; and c) THAT the Region agrees in principle: i) to the further study of a potential shared communication platform as outlined in the report; ii) to support staff involvement on the appropriate groups as detailed in the proposed structure (Attachment A); iii) with the Halton model of capital infrastructure funding, whereby such costs are funded by Durham Regional. Police Services and the Regional Municipality of Durham, iv) to request that staff provide, at the appropriate time, detailed project recommendations with associated cost estimates for the consideration of council; v) to provide, along with the other partners to the project, its appropriate share of funding costs associated with the Project Manager, support staff and consultant services. REPORT: 1. BACKGROUND The communication systems for Police and Fire departments are nearing the end of their contracts and will need to be renewed. Representatives from . DRPS approached the Regional and local municipal CAOs to determine if there Report No.: 2009-A-47 1-rt~ A I TO REPOI;T## IL Pa9e No.: 2 ~-ra r t M - t 1 10 would be any interest in developing a shared communication platform. It was emphasized that while common dispatch would be possible, that was not the purpose of this initiative. There would be no need to relinquish individual control or dispatch. This shared platform could be used by various departments such as Works, Social Services, Transit, Emergency Management as well as Police and Fire. The CAOs requested that staff explore the issue further,and present the information to them in the fall. 2. ISSUES In an emergency effective communication is key, and currently there is some difficulty with communications between emergency services. Although there are working solutions so that the different services are able to connect with each other, a real-time system would be a great improvement. In addition, there are many other municipal departments that use a variety of communication systems, none of which connect with each other. In a variety of emergencies there are many departments involved and inter-operability would enhance the ability to respond speedily and effectively. The cost of a new system is considerable, and if spread among different stakeholders would be less burdensome to any one agency. Because usage is not.equal across all users, it is expected that the costs would be distributed according to usage. During the exploration process, staff met with representatives from Halton Region and Halton Regional Police as they are in the process of renewing their common system for the second time. One of the major hurdles in moving their process forward was the difficulty in allocating the appropriate share of the costs. To gain a' better understanding of the outlay involved, the capital costs were separated out from the operating costs, and further the capital infrastructure was separated from capital user equipment. It was determined that Halton's capital infrastructure estimated cost was around $13 million, of . which $10m could be attributed to the police budget. To move the process along it was decided that the Region would finance the other $3m, but that the other partners would be responsible for their own capital user equipment. Halton also provided Durham representatives with suggestions that they had learned during. the process. They realized that it would have been beneficial to have the project planner available.much earlier in the process than they had, but even with a project manager in place other staff supports were needed. Halton also recognized that in future they will encourage partners to build up Report No.: 2009-A-47 ;,FTACHMENT4 TO REPORT# page No.: 3 131 capital accounts in advance, so that when faced with renewing the system again the finances would be available. 3.' PROPOSED PROCESS FOR DURHAM It is clear that there is an urgency to move forward. Police and some fire departments have contracts that expire in 2014. Both Police and Fire need to run parallel systems for approximately a year to ensure that there are no glitches in the new system, therefore the new system would need to be ready in 2013. In order to move the process forward there are several steps that must happen before the end of this year (2009) to ensure that a system is ready when it is needed for the first users: Need a commitment from all stakeholders to study the initiative Establish a Joint Management Committee • Identify (and optimally hire) a project manager • Have a process underway to hire a consultant • Develop a communications plan • Have a letter of agreement in principle from all partners (at least for 2010 - for the study even if not for the final product) • Identify office space. and support personnel • Establish a good link and support from the IT area During the early part of 2010 the consultant