Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
May 25, 2021
Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ryan will read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest 5. Adoption of Minutes Council Minutes, April 26, 2021 1 Executive Committee Minutes, May 3, 2021 32 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, May 3, 2021 41 6. Presentations 6.1 Paul Ronan, Executive Director Shelley May, Office Manager Ontario Parks Association Re: Presentation of Award 2021 Protecting Tomorrow Today - Parks Champion Award to Rob Gagen, Supervisor, Parks & Property, City of Pickering 6.2 Paul Ronan, Executive Director Shelley May, Office Manager Ontario Parks Association Re: Presentation of Award 2021 Protecting Tomorrow Today - Community Engagement Award to the City of Pickering - Sustainability For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 7. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public may provide a verbal delegation to Members of Council via electronic participation. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Delegation requests must be received by noon on the last business day before the scheduled meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 7.1 Margaret Parkhill, Associate Director, Practice Lead, Transportation Engineering IBI Group Re: Metrolinx Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Project Update 7.2 Peter Clewes, Principal architects-Alliance Re: Update on the Pickering City Centre Project’s Design Development 7.3 Nikosa Holland, John Currie, and John Sabean Cultural Advisory Committee Re: Corr. 27-21 Cultural Advisory Committee - 2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan 7.4 Robert Rollings Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 7.5 Alan Jeffs Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 23-21 55 Carol Schofield, Manager, Legislative Services/Clerk Town of Fort Erie Re: Township of The Archipelago - Road Management Action on Invasive Phragmites Recommendation: That Corr. 23-21, from Carol Schofield, Manager, Legislative Services/Clerk, Town of Fort Erie, dated April 27, 2021, regarding the Township of The Archipelago - Road Management Action on Invasive Phragmites, be received for information. 8.2 Corr. 24-21 58 Jennifer O’Connell, Member of Parliament, Pickering-Uxbridge Re: Government of Canada's Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) Program Recommendation: 1. That Corr. 24-21, from Jennifer O’Connell, Member of Parliament, Pickering-Uxbridge, dated April 26, 2021, regarding the Government of Canada's Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) Program, be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to submit an application under the Government of Canada’s GICB Program for the construction of the Council approved Pickering Heritage & Community Centre. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 8.3 Corr. 25-21 59 Guy Giorno, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Re: 2019 and 20 20 Annual Reports Recommendation: That Corr. 25-21, from Guy Giorno, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering, dated April 30, 2021, regarding the 2019 and 20 20 Annual Reports, be received for information. 8.4 Corr. 26-21 69 Robyn Kurtes, Director Environmental Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Re: Notification of Proposal on Modernizing Environmental Compliance Practices and Ontario Community Environment Fund Re-Launch Recommendation: 1. That Corr. 26-21 , from Robyn Kurtes, Director, Environmental Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, dated May 5, 2021, regarding the Notification of Proposal on Modernizing Environmental Compliance Practices and Ontario Community Environment Fund Re-Launch, be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to review and submit comments pertaining to the #1 Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guidelines and #3 Upgrading the Ministry’s Compliance Policy. 8.5 Corr. 27-21 72 Tanya Ryce, Supervisor, Cultural Services City of Pickering Re: Cultural Advisory Committee - 2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan Recommendation: That Corr. 27-21, from Tanya Ryce, Supervisor, Cultural Services City of Pickering, dated May 14, 2021, regarding the Cultural Advisory Committee - 2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan, be received for information. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 8.6 Corr. 28-21 75 Tim Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator City of Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee - 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan Recommendation: That Corr. 28-21, from Tim Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering, dated May 14, 2021, regarding the Accessibility Advisory Committee - 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan, be received for information. 9. Report EC 05-21 of the Executive Committee held on Refer to Executive May 3, 2021 Committee Agenda pages: 9.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 02-21 1 2022 Municipal Election - Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Recommendation: 1. That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election, Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act be received; 2. That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulation equipment, be approved as the voting method for the 2022 Municipal Election and any by-elections that may occur during t he 2022-2026 Term of Council; 3. That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 4. That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the approved voting method and associated services and report back to Council to award the voting contract to the most appropriate vendor(s); and, For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-21 9 Quotation No. Q2021-40 - Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks Recommendation: 1. That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No. Q2021-40: a) East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the amounts of $134,890.74 (HST excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST excluded), respectively; b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00 (HST excluded); and, c) Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in the amount of $12,800.00 (HST excluded); 2. That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a) The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to be funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund-Transportation Services be increased to $225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; b) The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget by a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; c) The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital Budget by a transfer from the For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-21 15 Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement - Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Recommendation: 1. That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement with Metrolinx; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of affixing Metrolinx infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-21 61 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount of $160,273.55 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $158,765.00 as follows: a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share; b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-21 67 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST included) be accepted; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 3. That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $147,056.00 as follows: a) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; b) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-21 73 Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 - Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent - Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7", Stop Signs, 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 o f the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the addition of community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety Zone on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 3. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9", Speed Limits, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of speed limits on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 07-21 82 Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding commodity price hedging agreements be received for information. 9.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-21 86 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. 10. Report PD 05-21 of the Planning & Development Refer to Planning & Committee held on May 3, 2021 Development Agenda pages: 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 06-21 17 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2557 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 12 and Blocks 13 t o 17, Plan 40 M-2557 - File: 40M-2557 Recommendation: For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 1. That Shadow Place within Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2557, 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; 3. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2557; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 as a public highway; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 09-21 21 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2558 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Block 1, Plan 40M-2558 - File: 40M-2558 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2558, 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; 2. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2558; and, For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-21 24 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 City Initiated Amendment to Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Recommendation: That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 to amend Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to include a corner rounding definition and provisions, be endorsed, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment containing the standards set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. 10.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-21 31 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO See page 84 of [Additional Information regarding Report PLN 24-21] this Agenda Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to re-designate the lands municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum floor space index of 2.53 for the portion of the subject lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development consisting o f 346 apar tment units, be approved subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 24-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 10.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-21 70 Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 26-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated November 25, 2020, to list 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council authorize staff to pursue designating 882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church) under Section 29, Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 4. That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include the properties on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 04-21 102 Pickering City Centre Project - Construction Cost Estimating Services & Next Steps Recommendation: For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 1. That Report CAO 04-21 of the C hief Administrative Officer be received; 2. That Council approve staff to undertake the following one -time actions to facilitate the development of the five year capital and operating financial plan as it relates to the City Centre project: a. That request for proposal RFP 2021-1 Cost Estimating Services – Pickering City Centre submitted by Turner & Townsend Canada Inc., in the amount of $46,217 (HST included) and a net project cost of $41,620 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; b. That architectsAlliance be approved to participate in the stakeholder and community design consultation exercises, cost estimating value engineering and “Savings By Design Program” review with costs not to exceed $25,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $22,513 (net of HST rebate) and to be to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; c. That Sponsorship Canada be retained to undertake sponsorship asset valuation services for the three Pickering City Centre facilities (Library, Performing Arts Centre, Seniors & Youth Centre), Piazza & Public Realm, and other new municipal construction projects originally budgeted at $30,000 and now increased to an upset limit of $45,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $40,524 (net of HST rebate) and to be charged to account 2121.2392.0000 and funded 100% from the Casino Reserve (7067.0000.0000); d. That IBI Group be retained to undertake a parking strategy that reviews the immediate and short-term parking needs for the Pickering Civic Complex at a cost not to exceed $50,000 (HST included), and a net project cost of $45,027 (net of HST rebate) and to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; and, e. That Deloitte LLP be engaged to assist with quantitative analysis as it applies to the five year financial plan and the corresponding City’s debt capacity as it relates to the Annual Repayment Limit and develop corresponding options at a cost not to exceed For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm $45,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $40,524 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from the 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; 3. That Council approve staff to undertake the following actions related to the ongoing development of the C ity Centre project as part of the development of the five year capital and operating financial plan: a. That Tory’s LLP be retained at a cost of $228,960 (net of HST rebate) to advise and assist with the negotiation of the various contracts which define the Pickering City Centre Project, sufficient to identify project costs so they can be accounted for in the project cost estimate, and that these costs be allocated to the following 2020 Capital Budget accounts as follows: i. Seniors & Youth Centre (5740.2003) – 50%; ii. Central Library (5740.2002) – 25%; and, iii. Performing Arts Centre (5740.2001) – 25%; b. That the services of CAM Consulting be retained to undertake a review of the architectural drawings for the Performing Arts Centre at an upset limit of $25,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $22,513 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from account 2740.2392 and funded 100% from the Casino Reserve; and, c. That through a competitive process that the services of a project management firm be approved to undertake project management services for the City Centre Project for a period of 4 months at an upset limit of $81,100 (HST included), and a net project cost of $73,000 (net of HST rebate) and to be funded from account 2121.2392 and funded 100% from the casino reserve; 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 11.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 02-21 113 Tender T2021-32 - Tender for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park – South East and South West Baseball Lighting Recommendation: 1. That Tender No. T2021-32 as submitted by Sentry Electric Inc. in the tender amount of $508,000.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $639,473.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount and other associated costs and the total net project cost of $575,865.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $575,865.00 as provided for in the 2020 Parks Capital Budget by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 11.3 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 26-21 120 Tender for Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement - Tender No. T2021-10 Recommendation: 1. That Tender No. T2021-10 submitted by SMID Construction Limited, in the amount of $489,290.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $617,545.00 (HST included), including t he a mount of the Tender and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $556,118.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $556,118.00 as follows: For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm a) the sum of $222,500.00 be funded by Federal and Provincial grant funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) COVID-19 Resilient Infrastructure stream; b) the sum of $247,500.00, as provided for in the 2021 Civic Complex Capital Budget be funded by a 10-year internal loan; c) the sum of $31,118.00 by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization reserve; d) the sum of $55,000.00 from property taxes; and, e) the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 11.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 08-21 127 Right of Entry By-law Recommendation: 1. That Report LEG 08-21 regarding a Right of Entry By-law be received; 2. That Council adopt one of the following options: Option A: That the Right of Entry By-law included as Attachment No. 3 to this Report be enacted; or Option B: That the Right of Entry By-law included as Attachment No. 3 to this Report not be enacted, but that staff be directed to monitor, on an ongoing bas is, by-law enforcement and complaint matters for which a Right of Entry By-law may be of use, to determine if such a by-law should be enacted in future; and, 3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 11.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 27-21 152 Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act Arising from Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) Recommendation: That Report PLN 27-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the implications for the City of Pickering on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act arising from Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), be received. 11.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 09-21 180 2021 Property Tax Deferral Program - Phase II Implementation Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 09-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to implement Phase II of the 2021 Property Tax Deferral Program for the residential property tax class, consistent with the principles of the Council approved program established through Report FIN 02-21 and that property tax payments be deferred and interest and penalty be waived from June 1, 2021 to October 25, 2021 for those applicants that meet the criteria; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to waive interest and penalty for residential properties for an extended period from November 1, 2021 up to December 31, 2021 and that the deferral of the interest and penalty be based on financial hardship due to the pandemic; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 12.Motions and Notice of Motions 13.By-laws 13.1 By-law 7846/21 Being a by-law to authorize the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote tabulators for the 2022 Municipal Election. [Refer to CLK 02-21 and page 8 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 13.2 By-law 7847/21 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. [Refer to ENG 13-21 and page 79 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 13.3 By-law 7848/21 Being a by-law to establish Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 as public highway (Finch Avenue). [Refer to LEG 06-21 and page 20 of the Planning & Development Committee Agenda] 13.4 By-law 7849/21 136 Being a by-law authorizing entry upon adjoining lands for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to buildings, fences or other structures. [Refer to Item 11.4 LEG 08-21] 13.5 By-law 7850/21 183 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 18-005/P) 13.6 By-law 7851/21 188 Being a by-law to establish Block 89, 40M-1419 as public highway (Dencourt Drive). Council Meeting Agenda May 25, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 14. Other Business 15. Confirmation By-law 16. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor B. Duffield - (Acting) Director, Community Services J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources J. Hagg - Fire Chief J. Flowers - CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner V. Plouffe - Manager, Facilities Capital Projects C. Whitaker - Supervisor, Sustainability C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk C. Hodge - Senior Coordinator, Development Liaison T. Bal - Planner Il 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Invocation Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement - 1 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Mayor Ryan read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 5. Adoption of Minutes Resolution # 562/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles In Camera Council Minutes, March 22, 2021 Council Minutes, March 22 Special Council Minutes, March 30, 2021 Executive Committee Minutes, April 6, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, April 6, 2021 Carried 6. Presentations There were no presentations. 7. Delegations Resolution # 563/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow two additional delegations from Brian Moss and Duncan Webster. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote 7.1 Donna McFarlane, Senior Advisor, Durham Region Hospice Eva Reti, Chair, VON Durham Community Corporation Board Re: Update on the Durham Region Hospice - Comfort, Care and Compassion Capital Campaign Donna McFarlane, Senior Advisor, Durham Region Hospice, and Eva Reti, Chair, VON Durham Community Corporation Board, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an update on the Durham Region Hospice - Comfort, Care, and Compassion Capital Campaign. Through the aid of a PowerPoint -C➔(Jf - 2 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm presentation, they highlighted the three hospice residences coming to Durham Region, being Oak Ridges Hospice in Port Perry, Clarington Hospice in Newcastle and Whitby Hospice. They noted that hospices focus on meaningful end-of-life care at no cost to Durham Region residents and their families in a supportive, flexible and home-like environment. Ms. Reti and Ms. McFarlane advised of the features of hospice residences, and current budget status of the Whitby hospice. They spoke to the fundraising efforts to date, and the $284,574 balance needed for construction of the Whitby hospice. The delegates asked that Council raise awareness regarding the value of hospice residences, and to encourage those who are able to give community support to the proposed Whitby hospice, as it would serve all Durham Region residents. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Donna McFarlane, and Eva Reti regarding: confirmation that hospice services are provided at no costs to Durham residents, and the need for reserves and to continuously fundraise; and, appreciation for the work undertaken by Durham Region Hospice to create a much needed facility to support loved ones. 7.2 Andrew Scott , Associate Land Development Manager – GTE Division Mattamy Homes Ltd. Re: Report PLN 19-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Andrew Scott , Associate Land Development Manager, Mattamy Homes Ltd., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of Mattamy Homes Ltd. Mr. Scott noted his support for Report PLN 19-21, and stated he was available for questions. 7.3 Gena Chang-Campbell, Chair, Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Catherine Mosca, Vice Chair, Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Re: Report CS 22-21 Pickering Ant-Black Racism Taskforce Terms of Reference Gena Chang-Campbell, Chair, Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, and Catherine Mosca, Vice Chair, Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT) joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an update on the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce. Ms. Chang-Campbell advised of the newly elected executive membership, and provided an update on the establishment of - 3 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm several sub-committees as outlined in the PABRT Terms of Reference and Report CS 22-21. Ms. Chang-Campbell spoke of the PABRT Action Plan, and research conducted on the best practices for the proposed adoption of the stipend for members. She expressed appreciation for the support of Council and City Staff and noted that they look forward to enacting systematic change. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Gena Chang-Campbell regarding: whether there was a process for removing members from the Taskforce if they are not actively participating, and whether there would be a protocol in place to effectively deal with those situations; how the proposed stipend was initiated, the research conducted by the preparatory sub-committee, utilizing best practices in other municipalities as a benchmark; how the stipend for members would be overseen, in an agreed upon manner by the PABRT and City staff, and how all work undertaken would be pre-approved and recorded in the Taskforce minutes; and, compliments on the enthusiasm and dedication of the PABRT a nd the important work to be undertaken. 7.4 George Stergiou Re: Property Standards Claim - Failure to Repair a Retaining Wall that is Breaking Down a Fence and Impacting Multiple Neighbours George Stergiou, 1653 Heathside Crescent, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak on a Property Standards Claim pertaining to a retaining wall that is breaking down his fence and impacting multiple properties within his neighbourhood. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Stergiou raised concerns regarding the retaining wall built on the property at 1651 Heathside Crescent to support an in-ground swimming pool on a sloping yard, and how it has deteriorated and is falling down. He noted that all adjoining properties to 1651 Heathside Crescent are impacted by the degrading retaining wall, and its continuous encroachment on the property lines which poses significant safety hazards. Mr. Stergiou concluded his delegation by requesting support from Council in resolving this matter. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and George Stergiou regarding: impacts of the shifting fence, and the requirements under the City’s Property Standards By-law to retain walls and structures; the assessment of the fence by independent contractors and the advice provided that the fence is not structurally sound; - 4 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm how a Right of Entry By-law is connected to the Property Standards By- Law, and its impact on construction and repairs, with Mr. Stergiou noting the limited capabilities of equipment that can be used for repairs as it may encroach on a neighbours property; ensuring that Mr. Stergiou’s PowerPoint presentation was available as background material to City staff to further assess the situation; whether a property survey had been completed to establish the lot line; and, the length of time the current fence had been erected. 7.6 Michael Vani, Senior Planner Weston Consulting Re: Report PLN 22-21 Two-year period Exemption Request for Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Michael Vani, Senior Planner, Weston Consulting, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of the applicant, Universal Six Developments Inc. He advised of the minor variance application requirements, and noted agreement with the staff recommendations outlined in Report PLN 22-21. He stated he was available for questions. 7.5 Rick Perotto, Vice President of Business Development David Hardy, Vice President, Sustainability & Stakeholder Affairs William F. White International Inc. (WFW) Re: Report PLN 20-21 Lease Agreement for Temporary Use of City Property at 3800 Sideline 32 - William F. White International Inc. – Filming Backlot Rick Perotto, Vice President of Business Development and David Hardy, Vice President, Sustainability & Stakeholder Affairs, William F. White International Inc. joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an update on the Lease Agreement for Temporary use of City property at 3800 Sideline Road 32. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, they provided an overview of William F. White International Inc. (WFW), Canada’s largest provider of production equipment and studios in the entertainment industry. They discussed their company values and purpose, COVID-19 safety protocols, and growing portfolio of production studios in the Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto areas. Mr. Perotto and Mr. Hardy highlighted current partnerships and projects, including specialty equipment, sunbelt rentals, and virtual productions. Mr. Hardy advised that WFW is committed to sustainability, and has a company goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. Mr. Perotto highlighted WFW community engagement -C➔(Jf - 5 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm initiatives, including grants, scholarships, guest lectures at Durham College and in-kind sponsorships. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Rick Perotto, and David Hardy regarding: types of tertiary economic activity that may be stimulated by the temporary use of City property which would create positive economic impacts for the City and Durham Region; how the studio expansion and location film industry w ould stimulate growth in other industries such as catering companies, vehicle and equipment rentals, retailers, cleaners, landscapers, and create employment opportunities, and how the City of Hamilton and North Bay are applicable examples of the benefits of the film industry to a municipality; how filming in a City the size of Pickering aligns with the company’s core values, as well as providing opportunities to engage the City, access to the backlot and working with residents to understand community concerns, provide information about what is occurring in a professional and transparent manner, and share resources to foster the support of the community; how sustainability is a passion and focus of WFW, and the partnership possibilities with the City’s Sustainability staff to learn from each other, and support sustainability efforts in not only filming, but for the municipality as a whole; understanding the timeframe of when the site will be needed for City community planning initiatives, and ensuring this is factored into the planning of the backlot production studio; ensuring that the site is maintained and when vacated, left in better condition than when it was found; and, the approximation of employing between 100-150 people at given times during production schedules. 7.7 Brian Moss, Principal Brian Moss And Associates Ltd. Re: Report PLN 17-21 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-03 Draft Plan of Condominium A pplication CP-2019-04 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/19 10046043 Canada Inc. & C. Wang Lots 14, 29 and 30, Part of Lots 22 to 26 Plan 818, Part 4 of 40R-29018, Part 1 of 40R-29545, Part 2 of 40R-30489 and Part 1 of 40R-30492 (1950 and 1952 Fairport Road) - 6 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Brian Moss, Principal, Brian Moss and Associate Ltd. joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of 10046043 Canada Inc. & C. Wang and noted that minor adjustments had been made, as outlined in the Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO which was included on the agenda. He spoke in support of the additional measures proposed, and that he was available for questions. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Brian Moss regarding: how extensive testing of the area had been conducted; how the majority of the material on the subject lands is construction debris, and some asphalt which may have triggered the hydrocarbon readings; and, confirmation that all material would be remediated and cleaned in accordance with a Record of Site Condition, indicating the lands have been remediated of any contamination, before final approval of the draft plan of subdivision would be granted. 7.8 Duncan Webster, Land Development Manager, GTA Land Division Mattamy Homes Re: Report PLN 16-21 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-03 (R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/15 (R) Seaton TFPM Inc. Part Lots 17 to 19, Concession 4, Part Lots 17 to 21, Concession 5 Seaton Community Duncan Webster, Land Development Manager joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of Seaton TFPM Inc. He stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations contained in Report PLN 16-21, and that he was available for questions. 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 17-21 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: CP Railway Traffic Information and Data (2021-P-6) Resolution # 564/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG - 7 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm That Corr. 17-21, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated March 25, 2021, regarding the CP Railway Traffic Information and Data (2021-P-6), be endorsed. Carried 8.2 Corr. 18-21 Association of Municipalities Ontario Re: One-Time Doubling of Gas Tax Funds in 2021 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, and Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer, regarding: clarification that the recommendation as presented would require a re- opening of the 2021 Current and Capital Budgets; the possibility of investing the additional Gas Tax Funds with the intent to utilize the majority of the funds for the 2022 Budget Road Re-surfacing Program; how the tender environment has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that many companies already have commitments for 2021, and that it may be in the City’s best interests to tender for competitive pricing in 2022; the rules surrounding the use of the Gas Tax Funding and the importance of utilizing this funding source so the City does not have to use debt or tax revenue; the uncertainty due to the pandemic, and the need to provide City Staff flexibility on how funds are allocated, and to deal with financial matters that may come forward; and, how this was an unexpected windfall, similar to what had transpired in 2019 which provided for $3.2 million to be spent on the 2020 Road Resurfacing Program, noting that the intent for 2022 would be similar and that this would provide staff with the necessary time to identify and ensure a more robust Road Resurfacing program in 2022. Resolution # 565/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Corr. 18-21, from Association of Municipalities Ontario, dated March 26, 2021, regarding a One-Time Doubling of Gas Tax Funds in 2021, be received for information; and, -C➔(Jf - 8 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 2. That City Staff be directed, through the CAO, to report back on how these additional funds will be applied in the 2021 Capital Budget Year no later than the June 28, 2021 Council Meeting. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motions) Resolution #566/21 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the main motion be amended by deleting Item 2 from the recommendation in its entirety. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor McLean Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Resolution #567/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That City Staff be directed, through the CAO, to apply the One-Time Doubling of Gas Tax Funds to the 2022 Road Resurfacing Program. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Brenner Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried. 8.3 Corr. 19-21 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham -C➔(Jf - 9 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Re: Motion to add Pharmacies in Durham Region to the Government of Ontario’s Pilot Project to Deliver the AstraZeneca Vaccine Resolution # 568/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Corr. 19-21, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated March 25, 2021, regarding the Motion to add Pharmacies in Durham Region to the Government of Ontario’s Pilot Project to Deliver the AstraZeneca Vaccines, be endorsed. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Resolution #569/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the main motion be amended by adding the following as a new Item 2 and the recommendation renumbered accordingly: That further, Pickering City Council supports the use of all provincially approved COVID-19 vaccines for the Government of Ontario’s Pilot Project at Pharmacies in Durham Region. Carried The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried. 8.4 Corr. 20-21 Mallory Clyne, Director, Strategic Initiatives Toronto Region Board of Trade Re: Getting On The Right Track: Connecting Communities with Regional Rail Resolution # 570/21 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Corr. 20-21, from Mallory Clyne, Director, Strategic Initiatives, Toronto Region Board of Trade, dated March 30, 2021, regarding Getting On The Right Track: Connecting Communities with Regional Rail, be endorsed. -C➔(Jf - 10 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Carried 8.5 Corr. 21-21 Nathan Cato, Director, Government Affairs Canadian Pacific Re: Rail Traffic Data – Response to the Regional Municipality of Durham Resolution # 571/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Corr. 21-21, from Nathan Cato, Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Pacific, dated April 7, 2021, regarding the Rail Traffic Data – Response to the Regional Municipality of Durham, be received; and, 2. That Corr. 21-21 be referred to City Development Staff, to adopt the Proximity Guidelines established jointly by the Railway Association of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on Planning matters. Carried 8.6 Corr. 22-21 Mary Medeiros, City Clerk City of Oshawa Re: Process to Establish the City of Oshawa including the lands in Oshawa operated by Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority as a Foreign Trade Zone Resolution # 572/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Corr. 22-21, from Mary Medeiros, City Clerk, City of Oshawa, dated April 8, 2021, regarding the Process to Establish the City of Oshawa including the lands in Oshawa operated by Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority as a Foreign Trade Zone, be endorsed. Carried 9. Report EC 04-21 of the Executive Committee held on April 6, 2021 9.1 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report CAO 03-21 Community Partner Membership Agreement -C➔(Jf - 11 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm - Canadian Centre for Nuclear Sustainability Council Decision: 1. That Report CAO 03-21 regarding the Community Partner Membership Agreement, between Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) and The Corporation of the City of Pickering, be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Community Partner Membership Agreement with Ontario Power Generation set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Chief Administrative Officer, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. The City Clerk forward a copy of this Report CAO 03-21 to the Regional Municipality of Durham and Ontario Power Generation; and, 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. 9.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 15-21 Emix Ltd. - Lease Amendment Agreement Council Decision: 1. That Report CS 15-21 respecting the City of Pickering’s Lease Amendment Agreement with Emix Ltd. at 1101 Kingston Road, Suite 280, Pickering, be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Amendment Agreement with Emix Ltd. set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 07-21 Proposed All-way Stop - William Jackson Drive and Bronzedale Street/Kalmar Avenue Council Decision: - 12 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 1. 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 installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of William Jackson Drive and Bronzedale Street/Kalmar Avenue; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 08-21 Krosno Creek Culvert Replacements – Gas Main Relocations Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard, and Alyssum Street (including Sandy Beach Road) Council Decision: 1. That the cost proposals for gas main relocations submitted by Enbridge Gas Inc. for; Morden Lane, Reytan Boulevard, and Alyssum Street (including Sandy Beach Road) in the amount of $296,872.94 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total net project cost of $294,078.00 (net of HST rebate) for the proposals be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to fund the net project cost of $294,078.00 for the proposals as follows: a) the sum of $152,921.00 by a transfer from Development Charges City’s Share Reserve; b) the sum of $141,157.00 by a transfer from Development Charges- Stormwater Management Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.5 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 07-21 Property Standards By-law Council Decision: 1. That Report LEG 07-21 regarding the attached Property Standards By-law be received; -C➔(Jf - 13 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 2. That Corporate Services staff be directed to work with Corporate Communications staff to conduct a public consultation campaign, to include social media, to seek public and stakeholder input regarding the attached Property Standards By-law; 3. That the Property Standards By-law be presented to Council after completion of the public consultation campaign; and, 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. Resolution # 573/21 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report EC 04-21 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on April 6, 2021 be adopted. Carried 10. Report PD 04-21 of the Planning & Development Committee held on April 6, 2021 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 04-21 Orchard Ridge (Pickering) G.P. Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2536 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 51, Blocks 52 and 53, Plan 40M-2536 Council Decision: 1. That Cliffview Road within Plan 40M-2536 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2536, 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; 3. That Orchard Ridge (Pickering) G.P. Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2536; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. - 14 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 10.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-21 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-03 (R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/15 (R) Seaton TFPM Inc. Part Lots 17 to 19, Concession 4, Part Lots 17 to 21, Concession 5 Seaton Community Council Decision: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-03 (R), submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc. on lands being Part Lots 17 to 19, Concession 4, Part Lots 17 to 21, Concession 5, to establish a residential plan of subdivision on the Phase 1A lands consisting of 246 detached dwellings, 92 street townhouses and 15 rear lane townhouses for a total of 353 dwelling units, as shown on Attachment #3 to Report PLN 16-21, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/15 (R), submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc., to implement Phase 1A of Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-03(R) on lands being Part Lots 17 to 19, Concession 4, Part Lots 17 to 21, Concession 5, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 16-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 10.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/21 City Initiated Part of Lot 18, Concession 9 S, Part of Lot 2, Plan 12 (5015 Brock Road) Council Decision: That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/21 to amend By- law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to zone lands municipally known as 5015 Brock Road from “Oak Ridges Moraine – General Commercial (ORM-C2)” Zone to “ORM-C2-1” Zone restoring the residential use rights of a maximum of 4 dwelling units, be endorsed, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN18-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. 10.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 19-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and -C➔(Jf - 15 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Council Decision: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-005/P, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to reduce the minimum net residential density from 203 to 70 units per net hectare for the lands located on the southwest corner of Taunton Road and Sapphire Drive to allow a residential condominium development to be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 42 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 19-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/20, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to permit a residential condominium development, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 19-21 be forwarded to Council. Resolution # 574/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt That Report PD 04-21, save and except item 10.3, of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on April 6, 2021 be adopted. Carried 10.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-21 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-03 Draft Plan of Condominium A pplication CP-2019-04 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/19 10046043 Canada Inc. & C. Wang Lots 14, 29 and 30, Part of Lots 22 to 26 Plan 818, Part 4 of 40R-29018, Part 1 of 40R-29545, Part 2 of 40R-30489 and Part 1 of 40R-30492 (1950 and 1952 Fairport Road) A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, and City Development Staff regarding: ensuring the replanted 100 trees, for compensation of the 20 trees removed from within the City of Pickering’s Tree Protection Area, are healthy trees to compensate for the mature trees that were lost; - 16 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm how an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase One had been submitted which identified some areas of contamination that needed further review; how the extract of the Phase Two ESA outlined that the contaminated soil does not pertain to hazardous materials, and all contamination must be remediated; the requirement for contaminated soil to be removed and disposed of appropriately; how no development can occur without a Record of Site Condition indicating the lands have been remediated and demonstrate the issue has been addressed through condition of approval; and, the importance of the process by which the matter was appropriately referred to the April 26 Council Meeting to address resident concerns and how the referral enabled the time needed to facilitate the discussion between the developer and neighbouring residents. Resolution # 575/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt Council Decision: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/19, submitted by 10046043 Canada Inc. and C. Wang, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 27 detached dwellings and 3 lots for detached dwellings fronting Fairport Road, on lands located on the west side of Fairport Road, south of Taplin Drive, be approved as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-21; and, 2. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-03, submitted by 10046043 Canada Inc. and C. Wang, to establish 3 lots for detached dwellings fronting Fairport Road, a single development block to permit a residential common element condominium, an open space block, a road widening, and 2 blocks for future development, as shown on Attachment #4 to Report PLN 17-21, and the implementing revised conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix I to the Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO, dated April 21, 2021, be endorsed. Carried 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 20-21 - 17 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Request for Additional Funding for Consulting Services - CHDRC Generator Replacement Resolution # 576/21 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That the additional fee proposal and project costs as submitted by TS Engineering Inc. in the gross amount of $84,750.00 (HST included), and the net amount of $76,320.00 (net HST rebate) for the increase in scope of work the replacement of the backup power generator at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC), and associated costs, be accepted; 2. That the total estimated consulting costs including the amount referenced in recommendation 1 above, in the amount of $124,819.00, as presented in Table 2, be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net consulting costs of $124,819.00 by undertaking an internal loan for period not exceeding 5 years, and this source be revised up to 100 per cent funding through a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund if deemed eligible by the Association Municipalities of Ontario; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Carried 11.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 22-21 Pickering Ant-Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT) Terms of Reference A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: appreciation for the volunteers who bring expertise and passion to the Taskforce; the inclusion of a stipend in the Terms of Reference and whether other Pickering Committee Members receive a stipend; the role of Pickering Committees who advise on City plans already in place compared to how the PABRT will develop and implement the plan for the City, noting that the preparatory sub-committee had recognized there was a lot of work to be completed; -C➔(Jf - 18 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm how PABRT membership is reflective of the representation of people who have been disadvantaged and subjected to inequities for generations, and that the stipend recognizes that the taskforce is a unique group doing unique work; and, the undertaking of a fulsome review of the City’s Boards & Advisory Committees of Council, prior to the next term of Council, to review best practices and the possibility of implementing a stipend for other City of Pickering committees . Resolution # 577/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Terms of Reference, as amended by the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce in Attachment 1, be endorsed by Council; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 11.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 09-21 Asphalt Resurfacing on Various City Streets - Tender No. T2021-1 Resolution # 578/21 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Tender No. T2021-1 for Asphalt Resurfacing on Various City Streets as submitted by Viola Management Inc. in the total tendered amount of $2,478,485.27 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions be retained to provide materials testing services based on unit rates submitted at an estimated cost of $99,976.75 (HST included) in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c); 3. That the total gross project cost of $2,880,429.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $2,593,916.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; - 19 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost as approved in the 2021 Roads Capital Budget, and the amount be increased from $2,465,000.00 to $2,593,916.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 10-21 Balsdon Park Reconstruction - Tender No. T2021-7 Resolution # 579/21 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Tender No. T2021-7 for Balsdon Park Reconstruction as submitted by Urgiles Bros. Excavating in the total tendered amount of $423,750.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $548,050.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $493,536.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost in the amount of $493,536.00 as follows: a) the sum of $40,000.00 by a transfer from the Public Benefits Reserve Fund; b) the sum of $453,536.00 as approved in the 2021 Parks Capital Budget by a transfer from the Parkland Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 06-21 2021 Tax Rates and Final Tax Due Dates - 20 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, and Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding: the particulars of the Property Tax Deferral Program, and its expiry at the end of May 2021; the type of supporting documentation applicants are required to provide to qualify for the Tax Deferral Program. Mr. Karwowski advised that proof of loss of income or Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments could be provided to support a tax deferral application and that further details could be found on the City’s website; and, what would be required to extend the program beyond May of 2021. Mr. Karwowski advised that staff would bring forward a report on the extension of the Tax Deferral Program to the May 25, 2021 Council Meeting for Council’s consideration. Resolution # 580/21 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Report FIN 06-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2021 tax rates be received; 2. That the 2021 tax rates for the City of Pickering be approved as contained in Schedule “A” of the By-law attached hereto; 3. That the tax levy due dates for the Final Billing be June 28, 2021 and September 28, 2021 excluding the industrial, multi-residential and commercial realty tax classes; 4. That the attached By-law be approved; 5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary to comply with Provincial regulations including altering due dates or final tax rates to ensure that the property tax billing process is completed; and, 6. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 11.6 Fire Chief, Report FIR 02-21 Supply and Delivery of a Fire Pumper Rescue Replacement -C➔(Jf - 21 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm - Quotation No. Q2020-5 Resolution # 581/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That RFQ No. Q2020-5 submitted by Safetek for the Supply and Delivery of a Fire Pumper Rescue Replacement project in the amount of $1,045,551.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $1,109,961.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $999,554.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost in the amount of $999,554.00 as follows: a) the sum of $990,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 15 years; b) the sum of $9,554.00 be funded from property taxes; c) the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $87,500.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 2021, or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued, and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid; and, d) the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; 4. That the draft by-law attached to this report be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 20-21 Lease Agreement for Temporary Use of City Property at 3800 Sideline 32 - William F. White International Inc. – Filming Backlot -C➔(Jf - 22 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: exploring the attraction of a hotel in the Innovation Corridor; the importance of utilizing this opportunity to examine current businesses in the innovation corridor, identifying gaps and attracting new businesses that can service the film studio; providing an update to Council on external discussions and milestones for businesses in the innovation and employment corridor; confirmation that there would be no conflict when the time comes to look at the development of a district park on the subject lands, and that the lease term provides flexibility should circumstances change; and, ensuring that City Sustainability staff, and film studio staff are working together to take advantage of the innovative and sustainable partnership opportunities. Resolution # 582/21 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report PLN 20-21 from the Director, City Development & CBO regarding a Lease Agreement for Temporary Use of City Property at 3800 Sideline 32 be received for information; 2. That the City of Pickering enter into a Lease Agreement with William F. White International Inc., for the period October 1, 2021 to December 31, 2026, with the option to renew the lease for 2 additional terms of 2 years each; 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Lease Agreement between the City of Pickering and William F. White International Inc. in substantially the form as attached to this report, subject to revisions as may be acceptable to the City Solicitor and the Director, City Development & CBO; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 11.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 21-21 Lease Agreement – Open Studio Art Café - Temporary Patio Program – Use of City Owned Lands -C➔(Jf - 23 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: the electric cables utilized for heating on patios and the need to ensure they are not strung overhead through the trees, or in another manner, that would cause a safety hazard; the role of Fire and Building in inspecting the patio prior to them receiving approval to operate; whether the facility has sufficient washrooms to accommodate the patio capacity; and, how staff will take appropriate action, should the business not be operating according to the temporary patio program lease agreement. Resolution # 583/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Council approve the Draft Lease Agreement for the Temporary Use of City Property adjacent to 617 Liverpool Road, between the City of Pickering and Open Studio Art Café for the period May 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 21-21; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement between the City of Pickering and Open Studio Art Café in the form as appended to this report subject to revisions as may be acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Solicitor and the Director, City Development & CBO; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 22-21 Two-year period Exemption Request for Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Resolution # 584/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles -C➔(Jf - 24 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Council grants an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, and permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21, resulting from the further processing of the Site Plan or Building Permit applications submitted by Universal City Six Developments Inc., for lands municipally known as 1010 Sandy Beach Road, before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant- initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. Carried 11.10 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 25-21 Valley Plentiful Community Garden - Draft Memorandum of Understanding Resolution # 585/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report PLN 25-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Valley Plentiful Community Garden, be endorsed; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and Valley Plentiful Community Garden Committee, as set out in Attachment #1 of this report, subject to revisions as may be acceptable to the City Solicitor and the Director, City Development & CBO; 3. That the appropriate City staff be directed to take the necessary actions as per the Draft Memorandum of Understanding; and, 4. That staff be directed to report back to Council with recommendations pertaining to a community garden policy. Carried 11.11 Stop Asian Hate Resolution # 586/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cumming -C➔(Jf - 25 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm That the rules of procedure be suspended in order to allow the introduction of a motion regarding Stop Asian Hate. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote Discussion ensued pertaining to support of the motion, given recent incidents of Anti-Asian discrimination. Resolution # 587/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner Whereas widespread reports, surveys and personal experiences from across the Asian community have indicated a disturbing increase in anti-Asian racism, discrimination, infringements on basic human rights and acts of violence in Canada and around the world – impacting Asians of all nationalities including a Filipino-American woman beaten in New York City, the six Asian-Americans of Chinese and Korean descent murdered in the Atlanta spa shootings, and many more – sparking protests across Canada and the United States in March 2021; And Whereas, the Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto chapter compiled feedback from the Asian community through two online (self-reporting) surveys, that together reported over 1,150 instances of anti-Asian racism between March 10, 2020 and February 28, 2021 (with approximately half of those incidents reported since January, and nearly 40% having occurred in Ontario), which is believed to have been exacerbated and aggravated due to widespread scapegoating, and racialization of the COVID-19 pandemic; And Whereas, according to an Angus Reid study (2020), 43% of surveyed Canadians of Asian-descent report feeling threatened or intimidated as a direct result of COVID-19; And Whereas, racism in Canada is an ugly part of our ongoing history, and we must as a community stand together to condemn these acts and commit to taking positive action to correct misinformation and ensure the safety of our neighbours, friends and families; Now therefore be it resolved that: 1. Pickering Council formally stands beside our community of Asian descent, and with all Asian community members across Canada to condemn and denounce these deplorable, racist and hateful acts and encourages victims and bystanders to report these incidents; -C➔(Jf - 26 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 2. Pickering Council supports the Chinese Canadian National Council’s calls for immediate action, and urges the Province of Ontario and Government of Canada to lead and support meaningful education, engagement and anti-racism efforts, fostering understanding and correcting misinformation for all targeted underrepresented groups in Canada, including the Asian community; and 3. That this motion be distributed to Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada; Hon. Bardish Chagger, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth; Jennifer O'Connell, MP for Pickering-Uxbridge; Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario; Hon. Todd Smith, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services; Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP for Pickering-Uxbridge; John Henry, Regional Chair; all Durham municipal Councils; and the Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto chapter. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 12. Motions and Notice of Motions 12.1 City of Pickering Lobbyist Register A question and answer period endued between Members of Council regarding: exploring the implementation of a Lobbyist Registry to understand the cost and possible framework, noting the additional level of transparency a Registry can provide; how a Lobbyist Registry may be a bureaucratic solution to a problem that does not exist; the challenges in identifying who and what organizations would be classified as a lobbyist; and, the role of Members of Council as elected officials and the many people they speak with on a regular basis, and that a Lobbyist Registry could be construed as a message to add another layer of bureaucracy that does not encourage public participation and discussion. Resolution # 588/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean Whereas, it is a municipal government’s duty to make decisions in the public interest; - 27 - -C➔(Jf Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm And Whereas, open and unfettered access to municipal government is a vital aspect of local democracy; And Whereas, lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; And Whereas, public office holders and the public should be able to know who is attempting to influence the decisions of municipal government; And Whereas, public disclosure of lobbying activity and standards of conduct for lobbyists are important to the integrity of municipal government’s decision making; And Whereas, section 223.9 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes municipalities to establish and maintain a Lobbyist Registry in which registrations and returns filed by persons who lobby municipal public office holders shall be kept; And Whereas, a City of Pickering Lobbyist Registrar will ensure public disclosure of lobbying activities and will oversee the regulation of lobbyists’ conduct resulting in greater public trust through transparency and accountability without impeding access to municipal government; And Whereas, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorize municipalities to pass by-laws necessary or desirable for municipal purposes, and in particular paragraph 2 of subsection 11(2) authorizes by-laws respecting the accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations; Now Therefore be it resolved, that the City Clerk be directed to engage the services of the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner to establish a framework for a City of Pickering Lobbyist Registry and report back to Council no later than the September 27, 2021 Council meeting for Council’s consideration. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Brenner Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan 13. By-laws 13.1 By-law 7835/21 - 28 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 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. 13.2 By-law 7836/21 Being a by-law to adopt the estimates of all sums required to be raised by taxation for the year 2021 and to establish the Tax Rates necessary to raise such sums and to establish the final due dates for the residential, pipeline, farm, and managed forest realty tax classes. 13.3 By-law 7837/21 Being a by-law to authorize the Supply and Delivery of a Fire Pumper Rescue Replacement project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $990,000.00. 13.4 By-law 7838/21 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part Lots 17 to 19, Concession 4, Part Lots 19 to 21, Concession 5, City of Pickering. (A 05/15 (R)) 13.5 By-law 7839/21 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 42 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 20-005/P) 13.6 By-law 7840/21 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R- 24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614, in the City of Pickering. (A 09/20) 13.7 By-law 7841/21 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Lots 14, 29 and 30, Part of Lots 22 to 26 Plan 818, Part 4 of 40R-29018, Part 1 of 40R-29545, Part 2 of 40R-30489 and Part 1 of 40R-30492, in the City of Pickering. (A 13/19) 13.8 By-law 7842/21 -C➔(Jf - 29 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham for land at Part of Lot 18, Concession 9 S, Part of Lot 2, Plan 12, in the City of Pickering. (A 03/21) 13.9 By-law 7843/21 Being a by-law to exempt Block 17, Plan 40M-1827, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. 13.10 By-law 7844/21 Being a by-law to exempt Block 1, Plan 40M-2692, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. Resolution # 589/21 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That By-law Numbers 7835/21 through 7844/21 be approved. Carried 14. Other Business 14.1 Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion regarding anti-racism and anti-discrimination for all forms of hate. 14.2 Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion regarding providing a stipend to the Accessibility Advisory Committee. 14.3 Councillor Cumming raised the matter of COVID hotspot areas in Pickering, noting that L1W was not considered a hotspot, but was surrounded by those areas that were, and noted concern that residents of L1W had to go into neighbouring hotspots to access essential businesses. 14.4 Mayor Ryan commended staff for their efforts and hard work at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Arena COVID-19 clinic noting that he has received many compliments on the way it is operating. Mayor Ryan further commended the CAO, Fire Chief, and the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) for their work in organizing the pop-up clinic for L1V residents on Tuesday April 27 at the PTC. 15. Confirmation By-law -C➔(Jf - 30 - Council Meeting Minutes April 26, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm By-law Number 7845/21 Councillor Pickles, seconded by Councillor Cumming moved for leave to introduce a By- law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of April 26, 2021. Carried 16. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 10:17 pm. Dated this 26th of April, 2021. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk -C➔(Jf - 31 - -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor B. Duffield - (Acting) Director, Community Services J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk A. Mostert - Manager, Landscape & Parks Development J. Yoshida - Deputy Fire Chief C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Delegations There were no delegations. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 02-21 1 - 32 - 2022 Municipal Election - Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Susan Cassel, City Clerk regarding: the voting method being proposed and the removal of telephone voting and whether other municipalities were using telephone voting in their elections. Ms. Cassel advised that through research, most municipalities that only offered internet voting also offered telephone as an alternative, however some municipalities that offered a hybrid of internet and paper, had removed the telephone option. Ms. Cassel further noted that some of the comments from the 2018 Election had demonstrated that the telephone was cumbersome, and with the addition of offering a paper ballot option for the 2022 Election, the removal of telephone voting would hopefully address some of the frustrations experienced in 2018; confirmation that paper ballots would only be utilized on Election Day, with internet as an option for the entire voting period; the number and location of designated voting locations, with Ms. Cassel advising that the preference is to use City owned facilities as voting locations, which would be spread throughout the City in a convenient manner; a highlight of the main components of the report, including the intent to have an 8 day voting period, offering internet voting for the entire 8 days, and on Election Day, a paper ballot option at designated voting locations throughout the City in a vote anywhere manner to provide options and convenience for the public; how the Ward Boundary Review might impact the 2022 Election, with Ms. Cassel confirming that the method of voting would not be impacted, rather the Voters’ List, and the importance of ensuring that electors are in the correct boundaries on the Voters’ List so that they would have access to the correct Ward ballot; and, how the online voting option is necessary in a post COVID-19 world, and how the public has become more comfortable in utilizing online tools. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election, Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act be received; -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2 - 33 - -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2. That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulation equipment, be approved as the voting method for the 2022 Municipal Election and any by-elections that may occur during the 2022- 2026 Term of Council; 3. That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 4. That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the approved voting method and associated services and report back to Council to award the voting contract to the most appropriate vendor(s); and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-21 Quotation No. Q2021-40 - Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No. Q2021- 40: a) East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the amounts of $134,890.74 (HST excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST excluded), respectively; b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00 (HST excluded); and, c) Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in the amount of $12,800.00 (HST excluded); 2. That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3 - 34 - -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a) The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to be funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund- Transportation Services be increased to $225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; b) The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget by a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; c) The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital Budget by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-21 Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement - Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, regarding: whether there were concerns with the proposed Bridge Modification as part of the Metrolinx GO Expansion Program. Mr. Holborn advised that that the modifications are superficial over the existing wall to support the necessary connections, and staff are comfortable with the recommendations; the Metrolinx long term vision of a potential station at Whites Road and whether this Program impacts that vision; and, the possibility of development adjacent to Granite Court Bridge, and whether any coordination and communication might be needed with Metrolinx in regards to the construction. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 4 - 35 - 1. That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement with Metrolinx; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of affixing Metrolinx infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-21 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services regarding: overview of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park final phases of the Master Plan, and confirmation that the access gates to Frenchman’s Bay West Park would be for pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Holborn advised that the entrance remains closed to vehicular access due to unsafe conditions, and construction, and that to complete the project, it will remain as pedestrian access only; and, timeline for construction and next steps in the final phase. Mr. Holborn advised that it is anticipated that the design work will carry on through the summer and into fall, then staff will determine when the appropriate time will be to tender for construction, contingent on the pandemic and other projects . Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 5 - 36 - -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt Master Plan, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount of $160,273.55 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $158,765.00 as follows: a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share; b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-21 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 6 - 37 - 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $147,056.00 as follows: a) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; b) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-21 Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 - Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent - Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services regarding: how Rosebank Road is a boundary between Ward 3 and Ward 1, and the solution for an all-way stop, speed reduction and Community Safety Zone Extension was a collaborative effort with all 4 Ward Councillors working together with staff to come up with a plan that addressed safety concerns of residents; how this facilitates residents and students to get across a busy street safely; and, 7 -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt - 38 - -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt the positive feedback received on the solutions. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7", Stop Signs, 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 installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the addition of community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety Zone on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 3. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9", Speed Limits, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of speed limits on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 07-21 Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor McLean It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding commodity price hedging agreements be received for information. 8 - 39 - Carried 4.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-21 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor McLean It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. Carried 5. Other Business 5.1 Councillor Brenner inquired about the status of the Local Food Strategy, timelines for completion, and agricultural sector outreach. Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, noted that outreach to the agricultural community has ensued multiple times, with a low response rate to various forms of communication. He advised that staff are working with Ward Councillors, and Durham Region to increase participation and gain more feedback from the agricultural community, prior to reporting to Council with an update and next steps before summer recess. 6. Adjournment Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 2:22 pm. -C➔(Jf p](KER]NG Executive Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 9 - 40 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner N. Surti - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design C. Morrison - Principal Planner, Development Review C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk E. Martelluzzi - Planner ll - Heritage I. Lima - Planner I 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Statutory Public Meetings Councillor Cumming, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be 1 - 41 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Catherine Ross, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining t he process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow one additional delegation under Section 3 of the agenda regarding Information Report No. 09-21. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote 3.1 Information Report No. 09-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Isabel Lima, Planner I, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21, submitted by 596857 Ontario Inc. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Lima outlined the purpose of the application, to facilitate an infill residential development, and overview of the subject lands. Ms. Lima highlighted the submitted site plan, submitted rendering, amenities such as the rooftop walkout area, and submitted west elevation. She advised that the subject lands are located within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, and are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area”, which provides for residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of up to and including 30 uni ts per net hectare. Ms. Lima stated that the proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan, and the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies. She highlighted the comments received for further review, and next steps on the proposed application. Robert A. Martindale, Martindale Planning Services and Aphrodite Liaghat, Principal, A & Architects, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to present an overview of the application on behalf of the applicant. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Martindale highlighted the application to develop the lands through land severance, the flat roof design of the proposed dwellings, and the proximity of the subject lands to amenities, such as 2 - 42 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Frenchman’s Bay. Mr. Martindale demonstrated the context plan, a survey of the subject lands, and existing buildings on the property. Mr. Martindale noted the technical statistics for the project, the roof plan, floor plan for each level of the dwellings, and how the proposal will blend in with the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood characteristics. Maureen Metcalfe, 667 Front Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and suggested that three dwellings could face Front Road and one dwelling could face Commerce Street. She expressed opposition to the proposed application, due t o the density of four dwellings fronting onto Front Road, and stated the flat roof top design could set a precedent for the area noting concerns regarding privacy, as the rooftop will overlook her yard. Syed Huq, Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke in favour of the application. He noted that the City is undergoing a transformation of a semi urban area to a fully grown modern city, incorporating all modes of transportations, malls, and recreation centers such as Durham Live, Pickering City Center, and the Airport. He stated that Pickering should prepare itself for population growth, and available land should be developed effectively, to become more viable and sustainable with improvements to business and commercial activities. Mr. Huq further stated that City amenities and facilities are underutilized, and t he proposed application of a three storied building would attract bigger families, resulting i n growth, which would make the existing commercial and transportation facilities of the City more viable, and expedite the appeal of the City. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Robert A. Martindale, Martindale Planning Services and Aphrodite Liaghat, A & Architects regarding: • the rationale for a flat roof design. Ms. Liaghat advised that the contemporary flat roof design provides an advantage for better views, respects the environment with a green roof option, rain storage management, and lower maintenance; • the option of 3 homes facing F ront Road and whether building a bigger house on a larger lot was an option. Ms. Liaghat noted that bigger dwellings would not permit the subject lands to be utilized efficiently, and that the proposed dwellings are an average good size for a family; • how the green roof would take up half the rooftop; • whether the roof would have a pedestrian landing, and elevator with Ms. Liaghat confirming that there were no plans for an elevator; • confirmation that there were no livable basements in the dwellings, and verification of the garage sizes; 3 - 43 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming • explanation on why a severance option was being sought, instead of plan of subdivision. Mr. Martindale advised that normally only three lots are severed at a time, however Council may permit more than three lots by way of severance when there is servicing (water/sewer) in place; and, • how this proposal is within the maximum density permitted. 4. Delegations 4.1 Nenad Majumder Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Nenad Majumder, 1966 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection, and expressed opposition to the application. He noted that it contradicts the City’s Official Plan and Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies. Mr. Majumder stated the application lacked key information, such as a traffic study in some key intersections, lack of parking spaces, and insufficient amenity, and open/recreational space. He further added that the application will cause traffic congestion, road safety issues, and drainage concerns. Mr. Majumder noted that the building design does not conform to the characteristics of the existing neighbourhood of detached houses and large lots, with no gradual transformation. He advised that the application would encroach on his privacy, and cause run-off drainage issues onto his adjacent property. 4.2 Reverend Fran Kovar, Interim Priest-in-Charge Pam Johnstone, Rector's Warden Bruce Hampson, People's Warden St. Paul's on-the-Hill Re: Report PLN 26-21 Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road Rev. Fran Kovar, Interim-Priest in Charge, Pam Johnstone, and Bruce Hampson, St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection, and noted that the addition of 886 Kingston Road to the Municipal Heritage Register, and potential designation, may increase their costs, specifically if restoration is needed on the tower made of reclaimed bricks. They noted it is an honour to be considered for a designation, and sought clarification on the heritage designation process. Ms. Johnstone enquired about grants or monies available to help with restoration costs. 4 - 44 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 4.3 Alan Jeffs Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Alan Jeffs, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection, and spoke in opposition of the application. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jeffs noted that the application does not conform with Council policies for the Kingston Mixed Corridor, and the one-sided nature of the report does not enable the Committee to make an informed decision. He noted the application does not meet building height guidelines, built form, and setbacks. Mr. Jeffs stated crucial information is missing from the staff report, including height constraints on the north side of Kingston Road, the impact of the proposed density, parking ratios, angular plain requirements, and privacy obligations. He sought clarification on underground parking, surface parking provisions and parking ratios. Mr. Jeffs asked the Committee to deny the application. 4.4 Rob Rollings Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Rob Rollings, 1974 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and noted support for the responsible re-development of the subject lands, however raised concerns pertaining to the building heights, compatibility and transitions, the number of units and resulting traffic impacts of the proposal. Mr. Rollings stated that the key changes made to the application, such as the elimination of the daycare are not substantive, as the height and number of units have increased. He advised that the setback requirements have not been met, and that the design does not have the appropriate transitions, and focuses on how it fits with the Kingston Road Corridor, and s hould be reviewed through a Guild Road lens. Mr. Rollings noted there would be an impact of increased traffic, and questioned the rationale of the parking ratios, number of trips per hour, intensification, and overall appropriateness of the development. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Rob Rollings regarding: 5 - 45 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming • whether Mr. Rollings had provided a summary of his concerns to City staff; and, • how the removal of the stacked townhouses from the application had increased the buffer between the remaining proposed buildings and increased the amenity space, with Mr. Rollings commenting that the removal of the stacked townhouses resulted in an increase in the number of units and height of the buildings. 4.5 Steve Gilchrist Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Steve Gilchrist, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection, and asked how these developments improve the quality of life in Pickering. He noted that it subdivides the land, impacts the number of parking spaces, and increases traffic. He advised that a housing mix is needed that is livable, with adequate square footage. Mr. Gilchrist sought clarification on the parking ratio, and the inconsistency of the proposal with the neighbourhood, and long term goals of the City. He expressed concern for water and sewage capacity, and process for allocation. Mr. Gilchrist stated that the application goes beyond the Places to Grow Act, and would set a precedent. He asked that a right turn only onto Guild Road be considered, as well as a reduction in height and number of units and that the Committee consider all aggregate impacts of all developments. 