will study the various technical options and provide advice on the optimum system for Durham. There will be a business case prepared, along with the financial implications. After this is available, municipalities and other potential stakeholders such as OPG, can decide the level of their involvement. The initiative will be overseen by a Joint Management Committee (JMC) comprised of a senior representative from the participating agencies. There will be a working group comprising technical experts from each agency and this group will feed the necessary intelligence and recommendations up to the JMC for decision making. Attachment A is a chart which shows the proposed structure. It is recommended that an initial financial arrangement be made similar to that of Halton, whereby the Police commit their portion of the capital infrastructure cost and the Region the remainder. Other stakeholders will fund their own capital user equipment and their portion of the operating costs. The cost of the project manager and consultant will be pro-rated according to communication usage of each stakeholder. Report No.: 2009-A-47 r , 1 REPORT'#1'~ !Page No.: 4 2 4. CONCLUSION A new communications system is essential for both Regional police and some municipal fire services by 2014. It has been apparent that there are existing gaps in inter-operability that hinder communication on the ground during multi- service emergencies and events. It would benefit all stakeholders to have a common system, and financially it would be advantageous to cost-share such a system according to usage. To have a system in place by the required time, it is essential that work begin immediately to secure a project manager and begin the outlined process. Garry .S.W. Chief Administrative Officer 1 3 3 J i TACHMENT # -T O R EPO~##-~~ Attachment A PROPOSED STRUCTURE DURHAM NEXT GENERATION COMMON RADIO PLATFORM MUNICIPALITY' REGION OPG Municipal CAOs and Regional CAO and OPG Representative REGIONAL J.M.T. FINANCE Steering Committee comprising of CONSULTANT a representative from DRPS, Fire, the Region and OPG PROJECT LEADER FIRE / O.P.G. / POLICE / REGION Working Group comprising of subject matter experts and to include representatives from both Lakeshore and northern fire Departments (POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS) ICI ATTACHMENT # TOREP0RT#22_Y--[/ 6 [ The Regional Municipality of Durham 134 INN To: Finance and Administration Committee From: Garry Cubitt, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Ewles, Chief, Durham Region Police Service Report No.: 2011-A-1 ' Date: January 18, 2011 Subject: Shared Communications Platform RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Finance & Administration Committee recommends to Regional Council that: 1. The process of defining the technology, selection and implementation of an interoperable emergency communication system for the Region and the local municipalities outlined in this report be approved; 2. The multi-year (2011-2014) proposal received from Lansdowne Technologies Inc. in the amount of $2,308,782.00 (excluding applicable taxes) for the provision of acquiring a firm to undertake the project management role to oversee the complete development and implementation of an interoperable communications platform for emergency communications within Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS), local municipal fire departments, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and various departments within the Region be accepted; 3. That the first year financing in the amount of approximately $922,000 be funded as follows: 2010 Emergency Communication Budget $250,000 • 2010 Durham Regional Police Service Capital Reserve 125,000 Sub-Total 2010 Funding 375,000 • 2011 Pre Budget Approval of DRPS Capital Reserve 547,000 Total First Year Funding $922,000 with the balance of funding requirements to be part of the 2012 to 2014 Business Plans and Budgets. 4. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with Lansdowne Technologies Inc. covering these requirements. ReportNo.: 2011-A-1 Page No.: 2 135 ATTACHMENT # a TOREPORT# 2L1q-11 REPORT: 1. BACKGROUND The communication systemsforPolice:-and~,Firevdepartments°~are:nearing-,_th errd:_of._their contracts~and~wilLnee.dto-be.re.newedor_replaced:;with~ ewer;-more- in teroperabletechnology Representatives from DRPS approached the Regional and local municipal CAOs to determine if there would be any interest in developing a shared communication platform. It-wasempbasized.-thatwhile common dispatch, would-be possible, that-was-not-the=purpos&-of-.fts:initiat[vet= There wouId-be=no need for relinquish° individual: control-or dispaatch_ Report 2009-A-47 approved by the Finance and Administration Committee and Regional Council laid the structure for the implementation of a shared communications platform. In 2009, as part of the five year business plan, $2'5``` mil'lion-was estimated-to be-the.- appmximate costlorthecomplete.replacem ent of theernergency: communicat on-system° currently being used, within theiv Regio A-- This multi-yearprojectwili`continueuntil.the.implem.entation,of the-new system-Y anticipated-to be in 2014. 2. PROGRESS TO DATE As part of the proposed structure overseeing the implementation process (see Attachment 1, attached) a Jomt~Manage rnent Tearn-. (JM-F~ has been formed, comprising the following individuals: • Scott Burns (DRPS) • Greg Mills (DRPS) • Sherry Whiteway (DRPS) (Chair) • Joseph Maiorano (DRPS) Don Beaton (RMD) • Ivan Ciuciura (RMD) • Troy Jones (RMD) • Mark Diotte (Ajax Fire) (Vice-Chair) • Steve Meringer (Oshawa Fire) • Dennis McBride (OPG) • Paul Truong (OPG) The JMT will oversee this initiative and has been meeting monthly. The mandate for the project is "To identify, acquire and deploy a common communication platform which is fiscally and operationally sustainable. The system selected shall meet the specific needs of our stakeholders and provide interoperability at a Regional, Provincial and Federal level." ReportNo.: 2011-A-1 Page No.: 3 136 ATTACHMENT #A-TO REPORT A working group with DRPS has been formed to ensure that day-to-day operations are covered and provide support to the JMT. In addition, a subcommittee was struck to be responsible for drafting the Request for Proposal for the consultant project management role. 3. PROPOSED PROCESS Year . Activity 1-4 Project management in lace 2 Technical specialist hired Definition of technical requirements 3-4 Generation of RFP to find supplier Installation of system As the implementation proceeds other teams indicated in the proposed oversight structure will be formed as required. 4. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #714-2010 To acquire a firm to undertake the project management role of this multi-year project, RFP#714-2010 was released on August 25, and closed on September 23, 2010. The firm will oversee the complete development and. implementation of an interoperable communications platform for various departments and divisions within the Region. Three proposals were received from: Lansdowne Technologies Inc; Kyzach Inc. and Belshaw and Associates. Of the three proposals, two were deemed compliant with submission requirements. As per Article 2.08 of the .RFP, the two compliant proponents were then invited to attend an interview to make a presentation to the evaluation team. Those firms were Lansdowne Technologies Inc. and Kyzach Inc. An evaluation team consisting of Durham Regional Police Service, Ajax Fire Department and Regional Finance staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP which consisted of the following elements: • Understanding of project requirements Background and qualifications of consultant • Project leader experience • Project management • Interviews/presentations • Pricing Report No.: 2011-A-1 Page No.: 4 137 ATTACHMENT # T OREPORT#Ck-0 (Lt- After tabulation of the evaluation scores, including the presentation, Lansdowne Technologies Inc. was the highest scoring respondent. Their financial stability and client references were reviewed and these components were rated as a, pass. As such, Lansdowne Technologies Inc. is considered the respondent to be recommended for award. 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As indicated earlier in this report, the estimated cost for the project is $25 million. The recommendation contained in Report 2009-A747 which was approved by Regional Council was that the Police commit their portion of the capital infrastructure cost and the Region the remainder. ;jWbrrstakeholders-=- r will fund their own capital user-equipn7ent and-theiF-portion=of the,operating . costs. 4- For.the capital infrastructure costs it is anticipated that DRPS will fund 70% of the costs, and the Region the remaining 30%. It is recommended that the funding for the first year be as follows: • 2010 Emergency Communication Budget $250,000. • 2010 Durham Regional Police Service Capital Reserve 125,000 Sub-Total 2010 Funding 375,000 • 2011 Pre Budget.Approval of DRPS Capital Reserve 547,000 Total First Year Funding $922.000 First year projected costs are based on the total hours required to complete the scope of work as detailed in the RFP. The rest of the $2.3 million project management costs will be budgeted over the remaining three years. As per the proposed process for the 2012 budget, in addition to the year two costs of the.Lansdowne agreement estimated at $514,953, an additional $300,000 - 500,000 will be required in year two for the technical specialist. It is expected that during years three and four of the project the supplier of the new interoperable technology will be selected and installation initiated and completed at an estimated cost of $21 million. Funding for this phase of the project will be at the-discretion of the Commissioner of Finance. Report No.: 2011-A-1 Page No.: 5 i 38 6. CONCLUSION ATTACHMENT#,ER-TO REPORT##0~~, t It is essential that DRPS implement a new communications platform anatt;.: is~i place-fibs-W O° Effective emergency communications between the identified agencies with an interoperable, real-time system is critical for community safety. Since=manyof-the,fire`-departmentsk ccmmUtnication, . systems=are=-also--nearing-the-end of=theip-contT-actsthES:wouad~.