4.6 Rick Gallant Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Rick Gallant, 1961 Guild Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and noted opposition to the high density apartments, which will impact his privacy and view. He ex pressed concerns regarding waste management services, glare of headlights, road safety, public transportation, and increased traffic on Guild Road. He stated that the traffic survey is not accurate due to it being completed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and encouraged the Committee to deny the application. A brief discussion period ensued with the Committee and Mr. Gallant regarding driveway alignment between his driveway, and the proposed driveway on the 6 - 46 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming subject lands. Mr. Gallant noted the proposed driveway was approximately 4 to 5 feet from the fence and that it had not changed the impacts on his privacy. The Committee inquired whether the applicant had followed up with Mr. Gallant, who confirmed that the applicant had provided him with an aerial picture of the tree line and driveway. 4.7 Mike Pettigrew, Planner The Biglieri Group Ltd. Re: Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Mike Pettigrew, Senior Planner, The Biglieri Group Ltd., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection, on behalf of the applicant. He noted that there had been open houses and publ ic meetings on this application, and that he had corresponded with area residents on various matters, with an attempt to address their comments and speak directly to the issues. Mr. Pettigrew addressed technical comments from commenting agencies, and suggested that matters brought up today may be misinterpretations. He advised that the grading would be matched, and that a storm water management plan, and servicing report was included with the application. He confirmed that there are no adverse impacts allowed by the development, including drainage onto neighbouring properties. Mr. Pettigrew highlighted the soft landscaping and parking report that has been thoroughly reviewed by both City staff and the Region. He advised that the development is transit supportive with justification for providing less parking to encourage residents to utilize public transit, and reduce on-street parking. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Mike Pettigrew, Senior Planner, The Biglieri Group, regarding: • potential for signalization at Guild Road and Kingston Road, and rapid transits’ impact on the site in terms of traffic and entrance to the subject lands. Mr. Pettigrew advised that the Metrolinx Plan included signaled lights, which was one of the reasons why the entrance was positioned further north to ensure there is safe operation of that intersection; • sewage and water capacity, and whether there was a need for upgrades in the future, and how water and sewage capacity is identified along the Kingston Road Corridor. Mr. Pettigrew noted the servicing capacity is determined at the end of the allocation, and it is provided on a first come first serve basis by the Region of Durham through the site plan servicing agreement process; 7 - 47 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming • alignment of driveways and whether there was a possible mitigation of light pollution, with Mr. Pettigrew stating that it was his intent to follow-up with the neighbours to the e ast; • how the removal of stacked townhouses had increased amenity space, permitting 11,000 square feet of amenity space for residents at ground level, and rooftop which added to the buffer to the north; • parking space allocation, and parking ratios, with Mr. Pettigrew advising that there is less parking to permit adequate buffers of vegetation, and additional landscaping. He further explained that the 52 proposed s urface parking spaces were for visitors which would be managed by the condominium board; and, • how the parking ratio rate is intended to encourage residents to utilize public transit, and apartments with reduced parking rates encouraged more transit use, and transit oriented development. Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Ashe That the Committee take a short recess. Carried The Committee recessed at 9:10 pm and reconvened at 9:17 pm. Upon reconvening, the City Clerk conducted a roll call and certified that all Members of the Committee were once again present, and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 06-21 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2557 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 12 and Blocks 13 t o 17, Plan 40 M-2557 - File: 40M-2557 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Pickles 8 - 48 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 1. That Shadow Place within Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2557, 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 as sumed for maintenance; 3. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M- 2557; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 as a public highway; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 5.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 09-21 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2558 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Block 1, Plan 40M-2558 - File: 40M-2558 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2558, 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 as sumed for maintenance; 2. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M- 2558; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 9 - 49 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Carried 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 City Initiated Amendment to Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Mayor Ryan That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 to amend Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to include a corner rounding definition and provisions, be endorsed, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment containing the standards set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. Carried 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and City Development Staff regarding: • the rationale for reduced parking spaces and visitor allotment ratios. Nilesh Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design, noted that there are 0.8 spaces per unit and 0.5 visitor ratios per unit. He advised the ratio is appropriate because of the intensification policy for Kingston Road Corridor to encourage development along Kingston Road, with permissible reduced ratios, which will increase transit use, and its proximity to the City Centre. He noted that there would be an increase of on-site bicycle parking to access services without a vehicle; • explanation of the traffic study, and concerns from the delegates of 2023/2024 signalization at Guild and Denmark. Mr. Surti stated the traffic study was reviewed by Region and City staff, and looked at the impact on the intersections, type of units, and trip generation based upon a model of 10 - 50 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming various technical calculations. He further noted that the assessment stated the majority of traffic would be going to Guild Road, and is comfortable that the traffic generated would not have a significant impact on residents living north of the proposed development; • ensuring there is adequate water and sewer capacities, with Staff confirming that this development had the servicing capacity and network that can accommodate this development. Mr. Surti noted that staff worked together with the Region, to update modeling based on density and intensification, in combination with the policies implemented; • how the applicant has made modifications that provide a better buffer to residents, and the Hydro One corridor concept for additional greenspace; • concern of traffic on Guild Road, and how 365 units would comply with the proposed 6-8 trips in the traffic study with Mr. Surti advising that the traffic study is based on engineering modelling, which states it would be 7 trips potentially travelling north. Kyle Bentley, Director of City Development & CBO, noted that it is important to recognize the traffic study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; • how many residents who were content with the original 8-12 storey buildings, and expressed concern with the increased height of 12 and 16 storeys. Mr. Surti advised that the height was assessed with compatibility, using angular plain tools, and impacts of shadowing to ensure the overall height has an appropriate setback. He further noted that there is an 11 metre buffer, which has increased onsite greenspace to demonstrate the increased height will have minimal impact on the residents to the north, and would meet the intent of the draft urban design guidelines; • how this is a creative plan in terms of aesthetics and density, noting the studies that had been conducted such as the Kingston Road Corridor intensification study and Established Community Neighburhood Study, and concerns that this development was not consistent with the fundamental principles of those studies; • the cumulative impact of density in the Kingston Road Corridor; • the decrease in parking, and whether parking spaces could be constructed below ground; • concerns regarding the loss of commercial and retail uses in the neighbourhood. Mr. Surti advised that staff encouraged a mixed-use development, and how balancing the concerns of residents resulted in eliminating the commercial component to mitigate parking and traffic concerns; • how the traffic study was reviewed by the Region and City staff, with Staff confirming that there were no incorrect calculations or errors identified; • how high density developments have lower parking ratios which results in fewer trips and vehicles on site; 11 - 51 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming • comments from the delegates and how this application may be inconsistent with various works and studies underway. Mr. Surti advised that the application meets the goals and intent of the Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and Kingston Road Corridor Study. He noted each site is unique and needs to be examined on its individual merits, but that overall, this development achieves the objectives of those Plans; and, • utilizing the time between the Planning & Development Committee and when this matter would be considered at Council on May 25th to have staff collaborate with the applicant, and respond to questions and comments by residents so that any outstanding questions could be addressed prior to the May 25, 2021, Council meeting. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to re-designate the lands municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum floor space index of 2.53 for the portion of the subject lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development consisting o f 346 apar tment units, be approved subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 24-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Cumming Councillor Butt Councillor Pickles Councillor McLean 12 - 52 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Mayor Ryan 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-21 Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and City Development Staff regarding: • whether St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill would be included in the Heritage Rebate Program that was being developed. Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner ll – Heritage Program, noted that the heritage rebate program only applied to residential properties at this time; • the impacts to properties included on the Municipal Heritage Register, with Mr. Bentley advising that endorsement of listing pr operties on the H eritage Register does not mean designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, but that it afforded time for Council to decide on designation should an application come forward to alter or demolish the property; • ensuring that staff engage St. Paul’s on-the-Hill to discuss what heritage designation entails, including the parameters of a property being listed to the Municipal Heritage Register; • how a heritage designation relates to the entire property, not just the building, an d the concerns raised by the Church relating to increased costs and available funding; and, • how the properties being considered for the Heritage Register, met only a few of the determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest criteria, and whether there was value in engaging an architect to make these recommendations. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Report PLN 26-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated November 25, 2020, to list 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering 13 - 53 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council authorize staff to pursue designating 882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church) under Section 29, Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 4. That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include the properties on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. Carried 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 10:18 pm. 14 - 54 - Community Services Legislative Services April 27, 2021 File #120203 Sent via email: caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org The Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation 5th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 1Z8 Honourable and Dear Madam: Re: Township of The Archipelago - Road Management Action on Invasive Phragmites Please be advised the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its meeting of April 26, 2021 received and supported correspondence from the Township of The Archipelago dated April 9, 2021 requesting the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to communicate the strategy on mapping (detecting sites) and controlling invasive Phragmites on provincial highways, the specific highway management plans and results by each MTO region and each highway in the region and work in coordination with the Township of The Archipelago and requests all levels of government to consider funding support to aid the Township of The Archipelago in managing invasive phragmites. Attached please find a copy of the Township of The Archipelago’s correspondence dated April 9, 2021. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours very truly, Carol Schofield, Dipl.M.A. Manager, Legislative Services/Clerk cschofield@forterie.ca CS:dlk Attach c.c. The Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks jeff.yurekco@pc.ola.org The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada ec.ministre-minister.ec@canada.ca Christopher Balasa, Manager, Maintenance Management Office Christopher.balasa@ontario.ca Wayne Gates, MPP, Niagara Falls wgates-co@ndp.on.ca MPP Norman Miller. Norm.miller@pc.olg.org Maryann Weaver, Municipal Clerk, Township of The Archipelago mweaver@thearchipelago.on.ca Ontario Municipalities Mailing Address: The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie 1 Municipal Centre Drive, Fort Erie ON L2A 2S6 Office Hours 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Phone: (905) 871-1600 FAX: (905) 871-4022 Web-site: www.forterie.ca Corr. 23-21 - 55 - 1 Township of The Archipelago 9 James Street, Parry Sound ON P2A 1T4 Tel: 705-746-4243/Fax: 705-746-7301 www.thearchipelago.on.ca April 9, 2021 21-073 Moved by Councillor Barton Seconded by Councillor Manner ______________________________________________________________________ RE: Road Management Action On Invasive Phragmites WHEREAS Phragmites australis (Phragmites) is an invasive perennial grass that continues to cause severe damage to wetlands and beaches in areas around the Great Lakes including Georgian Bay; and WHEREAS Phragmites australis grows and spreads rapidly, allowing the plant to invade new areas and grow into large monoculture stands in a short amount of time, and is an allelopathic plant that secretes toxins from its roots into the soil which impede the growth of neighboring plant species; and WHEREAS Phragmites australis results in loss of biodiversity and species richness, loss of habitat, changes in hydrology due to its high metabolic rate, changes in nutrient cycling as it is slow to decompose, an increased fire hazard due to the combustibility of its dead stalks, and can have an adverse impact on agriculture, particularly in drainage ditches; and WHEREAS invasive Phragmites has been identified as Canada’s worst invasive plant species by Agriculture and Agrifood Canada; and WHEREAS the Ontario government has made it illegal to import, deposit, release, breed/grow, buy, sell, lease or trade invasive Phragmites under the Invasive Species Act; and WHEREAS Phragmites occupy over 4,800 hectares of land around Lake St. Clair alone, while 212 hectares of Phragmites occupy land along the St. Lawrence River. The Georgian Bay Area is particularly affected by Phragmites australis, with more than 700 stands along the shorelines and multiple visible stands on the highways and roads that threaten valuable infrastructure and wetland areas; and WHEREAS volunteers, non-governmental organizations, and various municipalities have invested tens of thousands of dollars in investments and labour annually for more than eight years in executing managements plans to control invasive Phragmites on roads, coasts, shorelines and in wetlands; and WHEREAS roads and highways where Phragmites that are left untreated become spread vectors that continually risk new and treated wetlands and coastal shoreline areas; and D D Received by APRIL 26, 2021 COUNCIL- 56 - 2 WHEREAS according to “Smart Practices for the Control of Invasive Phragmites along Ontario’s Roads” by the Ontario Phragmites Working Group, best road management practices for Phragmites australis include early detection, herbicide application, and cutting; and WHEREAS these best management practices are most effective when used in a multi-pronged approach as opposed to when used as stand-alone control measures; and WHEREAS mother nature does not recognize political boundaries. Therefore, it is imperative that Municipalities, Districts, the Province, and the Federal government work together in collaboration to eradicate Canada’s worst invasive plant species Phragmites australis; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council for the Corporation of the Township of The Archipelago directs its staff to implement best management practices to promote early detection of invasive Phragmites, and to implement best management practices for invasive Phragmites, and to join the Ontario Phragmites Working Group to collaborate on the eradication of Phragmites in Ontario. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Corporation of the Township of The Archipelago directs staff to insert clean equipment protocols into tenders and that there is oversight that the protocols are followed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Corporation of the Township of The Archipelago requests the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to map and treat invasive Phragmites annually on all its highways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) communicates the strategy on mapping (detecting sites) and controlling invasive Phragmites on provincial highways, the specific highway management plans and results by each MTO region and each highway in the region and work in coordination with the Township of The Archipelago; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council for the Corporation of the Township of The Archipelago directs its staff to send this resolution to all municipalities that are part of the Georgian Bay watershed, to all municipalities in the Great Lakes watershed, to the Minister of Transportation, Christopher Balasa the Manager, Maintenance Management Office, and MPP Norman Miller. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that Council for the Corporation of the Township of The Archipelago requests all levels of government to consider funding support to aid the Township of The Archipelago in managing invasive phragmites; and directs staff to send a copy of this resolution to the Ontario Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Carried. - 57 - One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario Canada L 1 V 6K7 HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES CANADA cJenn!fer ®�onnell Member of Parliament Pickering-Uxbridge April 26, 2021 Dear Mayor Ryan and Pickering City Council, I am writing to you with application details for the Government of Canada's Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) program. The GICB is a $1.5 billion program that aims to build more community buildings and improve existing ones by supporting green and accessible retrofits, repairs or upgrades of existing public community buildings, as well as the construction of new community buildings that will serve high-need or underserved communities across Canada. The GICB program supports the Government's Strengthened Climate Plan by making it easier for municipalities and organizations to improve the places in which Canadians live and gather. This includes cutting pollution by increasing energy efficiency, building resiliency to climate change, or encouraging new builds to meet net zero standards. The GICB will support thousands of good jobs while making life more affordable for Canadians. Infrastructure Canada is now inv1tmg applications for eligible projects by municipal or regional governments, as well as not-for-profit organizations, provincial or territorial governments and Indigenous recipients. Applicants with small and mediun1 retrofit projects to existing community buildings ranging in total eligible cost from $100,000 to $3 million will be accepted on a continuous basis and funded through a rolling intake process. Applicants with large retrofit projects to existing community buildings or new community building projects with total eligible costs ranging from $3 million to $25 million will be accepted through a competitive schedule intake process. The deadline for this schedule intake stream is July 6, 2021. You can access the application guide by visiting: https://www.i nfrastructure.gc.ca/altformat/pdf/gicb-bcvi/GICB-Applicant-Guide-BCVI-Guide-du-demandeur-EN.pdf As community leaders, we understand that publicly accessible community buildings are at the heart of community vitality. They are the places where Canadians gather, access essential services, and learn and play. They play a meaningful role in fostering inclusion in society wile combating systemic inequities. I hope that the City of Pickering will be able to take advantage of this program, for the betterment of our entire community. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me with any further questions. Yours Sincerely, ennifer O'Connell Member of Parliament, Pickering-Uxbridge ®!!awa 6>tJmt1ltttJ11cp ®_ff a Room 530, Valour Building, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6 1154 Kingston Road, Unit 4, Pickering, Ontario LIV 184 Tel.: 613-995-8082 Fax.: 613-993-6587 Tel.: 905-839-2878 Fax.: 905-839-2423 Jennifer.0Conne11@parl.gc.ca http://joconnell.liberal.ca Corr. 24-21 - 58 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 1 Integrity Commissioner for Durham Region and Brock, Clarington, Oshawa, Pickering,Scugog, Uxbridge and Whitby Annual Reports 1. Introduction I have been appointed as Integrity Commissioner for the Regional Municipality of Durham and seven of its local municipalities. As is the custom, this is a joint report. (It does not cover the Town of Ajax, where am not the Integrity Commissioner.) 2. Fiscal Overview The financial impact of Integrity Commissioner services falls entir ely on the municipal tax base. Integrity Commissioners and codes of conduct have been mandated by the Province without any corresponding provincial funding. A few Ontario municipalities pay Integrity Commissioners salaries or annual retainers, but most municipalities, including Durham Region and its local municipalities, primarily compensate Integrity Commissioners by the hour for ser vices rendered.1 Municipalities are unable, however, to determine the extent of the demand for Integrity Commissioners’ time. Under the legislation, any member of the public may request an inquiry into an alleged code of conduct contravention,2 and any elector “or a person demonstrably acting in the public interest” may request an inquiry into whether the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was contravened.3 The Act provides that Integrity Commissioners perform their functions an independent man ner,4 so municipalities cannot intervene in the conduct of inquiries. Here, as in most Ontario municipalities, any individual can seek t o initiate an Integrity Commissioner inquiry for which the municipality becomes liable to pay.5 I believe that this legislative regime places on Integrity Commissioners an implied obligation to act reasonably in generating costs to municipalities through the provision of services, in particular through the conduct of inquiries. Integrity Commissioners must act 1 Durham Region pays an additional annual retainer of $900, which covers the Region and the local municipalities. 2 Municipal Act, subsection 223.4(1). 3 Municipal Act, subsection 223.4.1(2). 4 Municipal Act, subsection 223.3(1). 5 Some municipalities have attempted to address the uncertainty by asking Integrity Commissioners to agree to “upset limits” in their contracts. The problem with this approach is that individual complainants, not municipalities, determine the demand for Integrity Commissioner inquiries. Integrity Commissioners are Accountability Officers who exercise statutory functions under Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, and their statutory obligations do not disappear once an upset limit is reached. Their position is not the same as, for example, that of a contractor that has agreed to regrade a section of municipal highway of known dimensions. Corr. 25-21 - 59 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 2 in a manner that is responsive and fair to the individuals who are parties to their inquiries, while at the same time following a process that is e fficient, cost-sensitive, and prudent, taking into account the circumstances of each case. The following table displays costs for Integrity Commissioner services, exclusive of tax, and the number of inquiry reports (including MCIA decisions) issued: Muncipality 2019 2020 Inq. Reports6 Ann. Retainer Regional Municipality of Durham $6,019 $12,267 1 $900 Township of Brock $4,302 $17,112 3 $0 Municipality of Clarington $2,844 $4,828 0 $0 City of Oshawa $5,999 $37,236 5 $0 City of Pickering $813 $598 0 $0 Township of Scugog $1,267 $1,960 0 $0 Township of Uxbridge $7,266 $741 1 $0 Town of Whitby $8,939 $7,481 0 $0 By comparison, recent annual costs of Integrity Commissioner commissioners in other GTA municipalities of varying sizes have included: Markham 2018-2019 ($32,105),7 Richmond Hill 2019 ($64,500), Richmond Hill 2020 ($55,000),8 Georgina 2019 ($9,559.80),9 Georgina 2020 ($31,204.95),10 and Aurora 2020 ($3,495).11 3. Legislative Reform The Province is currently consulting on reform of the Code of Conduct / Integrity Commissioner regime. I will likely participate in the consultations as an individual, on my own behalf. Because Integrity Commissioners must operate independently of the 6 Two reports from a single inquiry are counted as one report. 7 https://tinyurl.com/5a4aw2fv. One inquiry report was issued that year. 8 https://tinyurl.com/w7rr249w 9 http://www3.georgina.ca/archive/georgina/council-2020/2020-01-22-ADD.pdf 10 https://pub-georgina.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1705 11 https://tinyurl.com/aw626ads - 60 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 3 municipalities, it would not be appropriate for me to convey a position on behalf of any municipality; I will make clear that my comments are offered in a personal capacity. While I have not yet made submissions, I am sharing with the Region and its local municipalities some of the considerations that I am likely to raise: • Addressing the cost to municipalities, especially smaller ones. The volume of activity is primarily complaint driven, which places the costs of this provincial mandate outside a municipality’s control. Consideration could be given to replacing municipal Integrity Commissioners with the provincial Integrity Commissioner, or a new provincial agency under Tribu nals Ontario, or full-time, provincial appointees responsible for geographic areas of the Prov ince – or at least giving municipalities such an option. • Legislated qualifications for Integrity Commissioners, who are appointed as accountability officers under the Municipal Act.12 Currently there are no standards to prevent the appointment of an individual who has been convicted of a crime, or who has been subject to professional discipline for misappropriating client funds. • A selection process suitable for the appointment of a statutory accountability officer. It is not obvious why appointment of an accountability officer would be decided on a commercial basis via Request for Proposals , or how a corporation or partnership is able expercise the legal authority of an Integrity Commissioner. An alternative view is that appointments of individuals to fill statutory offices should proceed according to an application and/or recruitment process. Various municipalities have started to abandon RFPs for Integrity Commissioners in favour of an application/ recruitment process better suited to appointments of individuals to hold statutory office. Examples include Ottawa and Richmond Hill. • Some stakeholders are advocating for a power to remove councillors from office – which essentially means overturning the results of a democratic e lection. I do not believe that under any circumstance Integrity Commissioners should be given the power to unseat duly elected m unicipal councillors. I certainly do not believe that this significant power should be awarded by RFP, or that the power to penalize elected officials should be handed to a corporation. 