~seem-i.ta-be;a.; mostoppo°rtrane=time fo° mpie-me sacl Garr integrafiedI shared platform. This report has been reviewed by the Finance Department and the Commissioner of Finance concurs with the financial recommendation. Garry Cubitt M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer Mike. Ewles Chief, Durham Region Police Service - ''r,CHMENT# Z TO REPORT #22-14-1' 139 6~ G Attachment A PROPOSED STRUCTURE DURHAM NEXT GENERATION COMMON RADIO PLATFORM MUNICIPALITY REGION OPG Municipal CAOs and Regional CAO and OPG Representative J.M.T. REGIONAL. Steering Committee comprising of CONSULTANT FINANCE a representative from DRPS, Fire, the Region and OPG PROJECT LEADER FIRE I O.P.G.1 POLICE 1 REGION Working Group comprising of.subject matter experts and to include representatives from both lakeshore and northern fire Departments i (POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS) i i 4 TO REPORo# a 6ly -i~ The Regional Municipality of Durham To: Finance and Administration Committee From: Garry Cubitt, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Ewles, Chief, Durham Regional Police Service - Report No.: 2011 A-27 ' Date: June 21, 2011 Subiect• Procurement of Next Generation Common Communications Platform RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council: a) THAT the Joint Management Team for the Next Generation Common Communications Platform Project (NextGen) representing the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Durham Regional Police Service, the Fire Services of the local eight Municipalities and Ontario Power Generation, be authorized to use the Region's pre-qualification process for vendors to supply an interoperable voice and data communications system,. including supporting infrastructure, user gear and specified support services; and b) THAT the subsequent Request for Proposals for the interoperable voice and data communications system be issued only to the pre-qualified. firms. RE_ 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to-seek approval for the use of a pre-qualification process to select vendors to be invited to submit responses to a Request for Proposal to provide an interoperable voice and data communications system and related services for the collective use of the police, fire, emergency response, public services, and Ontario Power Generation in Durham Region. 2. BACKGROUND Report 2011 A-25 provides the relevant background information to this report. ' 25 li ; C:hi`il~NT4 3 TOREPORT#C 41 a45t ; Report No.: 2011-A-27 Page No.: 2 3. RFP FOR PRE-QUALIFIED VENDORS An RFP process will be used to select a vendor who will design, develop and deliver a solution to meet the Region's interoperable communications needs. The design and development period is expected to take two years from the time the contract is signed with the successful vendor. Given the magnitude and time-critical nature of the work involved, it is crucial that the selected vendor is able to deliver a solution on time.. Many other municipalities across Canada and.the United States are undergoing similar procurement processes as older radio technologies will become unsupportable for them as well. At the same time, the ongoing occurrences of emergency situations (tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, etc.) throughout the world that are causing devastation to municipal infrastructures have highlighted the critical need for emergency first responders to be able to effectively communicate with each other. Pre-qualified firms who receive a Request for Proposal document will be provided with information, confidential in nature, on the current capabilities and operations of the police,,fire, and emergency response services in the Region, as well as information on the nuclear power plants under the responsibility of Ontario Power Generation. It is important that this information be provided only to vendors who have suitable security measures and qualifications to handle the material appropriately. The pre-qualification process will allow open competition among all interested vendors, providing them with an opportunity to submit their corporate experience, qualifications and security background checks for,assessment by