12 For example, under federal legislation, the federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner must be a former judge, or “former member of a federal or provincial board, commission or tribunal who .. has demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following: (i) conflicts of interest, (ii) financial arrangements, (iii) professional regulation and discipline, or (iv) ethics …” - 61 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 4 4. Code of Conduct Inquiries Whether to conduct an inquiry into an a llegation under the Code of Conduct lies in the Integrity Commissioner’s discretion. The Integrity Commissioner does n ot make the final decision on a Code of Conduct inquiry. Instead, the Integrity Commissioner reports findings and recommendations to Council, and it is Council that makes any decision. The Complaint Protocols set targets for the completion of the inquiry process, but they give the Integrity Commissioner the discretion to extend deadlines as necessary. Generally, inquiries are pursued as expeditiously as possible. However, the following six factors bear on the timing of inquiries: 1. As explained above, an Integrity Commissioner has an implicit responsibility to manage the volume of inquiry activity in as manner that is reasonable and prudent. When multiple complaints are received around the same time, they cannot all be handled at once. Staggering the inquiries is essential as a matter of fiscal responsibility and time management. 2. In deciding the sequence of inquiries, the Integrity Commissioner may also take into account whether multiple inquiries have been init iated by the same persons. In theory, everyone in the municipality has the right to request an inquiry. 3. If an inquiry is particularly complex, then an Integrity Commissioner has full discretion to extend the time for as long as the process takes. 4. If the Integrity Commissioner attempts to help the parties achieve an informal resolution (i.e., settlement), then the inquiry is paused and the complaint is held in abeyance. Sometimes a particular case will appear to be an ideal candidate for settlement. This means that the process will be paused, sometimes for a long while, to give the parties time to settle their differences. 5. COVID-19. 6. The parties themselves: Often a party will request more tim e to make a submission. As a matter of fairness (and consistent the court jurisprudence on requests for adjournments) a reasonable request for extension is not denied. Occasionally a party will not respond to communications for several weeks. This also affects timing. Settlement It is a responsible use of the discretion con ferred on an Integrity Commissioner to pause the proceeding to give the parties an ample opportunity for resolution and also to allow the parties to consider the matter with the benefit o f distance from the actual events. Often the passage of time makes a seemingly intractable difference possible to resolve. It is important to note that a pause carries no additional cost to the municipality. My practice is always to pause when circumstance s warrant. - 62 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 5 COVID-19 In addition to the first four factors listed abov e, in 2020 everyone was also forced to cope with the realities of the global pandemic. As Ontario was gripped by the COVID-19 public health crisis and in a state of emergency, I decided to suspend further action on various files until the Province and Durham Region reached an appropriate state of recovery. This was not strictly permitted by Ontario Regulation 73/20, which gave power to extend deadlines and suspend proceedings to certain statutory officials, but not Integrity Commissioners conducting code of conduct investigations.13 (In fact, the Province was specifically asked to include Integrity Commissioner code of conduct proceedings in an amendment to the Regulation, but declined to do so.) Nonetheless, given all that the residents of the Region and Ontario were experiencing, it was the right thing to do. Further, the general discretion possessed by Integrity Commissioners encompasses delays associated with the COVID pandemic. Transparency I attach to each inquiry (investigation) report a statement of th e time spent on the process and the total cost to the municipality. Across Canada, very few municipal Integrity Commissioners do this. Under the Municipal Act, an inquiry report is a public document. Many municipalities in Durham Region make the reports easily accessible by posting, for example, on the Accountability and Transparency page. I encourage all municipalities to do this. In addition, the reports of many municipal Integrity Commissioners, including me, appear on the public, online, Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) database, and are accessible for free at https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onmic/. Outside Durham Region, some municipalites and some Integrity Commissioners do not participate in CanLII, or post their reports. In my opinion, this is unfortunate; to make the results of an accountability exercise difficulty to find is to defeat the purpose. Reports (Code of Conduct) The following are the code of conduct inquiry reports issued during 2019 and 2020. Decisions on MCIA inquiries are listed in the next section. Region Re McLean (March 26, 2019), 2019 ONMIC 2 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j0358 Re McLean (Supplementary) (April 17, 2019), 2019 ONMIC 8 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j035b 13 On the other hand, the wording of the Regulation was sufficiently broad to cover Municipal Conflict of Interest Act inquiries. - 63 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 6 Brock Bath-Hadden v. Pettingill (No. 1) (February 20, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 3 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j6gm6 Campbell v. Schummer (August 3, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 8 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jbnx5 Miller v. Bath-Hadden (October 13, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 12 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jc3zx Oshawa Gobin v. Nicholson (November 30, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 13 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jcx26 Foster v. Chapman (Dec. 14, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 17 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jcx27 This table presents the number of inquiries completed, per year. It includes both code of conduct inquiries and MCIA inquiries. Code of Conduct Inquiries MCIA Inquiries Municipality 2019 2020 2019 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham 114 0 0 0 Township of Brock 0 3 0 015 Municipality of Clarington 0 0 0 0 City of Oshawa 0 2 0 3 City of Pickering 0 0 0 0 Township of Scugog 0 0 0 0 Township of Uxbridge 0 0 1 0 Town of Whitby 0 0 0 0 The above table that does not include inquries still active at the end of the reporting period. It also does not include inquiries into code of conduct complaints and MCIA 14 The Re McLean inquiry resulted in two report. It is counted as one inquiry. 15 The Bath-Hadden v. Pettingill inquiry involved both a code of conduct complaint and an MCIA application, and there were two reports. It is counted in this table as a code inquiry. - 64 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 7 applications where there were insufficient grounds for investigation, or where the matters were settled or complaints/applications were withdrawn. The confidentiality provisions of the Municipal Act prohibit any discussion of outstanding inquiries, other than to say that the factors discussed above apply to those proceedings. 5. Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Inquiries The legislation treats inquiries into allegations of MCIA breaches somewhat differently than inquiries under a Code of Conduct. Council is not the decision maker in an MCIA matter. Instead, it is the Integrity Commissioner, at the conclusion of an MCIA inquiry, who decides whether or not to apply to a Superior Court judge for a declaration that the Member has contravened the MCIA. The Integrity Commissioner must publish writ ten reasons for the decision. I do this prov iding the reasons to the Canada Legal Information Institute (CanLII), for posting in its online database. An Integrity Commissioner’s MCIA decisions are not subject to Council approval. They are provided to Council for information. The Municipal Act requires the Integrity Commissioner to complete the inquiry within 180 days after receiving the completed application. However, Ontario Regulation 73/20 had the effect of suspending the deadline in MCIA appli cations between March 16 and September 14, 2020. Reasons for Decision (Municipal Conflict of Interest Act) The following are the reasons for decisions in MCIA applications issued during 2019 and 2020: Brock Bath-Hadden v. Pettingill (No. 2) (February 20, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 4 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j5ckj Oshawa Durham Flight Centre Inc. v. Marimpietri (November 15, 2019), 2019 ONMIC 18 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j3dhg Davis v. Carter (February 23, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 5 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j5d14 Gobin v .Giberson (December 7, 2020), 2020 ONMIC 14 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jc19d Uxbridge Petrou v. Beach (September 13, 2019), 2019 ONMIC 11 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/j2dsg - 65 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 8 6. Special Reports I also issued several Special Reports. Usually a Special Report addresses an issue that has been raised with me by a Council. • Regional Municipality of Durham, June 30, 2019, Special Report: Follow-up on Committee of the Whole Presentation • Municipality of Clarington, June 8, 2020, Council Members and Alleged By-law Infractions • Muncipality of Clarington, October 15, 2020, Council Members and Follow-Up Communication with Bylaw Enforcement • Town of Whitby, August 2, 2019, Whitby Yacht Club membership offered to Town Councillors (educational information memorandum, not a special report) 7. Requests for Advice The role of the Integrity Commissioner als o includes providing advice to Council Members and local board members about the following: 4. Requests from members of council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the code of conduct applicable to the member. 5. Requests from members of council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under a procedure, rule or policy of the municipality or of the local board, as the case may be, governing the ethical behaviour of members. 6. Requests from members of council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Municipal Act requires that a Council Member’s or local board member’s request for advice from the Integrity Commissioner shall be made in writing, and that the advice shall be in writing. A Council Member or local board member is free to disclose, or to choose not to disclose, the advice received. The Integrity Commissioner, on the other hand, is subject to the strict confidentiality requiremen ts of section 223.5 of the Act. (1) The Commissioner and every person acting under the instructions of the Commissioner shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this Part. … (2.1) Advice provided by the Commissioner to a member under paragraph 4, 5 or 6 of subsection 223.3 (1) may be released with the member’s written consent. (2.2) If a member releases only part of the advice provided to the member by the Commissioner under paragraph 4, 5 or 6 of subsection 223.3 (1), the Commissioner may release part or all of the advice without obtaining the member’s consent. (2.3) The Commissioner may disclose such information as in the Commissioner’s opinion is necessary, (a) for the purposes of a public meeting under subsection 223.4.1 (8); (b) in an application to a judge referred to in subsection 223.4.1 (15); or - 66 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 9 (c) in the written reasons given by the Commissioner under subsection 223.4.1 (17). (3) This section prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For accountability and tracking purposes, each request for advice is assigned a file number, and (except in Whitby which uses a different process) the Clerk is informed of the name of the Member associated with each file number. The topic and content of the request for advice are disclosed to no body. Some requeests for advice were answered briefly. Other responses were lengthy. In several instances, a single request for advice involved multipled follow-up requests for clarification or added information. For statistical purposes, the follow-ups are included with the original request. Consequently, the figures below understate the full amount of advisory activity. The following table records the number of requests for advice that were answered: Muncipality Requests for Advice 2019 Requests for Advice 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham 0 3 Township of Brock 3 4 Municipality of Clarington 2 2 City of Oshawa 5 6 City of Pickering 0 0 Township of Scugog 5 4 Township of Uxbridge 3 1 Town of Whitby 7 3 8. Internal Outreach, Ed ucation and Training During the reporting period, I delivered the following internal outreach, education and training: • January 22, 2019, Town of Whitby, presentation (pre-recorded) to members of the Town’s local boards and advisory committees - 67 - Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports _________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity Commissioner 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports 10 • January 31, 2019, Joint meeting of Councils of Township of Brock, Township of Scugog, and Township of Uxbridge, Training Presentation • May 15, 2019, Regional Municipality of Durham, Committee of the Whole, Education and Training Session • September 19, 2019, Township of Brock, Council Education Session • March 2, 2020, City of Oshawa, attended at Corporate Services Committee to answer questions if necessary; was not called to address the Committee • March 2, 2020, Town of Whitby, Special Council Meeting, Follow-up to Report CLK 13-19, Codes of Conduct and Governance Policy Updates In several cases, I followed up on writing on questions that arose during the sessions. In 2019, at the request of the Region and several local municipalities, I proposed amendments that would harmonize the gift/benefit provisions of the codes of conduct across Durham Region. Respectfully submitted, Guy Giorno Integrity Commissioner for Regional Municipality of Durham, Township of Brock, Municipality of Clarington, City of Oshawa, City of Pickering, Township of Scugog, Township of Uxbridge, Town of Whitby April 30, 2021 - 68 - From: MECP Land Policy (MECP) <MECP.LandPolicy@ontario.ca> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:46 AM Cc: Kurtes, Robyn (MECP) <Robyn.Kurtes@ontario.ca>; Lompart, Chris (MECP) <Chris.Lompart@ontario.ca> Subject: Notification of Proposal on Modernizing Environmental Compliance Practices and Ontario Community Environment Fund Re-Launch Good morning: I am writing to you today to share important information about several initiatives the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is moving forward with our commitments in our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan to help strengthen enforcement tools that hold polluters accountable and create consistent guidelines to prevent and address noise and odour issues. These initiatives include: 1.Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline 2.Proposed Odour Guideline 3.Updating the ministry’s Compliance Policy to focus on high-risk incidents and publicly posting the Referral Tool and Service Standards 4.Stakeholder Consultation on the Expansion of Administrative Monetary Penalties 5.Re-Launch of the Enhanced Ontario Community Environment Fund Further details on these initiatives are available in the Environmental Registry of Ontario bulletin posting: strengthening our environmental compliance approach. Additional information related to stakeholder engagement for the proposed administrative monetary penalties expansion and the re-launch of the Ontario Community Environment Fund is available below. 1.Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline Ontario is proposing a new land use compatibility guideline as an update to a number of existing D- series guidelines for municipalities to use when making land use planning decisions. The proposed guideline will help ensure certain land uses can co-exist and thrive for the long-term within a community, including major industrial facilities and more sensitive residential land uses. By clarifying when compatibility studies related to the assessment of potential noise, odour, dust and other effects are needed to support land use planning decisions, the proposed guideline would help to prevent adverse impacts. Preventing noise and odour issues resulting from incompatible land uses is a key commitment in the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. For more information and to provide comments, please visit Environmental Registry Posting 019-2785. 2.Odour guideline We are proposing guidance on how industrial facilities, development proponents and other members of the regulated community can anticipate, prevent, and address odour issues. Corr. 26-21 - 69 - Our proactive approach will provide more regulatory certainty for facilities, better coordination with land planning decisions, and more effective remediation of issues caused by odour mixtures. For more information, please visit Environmental Registry Posting 019-2768. 3. Updating the ministry’s Compliance Policy to focus on high-risk incidents and publicly posting the Referral tool and Service Standards The ministry is updating and modernizing its compliance policy to ensure that compliance and enforcement activities are risk-based. The ministry has publicly posted the Referral Tool which will help the ministry to triage public reports received through phone calls or emails so that we are more efficiently identifying incidents which the ministry will respond to or refer to more appropriate levels of government or other agencies. Service standards for responding to incident reports received from the public have also been posted publicly to ensure timeliness of the ministry’s response. For more information, please visit Environmental Registry Posting 019-2972. 4. Administrative Monetary Penalty Expansion – Stakeholder Consultations The ministry is expanding our ability to issue administrative monetary penalties, currently known as environmental penalties, to more violations and to our entire regulated community, an estimated 150,000 entities. This includes individuals, small businesses and large corporations as well as public entities like municipalities and crown corporations. Currently, these penalties can be applied when certain environmental violations, such as spills and unlawful discharges, occur at about 140 industrial facilities. We are now inviting you to participate in an engagement session where we will present proposed approaches on the details of the new administrative monetary penalties framework for environmental violations, to seek your feedback prior to drafting regulations. The engagement session will be delivered online and offer an opportunity for you to provide direct input. The input received will inform the development of draft regulations and a guidance document in order to implement the new administrative monetary penalties framework, which we anticipate consulting on further later this year. Please register for one of the four engagement sessions that best suits your availability using the corresponding link below. - 70 - DATE TIME EVENT LINK Tuesday, May 18 9 AM to 12 PM Registration Thursday, May 20 1 PM to 4 PM Registration Wednesday, May 26 1 PM to 4 PM Registration Friday, May 28 9 AM to 12 PM Registration Once registered, we will send you the engagement materials, the webinar link and the event code for Slido (i.e. an interactive web-based question and answer and polling tool), which the ministry will be using to collect your input. Please review the discussion document, including discussion questions, prior to the engagement session and prepare your responses. Let us know if you are unable to attend any of the scheduled engagement sessions. We will try to accommodate where possible. Please send any questions you may have on these engagement sessions to Andre.Martin@ontario.ca 5.Re-Launch of Enhanced Ontario Community Environment Fund Funds collected from administrative monetary penalties will continue to be dedicated to the Ontario Community Environment Fund, to support environmental improvement projects in the regions of Ontario where the violations occurred. Projects will support increased environmental restoration, and resilient communities and local solutions to environmental issues. Projects will be assessed through a competitive process, based on their positive environmental and community benefits as well as the quality of the project design. More information about the enhanced Ontario Community Environment Fund and the 2021 call for applications will be announced soon. The application period is expected to be open from early May 2021 to late June 2021 and will make funds available, collected from penalties between 2016-2019. Local organizations can apply for the funding available based on the region where they are located: •Northern Region: $475,009 •Southwest Region: $306,151 •Eastern Region: $62,864 •West-Central Region: $43,298 •Central Region: No funding available this round because the value of penalties collected did not meet the minimum funding threshold of $5,000. Please send any questions you may have on the Ontario Community Environment Fund to OCEF@Ontario.ca. If you have any further questions or comments related to these initiatives, please direct questions to the appropriate contact above. Thank you, Robyn Kurtes, Director Environmental Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - 71 - Memo To: Susan Cassel May 14, 2021 City Clerk From: Tanya Ryce Supervisor, Cultural Services Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Director, Community Services Cultural Plan Staff Committee Cultural Advisory Committee Members Subject: Cultural Advisory Committee -2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan File: A-1410 The Cultural Advisory Committee (CAC) is pleased to submit, for Council’s information, the 2020 Committee Report and 2021 Work Plan as outlined below. In 2020, the committee continued to contribute to the goals of the City’s Cultural Plan in the following ways: •The CAC addressed a public concern regarding global racism and the impact on the community. The CAC reviewed, contributed to, and supported staff report CS 27-20 on Anti-Black Racism Initiatives, and endorsed the creation of an Anti -Black Racism Taskforce Preparatory Sub-committee, undertaking the actions in the report. •The CAC recommended CS 30-20 Report and Action Plan – Indigenous Relationship Building. The Sub-committee on Indigenous Relations Building was initiated to make recommendations on building relations with the Indigenous Community. Through these efforts, the committee was able to endorse the Indigenous Land Acknowledgement statement and through that process, create a strong relationship with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island. The Land Acknowledgement statement was adopted by Council and is now used prior to Council Meetings, and the Committee has taken on the new title, Indigenous Relationship Building Circle. •The CAC continued to reach out to the community through contributing to the Directories of Black Business, Artist Performers. They also took the initiative to participate in a conversation regarding how the city and community can best support underfunded, or unsupported, cultural and community partners during COVID–19 by providing advice related to virtual events, drive through events, online market place, and pop-up program. Corr. 27-21 - 72 - May 14, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Cultural Advisory Committee 2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan • The CAC further discussed the creation of a public art sub-committee, and selected members of the committee to begin the process. The initial goal of the group was the recruitment of local professional artists to be part of the inaugural committee and to finalize the terms of reference. • Provide comments, feedback and, when requested, recommendations to Council related to the Pickering Museum Village 2020 and 2019 annual reports, Combination Barn exhibit proposal, Blacksmith Shop exhibit proposal, Master Site Use Report (2019), Museum deaccessions, and regular reporting, as recorded in committee minutes. • Advised on the Kingston Road Corridor and the Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, policies, and future decisions; specifically regarding the design and development of the gateways, the proposed heritage path, and public art opportunities. • Participate in annual updates to Council. 2021 Work Plan 1. Continue the work of the Indigenous Relationship Building Action Plan, through the Indigenous Relationship building Circle Sub-committee. 2. Continue to support the newly formed Anti-Black Racism Taskforce which was appointed in January of 2021 with an executive membership made of community leaders, and have now commenced meetings with a revised terms of reference, which identified key areas for the action plan. 3. Contribute to the work of the public art policy and formation of the Public Art Sub-committee terms of reference, and Work Plan. 4. Act as a stakeholders for the Diversity Equity Inclusion Strategy. 5. Act as a stakeholder for Community Engagement Initiatives. 6. Contribute to the city wide plans for Culture Days. 7. Connect community partners to the culture team to deliver in park and online programming related to cultural initiatives. 8. Provide feedback to staff on the medium term goals of the Cultural Plan, including the development of heritage recognition activities, entrepreneurial and economic development initiatives and providing feedback on existing programs through the annual reports. 9. Continue to review, make recommendations and provide feedback to the standing agenda items regarding the Pickering Museum Village. - 73 - May 14, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Cultural Advisory Committee 2020 Report & 2021 Work Plan 10. Review the terms of reference of the CAC, voting rights of community stakeholders, and prepare for 2022 end of term, and future plans. 11. Report to Council Annually. :jsa - 74 - Memo To: Susan Cassel May 14, 2021 City Clerk From: Tim Higgins Accessibility Coordinator Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Directors Subject: Accessibility Advisory Committee -2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan File: A-1410-007-21 The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) is pleased to present its 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan. 2020 Year End Report The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee’s activities and achievements in 2020 are described below. Meetings & Membership The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee maintained its full authorized complement of 10, highly-qualified, diverse members throughout 2020. As well, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade provided a highly-qualified and engaged representative as a non -voting member of the Committee. In 2020 the AAC held nine regular meetings. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Committee meetings rapidly adapted to a virtual format. To avoid a livestrea ming scheduling conflict with meetings of the Committee of Adjustment, the AAC meetings were rescheduled to the third Wednesday of each month from the second Wednesday of each month. Guests of the Committee frequently included Pickering community members, representatives of community partner organizations, and representatives of the staff of the City of Pickering. During 2020, in recognition of his Paralympic sporting skills and accomplishments, AAC member Anthony Lue was designated a “carded athlete”, enti tling him to receive training funds from the government. Notwithstanding the pandemic, Mr. Lue, continued his training for qualifiers for the Canadian team to attend the Tokyo Paralympic Games. Mr. Lue invited Committee members to follow him and his journey at anthonylue.com or on Instagram and Facebook. During 2020, AAC member Peter Bashaw completed a 6-week certificate course on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Corr. 28-21 - 75 - May 14, 2021 Page 2 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan Awareness Activities The AAC has continued to monitor local, provincial, national and international emerging accessibility legislation, regulations, policies, best practices, products and services and considered adaptations for use in Pickering. As examples, AAC members have kept abreast of emerging accessibility policies and adaptive technologies: o The Committee reviewed and discussed issues raised in former Lieutenant Governor David Onley’s report to the Ontario Government on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) implementation progress. o Through the AAC’s staff representative the Committee has liaised, on an ongoing basis and over a broad range of accessibility topics, with members of the Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP). o AAC member John McLellan presented information on two-level residential elevators to the Committee. o Member Peter Bashaw shared information with the Committee on new-wave wheelchairs that allow independent movement on staircases, among other advanced features. o Members raised concerns during Committee meetings regarding high prices for adaptive devices. The AAC developed a YouTube video featuring AAC member Anthony Lue to contribute to Pickering’s virtual Canada Day celebration. Policies, Standards & Implementation AAC members submitted a report on the Committee’s 2019 accessibility accomplishments and its 2020 Work Plan to Pickering City Council on May 25th, 2020. Following consultation with the AAC and the Accessibility Core Staff Team and other City staff, the City of Pickering filed its required 2019 compliance report with the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility (the Regulator) indicating that the City of Pickering was fully AODA-compliant. On an ongoing basis, the AAC has monitored progress with respect to Pickering’s Five -Year Accessibility Plan for 2016-2020, and the planning for the 2021-2025 Five-Year Accessibility Plan. As an ongoing concern, the AAC has held various discussions and hosted guest presentations to explore issues and identify potential solutions with respect to residential accessibility and housing affordability in Pickering and Durham Region. Noting a general reluctance by developers to fully embrace the building of accessible housing and communities, the AAC has continuously sought to identify strategies and opportunities to create additional accessible/affordable residential housing options and inventory. For example, AAC member Peter Bashaw took the initiative to e-mail Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, regarding the lack of affordable/accessible housing, and to propose government encouragement for college and university-level architecture programs to increase curriculum requirements relating to accessibility. AAC member Daniel Hughes has provided periodic updates to the AAC with respect to Axess Condos Pickering to be developed at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road. - 76 - May 14, 2021 Page 3 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan The AAC fostered/promoted/supported submissions for local, regional, provincial and federal awards and grants to profile Pickering’s accessibility achievements and commitment. For example, o AAC members identified several potential nominees for Pickering’s Civic Accessibility Award for Disability Issues and for the Regional Accessibility Award; o the AAC supported a grant submission to JumpStart for a $20,000 renovation of the tot pool at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex; and, o the AAC supported Pickering’s Museum Village submission for an Ontario Inclusive Community Grant to provide accessibility ramps. AAC member David Wysocki provided an in-depth presentation to the Committee on Listening Accessibility: Captioning. He noted that captioning can benefit a broad spectrum of Pickering’s residents: the aging population; persons with hearing loss, attention related issues, learning disabilities or other audio/visual–perceptual challenges; residents for whom English is a second language; as well as the general population. The AAC has maintained an ongoing awareness of the City’s steps to ensure website accessibility amid heightened AODA Information and Communication standards. By January 1st, 2021, all public websites and web content must meet Web Content Accessi bility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA, meaning that public facing websites must be navigable and their content accessible. The AAC has been kept informed of the significant support from Pickering’s Senior Management Team and Staff to ensure website compliance. As well, the AAC has monitored the City’s collaborations with Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), Durham Region, and Durham tier-two municipalities to identify website best practices. The AAC reviewed and provided advice on a new Accessibility Checklist for Pickering Events. The AAC reviewed and provided advice on a new “Respect the Space” brochure to encourage residents and visitors to respect Pickering’s accessible parking spaces. Representatives of Participation House Durham attended the AAC meeting to discuss its range of programs to help individuals with disabilities acquire work skills and to successfully pursue employment. The AAC maintained an awareness of the City’s new staff and volunteer training process related to accessibility. The AAC received several presentations from City staff, and provided advice regarding accessibility related capital projects. The AAC has monitored and provided accessibility advice regarding walkway reconstructions, sidewalk retrofits, multi-use paths, installation of tactile plates at intersections, curb cuts, traffic light timing, snow clearing, parks, playgrounds, special event accessible parking, etc. For example, o Accessibility Core Staff Team member Vince Plouffe, Manager, Facilities Capital Projects, appeared before the Committee to provide an update and consult on the City’s Signage & Wayfinding Program. The intent of the program is to enable individuals of all abilities to navigate efficiently through City of Pickering buildings. o Accessibility Core Staff Team member Jeffrey Beaton, Coordinator, Parks Infrastructure, updated the AAC regarding work on asset management, and the rehabilitation City parks and trails. The Committee discussed the value of the City’s tranquil parks and trails amid the stress-laden pandemic, and rising frequency of mental illness in the community. - 77 - May 14, 2021 Page 4 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan o The AAC expressed concern over community traffic light timings, noting instances where insufficient time was provided to ensure people with disabilities could cross intersections safely. Consultation & Collaboration At the January 27th, 2020 City Council Meeting, Council approved Report CS 08 -20, to submit the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement to the Province and to set in motion the City of Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee’s Service & Support Animal Initiative (SSAI). Pursuant to AAC discussions in November 2018, a sub-committee of the AAC was established to develop information regarding the current rules and best practices with respect to service and support animals, and related issues, particularly as they impact municipal operations and Durham businesses. The SSAI plan calls for hosting an Innovation Lab, development and publication of a Monograph, and a launch event to rollout findings of the Task Group study. Leadership of the Initiative has been provided by AAC member David Wysocki and the Task Group, a sub-committee of the AAC. David Wysocki has provided regular updates to the AAC on the SSAI progress. Representatives of the Pickering Football Club (PFC) attended the AAC to discuss their new research project, funded by an Ontario Trillium Grant, which aims to investigate barriers associated with recreational and sport opportunities in Pickering and Durham Region. The PFC has identified a number of community groups that encounter barriers and remain isolated from recreational opportunities. These groups include newcomers, seniors, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, and indigenous populations. The AAC has continued to collaborate and consult with regional and provincial accessibility professionals and advocates, such as the Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), to stay abreast of emerging accessibility issues and successful practices. The AAC has monitored Regional AAC minutes and selectively participated in/attended virtual Regional, Provincial, Federal and U.S. learning and networking opportunities related to accessibility. The AAC has monitored the emergence of the Rick Hansen Foundation’s accessibility certification program. During 2020, AAC member Anthony Lue has pursued Rick Hansen Foundation (RHF) certification and kept the Committee up-to-date on the RHF program and his progress. Mr. Lue attended his first Rick Hansen ratings as part of an Ontario pilot project, an d shared challenges and barriers he experienced with the AAC. AAC member Saima Fatima has participated in the Durham Region Accessibility Awareness Group meetings to identify opportunities for collaboration and information sharing with the AAC. The AAC has frequently expressed its interest in collaborating with the Durham Region, Durham Region Transit (DRT) and Metrolinx to identify opportunities to improve transit accessibility and customer service for people with disabilities. o Abdul Macci, Pickering’s representative on the DRT Advisory Committee attended the AAC to discuss a range of transit accessibility issues and to establish a basis for ongoing collaboration with the AAC to remove transit accessibility barriers and improve transit customer service for people with disabilities. o Jamie Austin, Deputy General Manager, Business Services and Michael Binetti, Supervisor, Service Design, DRT joined the AAC and presented information on DRT’s COVID-19 response. They discussed ridership impacts, resumption of fare - 78 - May 14, 2021 Page 5 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan collection, and provided an overview of the multi-phase service plan, including a revised network and level of service frequency to respond to changes in ridership. Information on the DRT app (DRT on-demand) was also shared and Mr. Binetti presented draft social equity guidelines which include priorities, communities of focus, as well as guidelines and goals and obtained feedback from the AAC. o The AAC continued to engage with DRT regarding concerns with delays for specialized transit customers travelling to/from the GTA. o AAC member Daniel Hughes continued his appointment to the Metrolinx Accessibility Advisory Committee representing Durham Region. The AAC hosted representatives of the CNIB who presented information on: o the CNIB Eyes Forward program which provides support to seniors who are experiencing limitations in conducting their everyday activities, and plans to open a location in Pickering in September, 2020. o a program to donate cell phones to seniors and install a network of beacons to accommodate the navigation needs of people with visual impairments. The AAC continued to liaise and consult with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Parks Canada, and Altona Forest representatives to consider innovative methods of providing access to outdoor spaces. For example, o Parks Canada representatives consulted the AAC on accessibility features of trails at the Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP) such as trail head signage to inform visitors about trail difficulty. Discussions ensued regarding specialized transit for seniors, rest areas, power stations to charge wheelchairs/scooters, and accommodations for people with visual/cognitive impairments. o TRCA’s plans for the Claremont Nature Centre were reviewed by the AAC. The AAC supported, promoted and attended the virtual 2020 Durham Regional Police Children’s Games for disabled youth between the ages of 5 and 18. T he City of Pickering has actively partnered with Durham Regional Police Services, Grandview Children’s Centre, the March of Dimes and other community partners since 1985 to host this annual inclusive event. In December 2020 the AAC members met virtually with Pickering’s Accessibility Core Staff Team for the AAC’s annual festive Meet & Greet to team -build, share information and to network. Through its Ajax Pickering Board of Trade representative, John McLellan, the AAC regularly exchanged accessibility information and issues with the local business community. Through its staff representative, the AAC liaised and collaborated with the City’s Age Friendly initiative. Site Plan Application Reviews The AAC continued to work in collaboration with City planning staff through an ongoing site plan application review process to encourage the proactive integration of accessibility considerations into City developments. In 2020, the AAC reviewed and provided accessibility advice with respect to the following site plans: o Jerry Coughlan Health & Wellness Centre at 2580 Brock Road - This facility will be a treatment and learning centre for children with disabilities. o Site Plan Review - S01/20 - TriBro (movie) Studios to be located on the Durham Live property immediately southwest of the Pickering Casino Resort complex. - 79 - May 14, 2021 Page 6 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan o Fire Station #1 Headquarters to be located at the northwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive in Duffin Heights Accessibility Core Staff Team (member Vince Plouffe, Manager, Facilities Capital Projects observed to the AAC that the Fire Station project illustrates that accessible design is no longer a secondary consideration or an afterthought, rather it is widely accepted that accessible design constitutes good practice. o Mattamy Homes - S 07/20 - 1033 Reflection Place o Fieldgate Homes sales pavilion at Taunton and Brock Roads o Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd. at Finch Avenue and Rosebank Road o S04/11(R20), Conseil Scolaire Viamonde, 2235 Brock Rd 2021 Proposed Work Plan The AAC’s 2021 plans, as well as its accomplishments to April 2021, are noted below: Meetings & Membership To maintain its momentum, the AAC aims to maintain its full authorized complement of 10, highly-qualified, diverse members throughout 2021, as well as its Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade representative. To this end, three new members of the Committee were appointed by Council in March, 2021 replacing retiring members. By way of orientation for the new AAC members and as a review for the other members, the staff representative to the AAC provided the Committee an overview of Ontario’s legal framework for accessibility, including highlights of: the Ontario Human Rights Code; the AODA; and, the Ontario Building Code. So far in 2021, the Accessibility Advisory Committee has held four virtual meetings, on the third Wednesday of each month. A further six meetings are scheduled to the end of the year. Throughout 2021, guests of the Committee will frequently include Pickering community members, representatives of community partner organizations, and representatives of the staff of the City of Pickering. John McLellan, Ajax Pickering Board of Trade’s AAC representative was recognized in 2021 with a City of Pickering Civic Award for community leadership in accessibility. Awareness Activities In 2021, the AAC will continue to: monitor local, provincial, national and international emerging accessibility legislation, regulations, policies, best practices, products and services and consider relevant adaptations for use in Pickering; foster/promote/support submissions for municipal, regional, and provincial awards and grants to profile Pickering’s accessibility investments and achievements; and play an active role in Pickering’s community events and celebrations such as Canada Day. - 80 - May 14, 2021 Page 7 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan Policies, Standards & Implementation Margaret Kish, Principal Planner, Policy attended the AAC to provide an update on the City of Pickering Housing Strategy and to consult with AAC members. Among a number of matters discussed, the Committee shared information on: o a general shortage of accessible housing; o the findings of David C. Onley’s Report regarding the independent review of the implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; and, o standards regarding accessible residential design as outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act . Accessibility Core Staff Team member Scott Booker, Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure attended the Committee and: o presented the approved Accessibility Capital Budget to the Committee and provided highlights of projects. o discussed concerns of the AAC members regarding increasing vandalism of accessibility and other infrastructure in community parks, on trails and in the Altona Forest. Pickering’s Five-Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025 is currently under development and will: o feature a summary of the Accessibility Capital Budget for 2021 to 2025; o be informed by an environmental scan referencing: input from the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Pickering Accessibility Core Staff Team; the 2019 report and recommendations of David C. Onley to the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility on the future of the AODA; results of Pickering’s SSAI; the recent Abilities Centre research study on the impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on people with disabilities; Pickering’s Housing Strategy; the Pickering Football Club’s recent study of inclusive recreation programs; recent federal and provincial accessibility legislation, regulations, policies and successful practices; and a scan of plans, issues and successful practices from sources such as the Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP) and other Durham Region municipalities. o Be informed by consultation with persons with disabilities in the City of Pickering. This consultation may leverage “Bang the Table” software to effectively engage the community. The AAC will review and provide input to the City of Pickering’s 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report to the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility scheduled for submission to the Regulator by December 31st, 2021. In 2021, the AAC will continue to: maintain an ongoing awareness of the City’s steps to ensure website accessibility commensurate with heightened (WCAG 2.0 Level AA) AODA Information and Communication Standards. - 81 - May 14, 2021 Page 8 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan explore issues and identify potential solutions with respect to residential accessibility and affordability in Pickering and Durham Region. monitor and provide accessibility advice regarding walkway reconstructions, sidewalk retrofits, new multi-use paths, installation of tactile plates at intersections, curb cuts, traffic light timing, parks, playgrounds, special event accessible parking, etc. foster/promote/support submissions for local, regional, provincial and federal awards and grants to profile Pickering’s accessibility achievements and commitment. monitor the City’s staff and volunteer training process related to accessibility. Consultation & Collaboration Omar McDadi from Parks Canada RNUP and Larry Noonan, Altona Forest Stewardship Committee attended the AAC to consult on the Rouge Beach Improvements Project noting that a key objective of the project is to improve RNUP accessibility and inclusion. Following on from this presentation, the AAC provided a letter to Parks Canada indicating the Committee’s support for the Rouge Beach Improvement Project. By way of update, AAC member Daniel Hughes informed the Committee that site plans for the Axess Condominium project had been submitted to the City. Margaret Parkhill of the IBI Group attended the Committee to share information and consult the Committee regarding accessibility of the Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Project. During 2021, the AAC will continue to: Collaborate and consult with Regional and Provincial accessibility professionals and advocates, such as the Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), to stay abreast of emerging accessibility issues and successful practices. Promote awareness of, and advise on, information and resources for people with disabilities needing help during pandemic including: o emergency supports; o virtual management of anxiety and mental health; and o human rights of people with disabilities. Promote awareness of, and advise on City/Regional COVID-19 initiatives such as Pickering’s partnership with Grandview Kids to provide respite programs. Monitor local, regional, provincial, federal and U.S. learning and networking opportunities related to accessibility. Monitor the Rick Hansen Foundation’s accessibility programs, the Durham Region Accessibility Awareness Group, the CNIB, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Parks Canada as well as other accessibility advocates. Collaborate with Durham Region Transit (DRT) and Metrolinx to improve accessible customer service. Provide support, promote and attend the 2021 Annual Durham Regional Police Children’s Games. Collaborate with Pickering’s Accessibility Core Staff Team, the Ajax Pickering Board of Trade, the City’s Age Friendly initiative and others. - 82 - May 14, 2021 Page 9 of 9 AAC 2020 Year End Report and 2021 Proposed Work Plan Site Plan Application Reviews The AAC will continue to work in collaboration with City planning staff through an ongoing site plan application review process to encourage the proactive integration of accessibility considerations into City development. In 2021 to date, the AAC reviewed and provided accessibility advice with respect to the following site plans: o The Jerry Coughlan Health & Wellness Centre located at 2580 Brock Road This facility will be a treatment and learning center for children with disabilities, generously sponsored by recently deceased Pickering builder, Jerry Coughlan. AAC advice has aimed to help the Coughlan Centre achieve recognition as a center of excellence in terms of accessibility design befitting its sponsor. o S01/20 - TriBro Studios located on the Durham Live property adjacent to the Pickering Casino Resort complex o S04/20 - Shell Canada at the intersection of Kingston Rd. and Whites Rd. o S11/18 - Metropia o S12/02 (R20) 1400 Squires Beach Rd. o S 02/19 9004807 Canada Inc. – Stonepay Phase II o Pickering Heritage Community Centre at the Pickering Museum Village o S 03/21, R & K Pahal, Carousel Drive o S03/87 (R21) - Joriki Holdings Inc. 885 Sandy Beach Road Submitted on behalf of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee members: Peter Bashaw, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member Bianca D’Souza, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (to 2020) Saima Fatima, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member Donna Holmes, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (to 2020) Daniel Hughes, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member Glenn Lang, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member Tammy Lyle-Gravlev, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (from 2021) Anthony Lue, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member John McLellan, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade Representative Phyllis Milton, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (from 2021) Anna Taverna, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (from 2021) Megan Thorpe Ross, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member Susan Wilkinson, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member (to 2020) David Wysocki, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee Member TH:th - 83 - Memo To: Marisa Carpino May 18, 2021 Chief Administrative Officer From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Copy: City Clerk Chief Planner Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting of May 3, 2021 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road This memo is related to Item 5.4 (Recommendation Report PLN 24-21) of the Planning & Development Committee Agenda of May 3, 2021. During the Planning & Development Committee meeting, area residents and Committee Members asked a number of questions and raised concerns about a number of matters related to the proposal. In an effort to provide further clarification, staff have prepared a table providing detailed responses to the questions and concerns identified (see Attachment #1). Should any member of Council require further information, please contact Cody Morrison at extension 2913 or Nilesh Surti at extension 2035. CM:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3100 Official Plan Amendments (OPA Applications)\2018\OPA 18-005P & A11-18 Highmark Homes\Memos Attachment #1 Staff’s Response to Questions raised at the Planning & Development Committee Meeting CAO 37-21 - 84 - Attachment #1 Staff’s Response to Concerns Raised at the May 3 , 2021 Planning & Development Committee Meeting # Issues Identified by Residents Response 1 Commented that the proposed development is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) or A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan). City staff have reviewed the proposal against the PPS and the Growth Plan (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.1). The PPS provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS further states that municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the PPS and for achieving comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning. The PPS outlines that new development should have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, in areas that are supported by planned or existing transit services. Both the PPS and the Growth Plan call for intensification within the built- up area. The Growth Plan prescribes minimum intensification targets for upper tier municipalities to maintain and outlines that intensification shall be directed towards urban growth centres where existing and planned public transit and other public service facilities are available to support future residents. It is staff’s professional planning opinion that the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents appropriate intensification along a major transit corridor and includes appropriate building setbacks and landscape buffer to ensure it is compatible with the established residential neighbourhood to the north along Guild Road. It will assist the City and Region to meet their respective intensification targets, which is to accommodate 50 percent of all growth within the existing limits of the current built boundary of the Region and City. Similarly, planning staff from the Region of Durham have concluded that the proposal is consistent with the PPS and the Growth Plan (see PLN 24-21, Section 2.2.1). - 85 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 2 Commented that the proposed density is not consistent with the density requirements of the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” designation in the City’s Official Plan. To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting a site-specific exception to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum FSI of 2.53. The City’s growth management strategy, guided by the South Pickering Intensification Study has been to direct major intensification and high- density residential uses to the City Centre and Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors. In 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan (Intensification Plan). The Intensification Plan provides for the intensification of lands along Kingston Road, while encouraging an appropriate transition in height, massing and scale to minimize negative privacy impact on adjacent properties. To implement the recommendations of the Intensification Plan, the City has initiated Official Plan Amendment 38 to the Official Plan, which currently proposes a minimum residential density of over 60 units per net hectare and no maximum permitted residential density. The amendment is also proposing a Floor Space Index (FSI) ranging from 0.75 up to 2.5, and consideration to proposals between 2.5 and 5.0 FSI through a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. While the current Pickering Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the request can be supported based on policy intent and directions of the PPS, Growth Plan, Council’s endorsed Intensification Plan, and the emerging land use policy framework contemplated through OPA 38. - 86 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 3 Commented that the proposal is not consistent with the Council endorsed Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Intensification Plan or Draft Urban Design Guidelines. City staff have reviewed