the stakeholders. A subsequent Report will be brought forward to Committee and Council requesting approval to pre-qualify the recommended firms. The pre-qualified firms will then be invited to participate in a streamlined RFP process which will evaluate detailed proposals including their development plans and proposed prices for the various options on which they choose to bid. 4. PURCHASING BY-LAW 68-2000 The Region's Purchasing By-Law No. 68-2000 requires prior approval of Regional Council for use of a pre-qualification process. Staff are recommending and requesting approval from the Finance and Administration Committee and Regional Council to allow the use of the pre-qualification process in the procurement strategy for the NextGen. The process used will be as follows: • The Finance Department, Purchasing Section will conduct the pre- qualification process. l6 TO REPORT #~Iq-lf Report No.: 2011-A-27 Page No.: 3 14 2 The Joint Management Team will establish an Evaluation Committee to review submissions and establish pre-qualification submission criteria. The Regional Municipality of Durham has entered into a contract with Lansdowne Technologies Inc. as the Project Leader with the responsibility of assisting Durham Region, represented by the Joint Management Team, to identify, acquire and deploy a new interoperable communications capability. Lansdowne, in consultation with the Finance Department Purchasing section, will draft the NextGen evaluation and selection process for review and finalization by the Joint Management Team. A pre-qualification document describing the scope of work and deliverables for the NextGen vendor, applicable terms and instructions for a submission, and a description of the pre-qualification criteria, will be issued by the Finance. Department Purchasing section. • An advertisement will be prepared notifying the public that the pre- qualification process has begun and that interested parties can request a pre-qualification package to prepare a submission. The deadline for submissions will be a minimum of 21 calendar days from the advertisement date. Vendors who have expressed an interest in the project and/or are known vendors to the Regional Municipality of Durham and similar jurisdictions will be notified of the pre-qualification package. • On the closing date, all completed pre-qualification submissions are reviewed by the Finance Department for compliance with submission requirements. Compliant submissions are then forwarded for review by the Evaluation Committee. References may be solicited as required to. assist in the pre-qualification process by the Finance Department, Purchasing Section. Upon completion of the evaluation and selection process a subsequent report will be brought forward to Committee and Council requesting approval to pre- qualify the recommended firms. Only those that pre-qualify will be invited to submit detailed proposals under the RFP process. When proposals are received, the successful vendor will be selected in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. The RFP process is planned for the fall of 2011. The above process is consistent with what has been utilized previously for other Regional projects. r% r7 3 ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # '5~AO y Report No.: 2011-A-27 Page No.: 4 5. CONCLUSION NextGen will contribute to the future safety of all residents and first responders within the Region by improving the effectiveness of public safety and public service agencies during emergencies and day-to-day operations. Providing authorization to proceed with the pre-qualification process will achieve efficiencies in the procurement process that optimally uses the resources of both vendors and government staff while maintaining an open and fair procurement. aMike Ewles Chief, Durham Regional Police Service 98 a GAO Iq - EpopT " # y Op TACH MENT 14' 14 The Regional Muinicipality of Durham To: Finance and Administration Committee From: Garry Cubitt, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Ewles, Chief, Durham Regional Police Service Report No.: 2011-A-43 Date: October 4, 2011 Subiect• Procurement of Next Generation Common Communications Platform RECOMMENDATION: That the Finance and Administration Committee recommends to Regional Council that: Authorization be given to prequalify the four (4) vendors outlined in this Report, in order that. they may be invited to submit responses to a Request for Proposal to provide an interoperable voice and data communications system, including supporting infrastructure, user gear and specified support services. REPORT: 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek approval for four vendors to be prequalified for the Request for Proposals for the interoperable voice and data communications system and related services for the collective use of the police, fire, emergency response, public services, and Ontario Power Generation in Durham Region. 2. BACKGROUND Council approved Report #2041-A-27 on June 29 whereby authorization was given to use the prequalification process to prequalify up to five (5) respondents to take part in an RFP to provide an interoperable. voice and data communications system. Such a process was to determine vendors capable of designing, delivering, installing, acceptance testing and operating a common communications platform that meets the needs of the NextGen Project stakeholders. One critical requirement which necessitated the RFPQ process was that only vendors who have suitable security measures.and qualifications to handle the highly confidential material involved in the project would be prequalified for the future RFP process. 103 A : I I Page No.: 2 Report No.: 2011-A-43 - Gtbl q-1' J 4'TACHMENT #-..H- a R OAT 'yf(s Subsequently, RFPQ-693-2011 was issued on July 27, 2010. ° b 3. REQUEST FOR PREQUALIFICATION (RFPQ) 693-2011 I!' I The RFPQ closed for acceptance of submissions on September 6, 2011 and. 110 submissions were received from the following seven (7) firms: it Bell Mobility Radio Inter-Op Canada j • Telus Communications Co. y' • Harris Corporation Tait North America Inc. y Cassidian Communications • Motorola Solutions Canada 4. EVALUATION PROCESS I' Of the seven (7) proposals received, one (1) was a notification of no bid and six (6) were deemed compliant. An evaluation team consisting of DRPS, Fire Services, a technical communications consultant, the project manager and Finance staff reviewed f and evaluated the compliant submissions in accordance with the evaluation criteria included in the RFPQ, which consisted of the following: Prior Interoperable Radio Communication System Installations Experience, i including: Appropriateness of size of user base for installed system. Degree of scalability for different user types. • Appropriateness of specific project experiences with Canadian standard of operations • Degree of responsibility and contribution of the Prime Proponent for each of the project roles of: ➢ system design, ➢ manufacturing and supply of user gear, ➢ manufacturing,and supply of infrastructure equipment, ➢ system integration/installation, ➢ system maintenance and operation, and ➢ user gear maintenance; • Degree of compliance to P25 standards. Project Organizational Structure, including: Suitability of.the proposed organizational structure for the NextGen Project 04 CA0 ~~f l l Report No.: 2011-A-43 A~ re TO REPORT #.~-Page No:: 3 • Degree of relevant proven working relationships among the various team members and subcontractors. • : Future Radio Technology Strategy, including: - • Degree of relevance of the future radio technology strategic plan for the Vendor • ; Degree of understanding of future technology trends for the industry and factors affecting those trends. • Clarity and logic.of corporate vision for.positioning the Vendor to be a long-term industryleader and innovator • Clarity and logic of how the Vendor manages ongoing maintenance and technology upgrades on delivered systems .throughout the duration of a 10 year contract • Financial Stability • Customer References The four (4) highest scoring respondents were selected'and, upon. completing reference checks and a review of financial stability the following are being recommended for prequalifcation mthe subsequent RFP process • Bell Mobility.. • Cassidian Communications • Harris Corporation • Motorola Solutions Canada 'FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5 Purchasing By-law 68-2000 (Amended) Sub Article 10.4 of the Region's Purchasing By-law No. 68-2000 (amended) addresses the method for approval based on an RFP process,, indicating the necessityof approval from Regional Council. The cost of capital infrastructure and user gear for DRPS and the Region was estimated to be $25-40m 6.' -CONCLUSION NextGen will contribute to the future safety of all residents and first responders within the Region by improving the effectiveness of public safety and public service agencies during emergencies and day-today operations. Authorization to prequalify the vendors ,noted will allow the project to move to the next stage of implementation. 105 O Page No.: 4 1'W ReportNo:: 2011-A-43 Ck/Q-t/ EPORT ATTACHME 147 As such, the Finance and Administration Committee recommends to Regional Council that: Authorization be given to prequalify the four (4) vendors outlined in this Report; in order that they may be invited to submit responses to a Request for Proposal to provide an interoperable voice and data communications system, including supporting infrastructure, user gear and specified support services. I!, GVAistra .W. Ctive Office r Mike Ewles Chief, Durham Regional Police, Service 106