the proposal to ensure consistency with the Council-endorsed Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Intensification Plan (Intensification Plan) and Draft Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines) (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.2 and Section 3.3). The Intensification Plan and Guidelines were established to provide a broad direction for growth and building design for all lands within the study area. Given that every property within the Kingston Road corridor is unique with respect to size, location, site access, surrounding land uses and built form, it is reasonable to expect that a proposal may not maintain or achieve every policy or design recommendation of the Intensification Plan or the Draft Urban Design Guidelines. However, a proposal within the Kingston Road Corridor is expected to maintain the general intent and vision as established through the Council-endorsed Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines. The proposal, consisting of 2 apartment buildings, reflects residential intensification on the subject lands as recommended through the policies of the Intensification Plan. The proposed heights, design and placement of the buildings maximizes the use of the subject lands while providing for an appropriate transition to the established residential neighbourhood to the north through significant setbacks and landscaping, while minimizing negative shadow and privacy impacts, as encouraged by the Guidelines. - 87 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 4 Commented that the revised proposal does not provide for an appropriate transition to the neighbourhood immediately to the north and will result in a negative privacy impact on adjacent residents to the north and east. The proposed development has been reviewed to ensure compatibility and an appropriate transition is maintained to the existing neighbourhood to the north and east (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.4). To limit shadow and overlook impacts from higher-density developments on low-rise residential areas and ensure an appropriate transition in building form is maintained, the Draft Urban Design Guidelines outline that built form should conform to a 45-degree angular plane measured from a height of 10.5 metres, setback 7.5 metres from the rear property line. An angular plane is one of many tools intended to help shape the scale, height, spacing and character of a development and assist in achieving transitions in an area by limiting the overall height. The applicant has applied the angular plane requirements, as prescribed by the Draft Urban Design Guidelines, at the northerly property limit to achieve compatible building height and massing with the adjacent stable residential neighbourhood. The proposed 16 and 12-storey buildings are well within the limits set by the 45-degree angular plane from the abutting low density development to the north. In addition to maintaining the 45-degree angular plan requirements from the north lot line, a significant setback between the apartment buildings and the north property boundary is maintained. A minimum setback of approximately 40.0 metres is maintained between the closest portion of the 12-storey building and the north lot line. A setback of over 73.0 metres is maintained between the proposed 16-storey building and the north lot line. Within this setback, the applicant intends to provide for surface parking and a landscape buffer with a minimum width of 11.0 metres along the north lot line, which will assist in minimizing any visual or privacy impacts as a result of the proposed buildings. Additionally, the proposed 12-storey building will be setback approximately 24 metres from residential properties to the east as a result of the Guild Road right-of-way, which is 20.0 metres in width. Staff are satisfied that the proposed buildings will not result in a negative privacy impact on adjacent properties to the north or east. - 88 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 5 Commented that the proposed development does not respect the angular plane requirements of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines with respect to the south along Kingston Road or the east property line along Guild Road. Section 2.10 of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines outlines two distinct angular plane requirements that are intended to achieve different outcomes. Sections 2.10(viii) and 2.10(ix) outline angular plane requirements to be measured and implemented from adjacent residential properties to limit shadow and overlook impacts on existing low-rise residential areas. Sections 2.10(x) and 2.10(xi) outline angular plane requirements to be measured and implemented from public streets to help create a human- scaled environment. As noted above, both the 16 and 12-storey towers comply with the 45 degree angular plane requirements with respect to the adjacent low- rise residential neighbourhood to the north. When implementing the angular plane requirements from Kingston Road (south), the top 3 floors of the 16-storey building and the mechanical penthouse of 12-storey building encroaches into the angular plane. Staff are of the planning opinion that allowing the additional storeys will not result in any adverse shadow and privacy impacts given the depth of the subject lands and the substantial building setback from the north property line. Staff are of the opinion that the use an angular plane from the Guild Road frontage is not warranted given that an existing commercial use (Midas) is located at the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road. The combination of the podium height and architectural design of the proposed building will ensure a comfortable pedestrian scaled public realm is achieved along Kingston Road and Guild Road. - 89 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 6 Commented that stepbacks should be provided along the north, east and south façades of the proposed buildings. Section 2.12 and Section 2.15 of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines encourage the use of stepbacks between a building’s podium and tower in order to accentuate the podium and create a gradual transition between a building and abutting land uses. Building stepbacks are one of many tools utilized to assist in providing a transition between built form and adjacent land uses. Compatibility and appropriate transitioning of the proposed apartment buildings with the surrounding neighbourhood has been achieved by increasing building setbacks and providing a generous landscape buffer width along the north lot line. The proposed buildings provide for a 5-storey podium that will be accentuated through the use of differing building materials and high- quality façade treatments, which will contribute to an improved streetscape along Kingston Road and Guild Road. The proposed buildings will be sited a maximum of approximately 5.0 metres away from the edge of the Kingston Road and Guild Road rights-of-way and will include at-grade residential units with outdoor patios. Through the Site Plan Approval process staff will work with the applicant to explore opportunities to ensure the proposed building includes stepbacks to ensure a high-quality pedestrian-scaled public realm is provided along Kingston Road and Guild Road. - 90 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 7 Commented that the policies of the Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines, only permit tall buildings (13 storeys and above) at the intersection of arterial roads and transit spines or at gateway locations and that only mid-rise buildings (up to 12 storeys) are permitted on the subject lands. The Intensification Plan and Urban Design Guidelines do not preclude the development of tall buildings (above 13 storeys) on the subject lands. Section 3.3.1(e) of the Intensification Plan outlines that if the general intent of the Plan is met, flexibility with massing and height may be considered on a site-specific basis. The Draft Urban Design Guidelines provide specific criteria for tall buildings where they are adjacent to low-rise established neighbourhoods to ensure an appropriate transition in built form is provided, specifically to minimize shadow and privacy impacts. These criteria include the establishment of a 45-degree angular plan from low- rise neighbourhoods, and maximum podium heights. Staff are satisfied the proposed building heights of the 16 and 12 storeys are appropriate for the subject lands given the substantial size of the property and its location adjacent to the Hydro Corridor. The depth of the subject lands enables a significant setback between the proposed buildings and nearest residential dwelling to the north. Given the depth of the property, this provides an opportunity to site the taller building (16 storeys) away from the existing residential neighbourhood to the north and to the east, and direct majority of the buildings mass towards the Hydro lands and Kingston Road. Reducing the overall building height could result in a tower with a larger floorplate and a more significantly sized shadow. - 91 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 8 Concerned that the proposed development does not include a mix of uses or include commercial space. The subject lands are located within the Brock Precinct of the Intensification Plan. The Recommended Intensification Scenario, as developed through the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, targets a combined 218 people and jobs per hectare and 69 residential units per hectare for the Brock Precinct. In establishing these targets, the Intensification Scenario identified the subject site as being solely used for residential purposes, recognizing that the balance of the lands within the Brock Precinct would accommodate the projected employment growth through mixed-use developments and uses. Additionally, the subject lands are located within proximity to several retail plazas that provide for sufficient retail and commercial space to accommodate current and future residents. Within a 3 minute walk (200 metres) to the east or the west are two commercial plazas that support a variety of restaurant, banking, retail and personal service uses. Additionally, the existing SmartCentre development is located within an 8-minute walk (650 metres) and provides diverse retail opportunities. Recognizing that these properties provide significant commercial and personal services to the surrounding area and a growing population, an emphasis on retaining these uses will be maintained in reviewing any applications submitted for re-development or intensification. Introducing commercial uses within the proposed development would also contribute to increasing the volume of vehicle trips entering and exiting from the subject lands and travelling along Guild Road and the intersection of Guild Road and Kingston Road. An increase in the amount of surface parking would also be required on-site. Commercial uses typically result in more significant volume of vehicles trips and require additional surface parking to conveniently service customers when compared to high-density residential uses. - 92 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 9 Concerned that the proposed development will direct stormwater onto the abutting property to the north, municipally known as 1966 Guild Road. Stormwater from the proposed development will not be directed onto adjacent lands and will be accommodated within the limits of the subject lands. The applicant has submitted a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (FSSR) as well as a preliminary grading and servicing plan that have been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Servicing Department. The submitted FSSR and associated plans are required to demonstrate that the subject lands, once redeveloped, are able to be serviced and are able to accommodate stormwater within the subject lands, and not direct drainage to adjacent properties. As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the City will continue the review of detailed grading and drainage plans to ensure that no stormwater or drainage is directed towards adjacent lands, including 1966 Guild Road. Once the grading plan is approved by City staff, the applicant will be required to conduct such grading works in accordance with the approved plan. Once complete, City staff will conduct a site visit to ensure the grading works are consistent with the approved plans. - 93 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 10 Commented that the traffic trip values identified within the submitted Transportation Impact Study and the staff report do not reflect the reality of the negative traffic impact along Guild Road as a result of the proposal City staff have provided an overview of the findings and conclusions of the submitted Transportation Impact Study (TIS) (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.6) The submitted Transportation Impact Study provides traffic volumes for peak times, which are intended to identify the moments of the day when the highest concentration of vehicle trips is likely to occur and subsequently when the most significant impact on the surrounding road network is anticipated. The trip values identified within the morning and evening peak hours within the TIS and staff report do not capture the vehicle trips along Guild Road that will happen outside the hours identified. However, these trips will happen at a much lower volume and will be spread out throughout the entire day, and not anticipated to be concentrated at a particular time. The submitted Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department and the Region of Durham to ensure it was prepared in accordance with the required terms of reference and provides reliable traffic data and conclusions. - 94 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 11 Concerned that the proposed vehicular access location on Guild Road will negatively impact the property immediately to the east, namely with respect to headlights from vehicles accessing the site. Staff have reviewed the proposed site access location in relation to the properties on the east side of Guild Road (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.11). The proposed access to the subject site from the west side of Guild Road will be located approximately 26.0 metres from the north property line, which will align to be immediately across from the auto repair shop on the east side of Guild Road, which is south of the nearest detached dwelling. Headlights from vehicles exiting the site will be directed towards the vehicle repair shop and will not impact the existing dwellings on the east side of Guild Road. Additionally, the site access has been proposed to be located in the centre of the Guild Road frontage to ensure it does not impact the operation of the intersection at Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection and does not enter into the existing curvature of Guild Road. The location as proposed, will operate safely in both directions and will not impede traffic queuing on Guild Road, and has been located as far south and away from existing residential properties as possible. City staff understand that the applicant’s agent has reached out directly to the property owner located nearest to the proposed site access to discuss the concerns raised and potential mitigation measures. - 95 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 12 Commented that the submitted Transportation Impact Study (TIS) does not address the traffic impact of the proposed development on the Kingston Road/Brock Road intersection. Staff have reviewed the impact of the proposed development on the existing road network (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.6) Brock Road and Kingston Road are recognized as Type ‘A’ and Type ‘B’ Arterial roads, respectively, and are under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. The submitted TIS investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area and the intersections of Kingston Road/Guild Road; Guild Road/proposed site access, and Guild Road/Finch Avenue. The Study utilized data on existing traffic levels in February 2018 for Finch Avenue at Guild Road and September 2019 for Kingston Road at Denmar Road/Guild Road, and examined new vehicle trips generated from the development. The Study analyzed the total traffic conditions for both 2022 and 2027, which included existing traffic volumes, the traffic resulting from the proposed development and projected future traffic from other projects Kingston Road is intended to accommodate significant traffic generated by higher density uses within the corridor. Improvements for the Kingston Road right-of-way, which will be conducted as part of the Bus- Rapid-Transit (BRT) works, will contribute to improving vehicular movements along the corridor and at the intersection of Kingston Road and Brock Road (relative to there being no BRT improvements). Vehicle trips generated through this proposal are not anticipated to impact the Brock Road/Kingston Road intersection in a manner that would be unacceptable based on the forecasted traffic for Kingston Road. The Region of Durham has reviewed the submitted TIS and is satisfied with the scope of review conducted and conclusions outlined. - 96 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 13 Commented that the proposed residential and visitor parking ratios are not sufficient to support the development and excess parking will be accommodated by parking on Guild Road. City staff have assessed the proposed parking ratios (see PLN 24-21, Section 3.8) The proposal provides for a total of 278 residential parking spaces and 52 visitor parking spaces, which represents a minimum parking ratio of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. The subject lands are located immediately adjacent to the easterly limit of the City Centre and are within 2.2 kilometres of the GO Train Station (30-minute walk). The lands are located on Kingston Road, a Regional Rapid Transit Spine, which is currently serviced by Durham Region Transit and operates high-frequency transit bus services running from Scarborough to Oshawa and provides direct access to the Pickering GO Train Station. The applicant has indicated approximately 67 percent of all units within the building will be 1-bedroom or 1-bedroom with a den, which require significantly less parking than 2 or 3-bedroom dwelling units, as they are intended to accommodate a smaller household. Additionally, the proposal will provide for a total of 178 dedicated bike parking spaces, which will assist in encouraging alternative modes of transportation. Section 3.5.9(c) of the Council endorsed Intensification Plan outlines that reduced minimum parking standards are encouraged and are intended to reflect the area’s compact, high-density urban form and shift towards a pedestrian and transit-oriented environment. Staff are supportive of the proposed residential parking ratios based on the proximity of the development to the City Centre, current and planned public transit services available along Kingston Road and the proposed Transportation Demand Management strategies and initiatives. The proposed parking ratios will assist in reducing the overall dependence on personal vehicle use, which is consistent with the intentions of the Official Plan and Intensification Plan. - 97 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 14 Commented that the proposed residential and visitor parking ratios are not consistent with the median parking ratio values for mixed use areas within 150 kilometre radius outlined within Discussion Paper #7: Parking, Active Transportation and Loading prepared by WSP for the purposes of the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Review. Discussion Paper #7: Parking, Active Transportation and Loading was prepared by WSP for the purposes of the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Review, which was initiated in 2019. Discussion Paper #7 provides an overview of average parking ratios for apartment units in general areas, mixed-use areas and downtown areas for municipalities within the GTHA (Figures 5.1 to 5.3). Figure 5.2 specifies the average parking ratios for apartment uses in mixed-use areas and outlines that a number of municipalities require 1.0 residential parking space per unit or less. Figure 5.3 specifies the average parking ratios for apartment units within downtown area and outlines that all but 4 municipalities require a minimum of 1.0 parking space or less for apartment units. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed parking ratios identified with Figure 5.3 are a more appropriate comparison to those proposed through the development of the subject lands, given the proximity of the lands the City Centre and regional rapid transit spine. Please note that these figures were provided in order to provide an overview of parking ratios within the GTHA that currently exist or were established at various points in the past. They do not capture recent approvals or amendments to zoning by-laws within these municipalities that would reduce the minimum parking requirements for apartment buildings through the consideration of emerging policies related to intensification and transit-supportive communities outlined within the Provincial Growth Plan. Based on the analysis and research presented, Discussion Paper #7 has recommended that reducing the minimum parking requirements for apartments located outside of the City Centre and Intensification areas should be considered. - 98 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 15 Commented that the 52 surface parking spaces should be reduced or eliminated. The proposed development provides for a total of 278 residential parking spaces and 52 visitor parking spaces. The Draft Urban Design Guidelines encourage surface parking to be minimized in order to reduce the urban heat island effect and to promote compact development. However, Section 2.5.3 of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines provides guidance with respect to surface parking, when it is proposed, in order to minimize the visual impact on the streetscape and adjacent residential properties. The Guidelines encourage surface parking areas to be located at the side or rear of a site and that a vegetation buffer be provided when adjacent to low-rise residential properties Surface parking within the development represents 16 percent of the total number of parking spaces proposed and will consist solely of visitor parking. Providing visitor parking spaces at grade will allow for convenient and efficient access to the site for individuals temporarily visiting and will eliminate the need to access a restricted underground parking area. The proposed surface parking will be located behind the proposed apartment buildings and away from Guild Road and Kingston Road. The parking area will be screened from the adjacent low-rise residential property to the north through an 11.0 metre wide landscape buffer, which will accommodate a number of plantings. Staff are satisfied that the number of surface parking spaces have been minimized and that the location and mitigations measures proposed will eliminate the potential for any negative visual impact on the streetscape or adjacent properties. - 99 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 16 Commented that the submitted Shadow Study does not accurately assess impact as it only outlines shadows for two months of the year. Staff have provided a substantial summary of the analysis and conclusions of the submitted Shadow Impact Study (see PLN24-21, Section 3.5). The submitted study identifies the shadow impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding properties during the spring (March 21st), summer (June 21st), fall (September 21st) and winter (December 21st) seasons for the period between 9:18 am and 6:18 pm. The study months selected are intended to assess shadow impacts within every season, as the height of the sun, and subsequently presence of shadows, does not change month to month but rather with the changing of seasons. Staff are satisfied that the submitted Shadow Impact Study adequately assess shadow impacts over the course of an entire year using the study months provided. 17 Concerned that the percentage of the land outlined as soft landscaping includes the portion of the lands the applicant intends to convey as park space. The applicants submitted plan indicates that approximately 3,278.72 square metres or 33 percent of the subject lands proposed to be developed will be a soft landscaped surface. This only includes the lands that fall within Block 1 and does not include the lands proposed to be conveyed to the City for a park space (see PLN 24-21, Attachment #6) 18 Concerned that the proposed development will be used as a precedent in the consideration of future developments along the Kingston Road Corridor. All Planning Act applications submitted to support a development proposal are assessed on a site-specific basis in accordance with the applicable Provincial, Regional and City policies that exist at that time. Every property is unique with respect to size, location, access, proximity to services, and surrounding land uses, which results in a diverse range of opportunities and constraints to development. As a result of these differing considerations, each development proposal received by the City is rigorously assessed individually and reviewed against the applicable policies that specifically apply to the respective property. - 100 - # Issues Identified by Residents Response 19 Questioned the water and sewage servicing capacity for developments along Kingston Road and how the allotment of such capacity will be decided. Municipal water and sewage capacity for all development applications are assessed and allocated on a site-specific basis and controlled through the execution of a servicing agreement with the Region. Through the planning approval process, it is the responsibility of the developer or applicant to submit detailed engineering drawings, including a site servicing plan, that demonstrate how the proposed development is intended to be serviced and that the existing services have sufficient capacity to support the proposal. Should improvements to water and sewage infrastructure be required in order to support a development proposal, it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate the improvements required and pay for such improvements, to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham has confirmed that municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services are available to the subject site from existing services along Kingston Road and Guild Road (see PLN 24-21. Section 2.2.1). However, the Region has requested that the “H” Holding Symbol shall be in place until the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard. - 101 - Report to Council Report Number: CAO 04-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Marisa Carpino Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Pickering City Centre Project -Construction Cost Estimating Services & Next Steps -File: A-1400 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 04-21 of the Chief Administrative Officer be received; 2. That Council approve staff to undertake the following one-time actions to facilitate the development of the five year capital and operating financial plan as it relates to the City Centre project: a. That request for proposal RFP 2021-1 Cost Estimating Services – Pickering City Centre submitted by Turner & Townsend Canada Inc., in the amount of $46,217 (HST included) and a net project cost of $41,620 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; b. That architectsAlliance be approved to participate in the stakeholder and community design consultation exercises, cost estimating value engineering and “Savings By Design Program” review with costs not to exceed $25,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $22,513 (net of HST rebate) and to be to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; c. That Sponsorship Canada be retained to undertake sponsorship asset valuation services for the three Pickering City Centre facilities (Library, Performing Arts Centre, Seniors & Youth Centre), Piazza & Public Realm, and other new municipal construction projects originally budgeted at $30,000 and now increased to an upset limit of $45,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $40,524 (net of HST rebate) and to be charged to account 2121.2392.0000 and funded 100% from the Casino Reserve (7067.0000.0000); d. That IBI Group be retained to undertake a parking strategy that reviews the immediate and short-term parking needs for the Pickering Civic Complex at a cost not to exceed $50,000 (HST included), and a net project cost of $45,027 (net of HST rebate) and to be funded from 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500; e. That Deloitte LLP be engaged to assist with quantitative analysis as it applies to the five year financial plan and the corresponding City’s debt capacity as it relates to the Annual Repayment Limit and develop corresponding options at a cost not to exceed $45,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $40,524 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from the 2019 Capital Budget account 5203.1902.6500. - 102 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 2 3. That Council approve staff to undertake the following actions related to the ongoing development of the City Centre project as part of the development of the five year capital and operating financial plan: a. That Tory’s LLP be retained at a cost of $228,960 (net of HST rebate) to advise and assist with the negotiation of the various contracts which define the Pickering City Centre Project, sufficient to identify project costs so they can be accounted for in the project cost estimate, and that these costs be allocated to the following 2020 Capital Budget accounts as follows: i) Seniors & Youth Centre (5740.2003) – 50% ii) Central Library (5740.2002) – 25% iii) Performing Arts Centre (5740.2001) – 25% b. That the services of CAM Consulting be retained to undertake a review of the architectural drawings for the Performing Arts Centre at an upset limit of $25,000 (HST included) and a net project cost of $22,513 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from account 2740.2392 and funded 100% from the Casino Reserve; and c. That through a competitive process that the services of a project management firm be approved to undertake project management services for the City Centre Project for a period of 4 months at an upset limit of $81,100 (HST included), and a net project cost of $73,000 (net of HST rebate) and to be funded from account 2121.2392 and funded 100% from the casino reserve; 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. Executive Summary: As outlined in the 2021 Budget Report (FIN 05-21), there is a need for the City to develop a five year financial plan that considers both future operating and capital expenditures in relation to the Pickering City Centre Project. The financial plan will include the following projected elements: • Pickering City Centre Capital Costs • Pickering City Centre Operating Costs • Pickering City Centre Revenue/Funding Opportunities • 2021 Capital Budget • 4 year Capital Forecast and Asset Management Plan • City’s debt capacity and Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) This comprehensive approach to prepare a five year financial plan is intended to provide Council with all of the costs/revenues and other considerations associated with the Pickering City Centre project by Fall 2021 so they can make an informed decision to proceed with the Pickering City Centre design and other projects. To that end, several actions/activities are required to be initiated at this time by staff as they will take several months to complete. - 103 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 3 These actions are listed within the recommendations section of this report and are divided between one-time and ongoing project costs. The one-time costs are more associated with providing the critical financial information that is required for the five year financial plan. Without this information, the financial plan may lead to the development of inaccurate recommendations. The ongoing project costs could be viewed from the perspective that these expenses are investments that are required to assist in developing the project and are also required for the five year financial plan. The recommendations identified in this report represent the investment required to enhance the financial clarity of the City Centre project and its link to the five year financial plan. For some of the ongoing costs, there is opportunity to use development charge funding to reduce taxpayer costs. In any event, the implementation of these actions is necessary to inform the five year Financial Plan which will be presented to Council in Fall 2021. This plan or roadmap will be based on future capital and operating expenditures taking into consideration “best available information.” Assumptions will be clearly identified so that Council can understand how the assumptions were incorporated into the development of the financial plan. The recommendations of the five year financial plan will be based on the “financial numbers” of which the City Centre costing exercise will be critical. As such, these recommendations may range from maintaining the status quo (green light for all projects to proceed) to the partial short term or long term deferral of City capital projects. As is sometimes the case, capital projects are deferred (through the staff budget development exercise) due to either limited financial or staffing resources. For example, the Recreation Complex renovation was first discussed as part of the 2016 capital budget and was postponed and/or deferred until 2020 when the project could be accommodated in the City’s fiscal plan. In most cases, deferred capital projects are eventually submitted to Council for approval. At the current time, with the financial exercise in the preliminary stage, staff are not in a position to provide any estimates regarding future recommendations that will be presented to Council in the Fall 2021. Financial Implications: A breakdown of the costs by either one-time or ongoing is presented below. - 104 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 4 Recommendation Ref. One-Time Costs NET HST Other NET Taxpayer Cost 2a 2b Cost Estimating Stakeholder Consultation 41,620 22,513 $41,620 22,513 2c Sponsorship/Revenues 40,524 40,524 0 2d Parking Study 45,027 45,027 2e Financial Analysis Sub Total 40,524 $190,208 - $40,524 40,524 $109,160 Ongoing Costs 3a 3b 3c Legal Performing Arts Consult. Construction/Mgmt. Services Sub Total $228,960 22,513 73,000 $324,473 $150,697 22,513 73,000 $246,210 $78,263 0 0 $78,263 Total $514,681 $286,734 $187,423 Percentage Funding 55.71% 44.29% Development charge funding is contributing approximately 65.8 per cent of the total legal cost. The development charge funding percentage is different for each major building. The project management services, performing arts centre design consulting costs and sponsorship consulting are funded 100 per cent from the casino reserve and therefore, zero cost to the taxpayer. The 2019 Capital Budget included startup funding for the City Centre project in the amount of $1.5 million account (5203.1902.6500). The 2021 opening balance for this capital account is $473,507. Recommendations 2a, b, d and e are charging $149,684 (net HST) to this Capital Budget account leaving a residual balance of $323,823 for future expenditures. As shown above, non-taxpayer funded sources are funding almost 55.7 per cent of the gross expenditures requested in this report. Discussion: The first step in the five year financial strategy is to update the City Centre project costs. The last update the City received for the City Centre project costs from the - 105 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 5 development managers was fourth quarter 2019. Almost 20 months later, and taking into consideration the effects of the pandemic and its impact on construction costs (wood, concrete and steel), a revised and more detailed estimate is required to input into the financial plan and that in-turn will develop the corresponding strategy and Council report recommendations. Cost Estimating Services for the Pickering City Centre Project – Recommendation 2a The City released Request for Proposal No. RFP 2021-1 for the Cost Estimating Services for the Pickering City Centre Project on April 1, 2021 and this RFP closed on April 29, 2021. The cost consultant will provide a detailed Class C cost estimate for the construction of City facilities, Library, Seniors & Youth Centre, Performing Arts Centre, Relocation of Services and Public Realm improvements. This Class C cost estimate will be based on the design consultants current design development drawings that are 85 percent complete and the supplementary information provided in the RFP documents that identify the delineation of work. The Class C cost estimate submitted to staff will provide an independent construction cost estimate that will be incorporated into the City Centre financial impact Report to Council intended to submitted to Council in September 2021. Request for Proposal No. RFP 2021-1 closed on April 29, 2021. Five consultants submitted proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the submitted proposals and interviewed the three highest ranking submissions. After careful consideration of submissions staff are recommending award to the highest ranking proponent’s submission, Turner & Townsend Canada Inc., in the sum of $46,217 (HST included). The total net project cost is $41,620 (net of HST rebate). Hiring of architects-Alliance for services related to the City Centre Project - Recommendation 2b A key component of the City Centre design development is community and stakeholder engagement. At this time, while still in the design development phase, it is critical that City staff initiate a comprehensive engagement exercise with applicable community and stakeholder groups (Seniors Club, Youth Council, Associations established and prospective Facility Users) and the broader resident population. This exercise will enable necessary revisions and adjustments before working drawings are prepared for tender – after which time, design changes can be cost prohibitive. The community and stakeholder engagement program is envisioned to take place during June and July 2021 through virtual meetings and community engagement digital platforms. Where appropriate, and being considerate of public health measures, some targeted in person consultation sessions may be hosted by the City. To support and facilitate the community and stakeholder engagement process, the participation of architects Alliance is required. During the preparation of the cost estimate by Turner & Townsend Canada Inc. they will identify elements of the project that provide opportunities to consider alternate design, selection of material and systems that are more cost effective. A cost consultant’s knowledge of current market costs allows them to benchmark the costs of major elements, shown on the current design development drawings, that should be referred back to the design teams for review. This process of value engineering requires the input of the design team and their sub- - 106 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 6 consultants to review and confirm alternates that are acceptable to the original project design intent and the City. The cost consultant will be able to incorporate these value engineered revised elements in their final cost estimate report. The participation of architects-Alliance is also required to support the review of the Enbridge “Savings by Design” program that is intended to result in future energy savings. The City enrolled this proposed development in the Enbridge Savings by Design program, in support of the Council approved 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plan. The Enbridge Savings by Design program is an incentive program to encourage the design and construction of high- performance, energy efficient buildings that are at least 15 per cent better than the Ontario Building Code. This target aligns with the City’s Corporate Energy Management Plan. The value of this program is to identify and incorporate energy saving design strategies into the project and lower the operating costs of the facilities. Another benefit of this program is the ability for staff to leverage the best practices and knowledge gained from participation in this program to influence the design and construction of future facility and capital projects. Over 200 projects have successfully gone through this program and the City Centre initiative would be the first commercial project in Pickering to participate. Engagement of Sponsorship Canada – Recommendation 2c As noted previously, revenue from naming rights for Seniors & Youth Centre, Performing Arts Centre, and Library will be a critical factor in the five-year financial plan for the Pickering City Centre Project. Sponsorship Canada (division of REV XM) will complete a full valuation exercise for all three City Centre facilities, Piazza and Public Realm within the City Centre Project. All tangible and intangible variables, physicals, digital impression data, social and digital reach and paid PR value will be reviewed as part of the valuation exercise. Once completed, the final report will identify projected revenues through naming rights for each facility, which will be allocated towards construction costs, and future operating and maintenance expenses. The exercise will also review sponsorship opportunities for the future Animal Shelter, Pickering Heritage & Community Centre and the Seaton Recreation Complex. Parking Strategy for the Pickering Civic Complex – Recommendation 2d The Pickering City Centre Master Plan includes the development of the South Block which is located on the south side of The Esplanade South between Glenanna Road and Valley Farm Road. Currently the parking lot for the Pickering Civic Complex (staff and visitors) is on the western portion of these lands and will need to be replaced. A parking strategy is required to be prepared to inform the City on both the immediate (1 to 5 year) and short term (5 to 10 year) parking needs (supply and demand), and identify where the required parking supply will be provided. The parking strategy will look at both on-street parking (Glenanna Road, The Esplanade North, The Esplanade South, Valley Farm Road and Diefenbaker Court) and off- street parking (at the Chestnut Hills Development Recreation Complex and surrounding area). One of the outcomes of this study may be the need to provide additional parking to support visitors of the Pickering Civic Complex and this cost would then be reflected in the five year financial plan. - 107 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 7 IBI Group has just completed the City’s first Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) which included a City wide Parking Management Strategy as one of the background reports. It is recommended that City staff engage in conversations with IBI Group regarding Terms of Reference for a parking strategy for the Pickering Civic Complex, and agree to a work plan to complete the parking strategy, at a cost not to exceed $50,000 (HST included). Analysis & Financial Modelling & Development of Recommendations – Recommendation 2e The five year financial plan is complicated due to the estimated high dollar level of the planned capital expenditures and the corresponding financing and debt strategies that will be required to support the capital and operating costs. Therefore, the financial plan must take into account or accurately measure the risks associated with the various options and scenarios explored in the development of the five year financial plan. By engaging Deloitte, the City is able to utilize their expertise for this financial exercise to ensure that the end result is both accurate and obtainable. Acquisition of Legal Resources – Recommendation 3a As Members of Council are aware, one of the buildings (Seniors & Youth Centre) will be jointly operated (to some degree) by the City and the Ontario Pension Board. As such, legal agreements must be prepared for the City Centre project. These agreements (Recommendation 3 a) will define who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and future replacement of common operated facilities and/or common areas. These legal agreements will clearly define the financial responsibility for many facets of these buildings that in-turn produces accurate future operating cost estimates. The end result of this exercise will be a more accurate financial plan and should avoid unfavourable future surprises. The law firm of Torys LLP has already provided guidance to the City in connection with the City Center project. Over the course of 2019 and 2020, Torys provided legal advice and document drafting services to the City in connection with: (a) the City Centre Memorandum of Understanding, (b) finalization of the Development Management Agreements with Cushman & Wakefield Asset Services ULC and twopoint0 partners inc., (c) review of the draft Construction Contract template and (d) review of the draft architect’s Agreement. Below is a preliminary list of the main agreements required to define the City Centre project: Library: Agreement of Purchase and Sale for Strata Parcel, City-OPB Realty Inc. (“OPB”) Construction Contract, City-General Contractor (“GC”) Operating and Cost Sharing Agreement, City-OPB Development Management Agreement, City-twopoint0 Seniors & Youth Centre: Agreement of Purchase and Sale for Strata Parcel, City-OPB Construction Contract, City-GC Operating and Cost Sharing Agreement, City-OPB Development Management Agreement, City-Cushman & Wakefield - 108 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 8 Performing Arts Centre: Agreement of Purchase and Sale for Strata Parcel, City-OPB Construction Contract, City-GC Operating and Cost Sharing Agreement, City-OPB Development Management Agreement, City-twopoint0 Parking Structure/Piazza: Long Term Lease, City-OPB Cost Contribution Agreement, City-OPB Development Management Agreement, OPB-Cushman & Wakefield Operating and Cost Sharing Agreement, City-OPB Parking Management Agreement, City-OPB South Block Lands: Agreement of Purchase and Sale, City-OPB Torys’ understanding and experience of the City Center project will enable it to efficiently advise the City as it proceeds to negotiate the various contracts required to define the project. This is needed for the Cost Consultant to identify and account for the project’s capital and operating costs. The City Solicitor will coordinate the legal input into the finalization of the project contracts, and will act as liaison between the City and Torys. Most of Torys’ services will be provided by Andy Gibbons and Rose Chen. Andy Gibbons has already worked on the City Centre, and both lawyers have capably represented the City in several complex real estate transactions in the Seaton Innovation Corridor. The estimated cost of retaining Torys LLP to render these services is $225,000 plus applicable HST. These agreements are specifically required at this stage of the project because the terms and conditions set out in these agreements inform the financial obligations of each party. This information is critical to complete the 5 year financial plan for Council’s consideration in the Fall 2021. Arts Centre Design Consultant – Recommendation 3b The design for the Performing Arts Centre has been informed, to date, by the findings of the 2016 Webb Report (Business Case for an Arts Centre), site visits of municipal arts centres in Ontario, and the input of City staff as facilitated by architects Alliance and their sub-consultant Theatre Consultants Collaborative (who are subject matter experts). That said, City staff learned quite clearly from municipal colleagues operating arts centres that input from an Executive Director, Arts Centre during the design stage is key to ensure the facility functions optimally. Consistent with this methodology, Report FIN 07-19 (Res. #116/19) dated July 22, 2019, Council approved staff’s recommendation to proceed to lift the hold on the Executive Director, Arts Centre position. Funding for this position was reflected in the Council approved 2019 Current Budget. Accordingly, staff proceeded in late 2019/early 2020 with a public recruitment - 109 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 9 process that was ultimately put on hold in April 2020 due to the pandemic (Report FIN 05-20, Res. #284/20). At this time, in lieu of hiring an Executive Director, Arts Centre, it is critical that the support of a consultant experienced in the field of arts centre design, construction and operation be secured to provide input in the Performing Arts Centre design and participate in the community and stakeholder engagement of that design. To that end, Council’s approval is being sought in this report to secure the consulting services of CAM Consulting at an upset limit of $25,000. As part of this exercise, CAM Consulting will undertake a comprehensive review, assessment and gap analysis of the design for the Pickering Performing Arts Centre by reviewing the PAC architectural drawings within City Centre, consultating with the design committee and stakeholders and reviewing relevant documents (studies, reports, minutes) that helped inform the design. Brian McCurdy is a partner in CAM Consulting assisting clients with performing arts facility planning and management, cultural planning and community engagement. Brian McCurdy has over 30 years’ experience with building, opening and managing performing arts centres. This has included leading organizations through the facility planning and construction process, the development of business operating plans, overseeing capital fundraising campaigns, hiring staff, multi-year budget development, planning and programming performance seasons, building capacity of resident facility users, gala openings, and developing arts education programs. McCurdy oversaw the development of the Performing Arts Centre, University of Lethbridge, a 4 theatre complex opened in 1980; Thunder Bay Community Auditorium, a 1500 seat performing arts centre, opened in 1985; and the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, University of California, Davis, a $64 million performing arts center, including an 1800 and 200 seat theatres, that opened in 2002. McCurdy also oversaw the re-development of the historic Grand Theatre in Kingston Ontario, and re-opened it in the Spring of 2008 following a 3 year renovation. McCurdy retired in 2016 as Executive Director of the Burlington Performing Arts Centre, a 2 theatre complex opened in the fall of 2011. McCurdy also served as the first Cultural Director for the City of Kingston and oversaw the development of the Cultural Services Department responsible for the management of the Grand Theatre, Pumphouse Museum, and the MacLachlan Woodworking Museum. He oversaw the City’s first Municipal Culture Plan and Cultural Tourism Plan and the development of the Tett Centre for Creativity. As a partner in CAM Consulting for the past five years, Brian’s recent projects have included the Cultural Master Plan, Town of Canmore; Arts and Heritage Plan for the City of Edmonton; a Feasibility and Business Plan for Aurora Cultural Centre; a City of Ottawa Cultural Roadmap, Ottawa Cultural Alliance; and management services for the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. Brian also acted as the Programming consultant for University of Arizona (UA Presents); conducted a five year Five Year Strategic Plan, and a Ticketing and Customer Relationship Management Systems review, for Flato Markham Theatre. He continues to provide consulting services on policy development for the evolving role of Municipal Performing Arts Centres in their communities, for Ontario Presents. - 110 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 10 Retaining of Project Management Firm – Recommendation 3c In developing a five year financial strategy for the City Centre project, an experienced project management consulting company will play an integral role in not only representing the City’s best interest, but also working closely with the City’s Senior Management team to finalize the full project scope. The key tasks during this time include finalizing the City’s work plan, mapping out detailed roles/responsibilities and deliverables, resolving design gaps from 85 per cent design development drawings, review of evaluation of value engineering options, providing support for the development of operating cost including the identification of ongoing shared costs (delineation) and defining the required resources & timelines. As staff plan to deliver a five-year financial strategy to Council in the fall of 2021, it is critical for the City to retain a project management consulting company to complete outstanding works required in the next 4 months that can provide the appropriate financial input required for the five year financial strategy. City staff are recommending hiring a qualified and experienced consulting firm that can step into this specific role immediately. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Development & Strategic Projects Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Stan Karwowski, Stan Karwowski, Director, Director, Finance & Treasurer Finance & Treasurer - 111 - CAO 04-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Pickering City Centre Project Page 11 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley Kyle Bentley Director, City Development Director, City Development Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Richard Holborn Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Director, Engineering Services Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Brian Duffield (Acting) Director, Community Services (Acting) Director, Community Services Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 112 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 02-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Brian Duffield (Acting) Director, Community Services Subject: Tender T2021-32 -Tender for Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park – South East and South West Baseball Lighting -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-32 as submitted by Sentry Electric Inc. in the tender amount of $508,000.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $639,473.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount and other associated costs and the total net project cost of $575,865.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $575,865.00 as provided for in the 2020 Parks Capital Budget by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Replacement of the sports field lighting at the south east and the south west baseball diamonds in Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park were approved in the 2020 Capital Budget. Kirkland Engineering Ltd. was retained to provide engineering consulting services and Cambium Inc. was retained to provide a geotechnical investigation report in advance of tendering the project in 2021. Tender No. T2021-32 was issued on April 6, 2021 and an optional site visit held on Tuesday, April 14, 2021 with five companies responding by the closing date of Wednesday, April 26, 2021. The low bid submitted by Sentry Electric Inc. in the amount of $574,040.00 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated at $639,473.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $575,865.00 (net of the HST rebate). - 113 - CS 02-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Tender No. T2021-32 Page 2 Financial Implications: 1. Tender Amount Tender No. T2021-32 HST (13%) $508,000.00 66,040.00 Total Gross Tender Cost $574,040.00 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2021-32 $508,000.00 Contingency 50,0000.00 Associated Cost-Consulting 7,905.00 Total Project Cost $565,905.00 HST (13%) 73,568.00 Total Gross Project Cost $639,473.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (63,608.00) Total Net Project Cost $575,865.00 3. Approved Source of Funds 2020 Parks Capital Budget Description Account Code Source of Funds Available Budget Required BRK Park-South East Baseball Lighting Replacement BRK Park-South East Baseball Lighting Replacement 5780.2020.6129 5780.2030.6129 Federal Gas Tax Federal Gas Tax $350,000.00 $350,000.00 $287,932.50 $287,932.50 Total Funds $700,000.00 $575,865.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $124,135.00 Discussion: The 2020 Parks Capital Budget included $350,000.00 for the replacement of the sports field lighting at the south east baseball diamond and $350,000.00 for the replacement of the sports field lighting at the south west baseball diamond in Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park with new LED lights. The existing lighting system components are at the end of their economic life cycle with a significant reduction in light levels and energy inefficiencies. Full replacement of both of the lighting systems was recommended by staff. - 114 - CS 02-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Tender No. T2021-32 Page 3 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park is a major sports park. The existing four baseball diamonds are used by all fastball and slow pitch leagues and it is well used for tournaments. The new lighting system will use energy Musco LED lights with the Control Link system that will allow computer scheduling of the lights based on permitted use. The new system will both improve the light levels and run more efficiently than the existing system. The Health & Safety Policy and the Certificate of Clearance issued by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board as submitted by Sentry Electric Inc. have been received. The Certificate of Insurance has been reviewed by the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit and is deemed acceptable. Sentry Electrical Inc. was contracted by the City in 2014 and in 2018 to remove and replace the sport field lighting at Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Baseball Diamond No. 1 and Diamond No. 2 respectively with a new Musco Light-Structure Green System to the satisfaction of the City. In conjunction with staff’s review of the Waste Management Plan and the contractor’s previous work experience, the tender is deemed acceptable. After careful review of all submissions received, the Community Services Department recommends acceptance of Tender No. T2021-32 submitted by Sentry Electric Inc. for the replacement of the sports field lighting at the south east and the south west baseball diamonds in Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park in the amount of $574,040.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $575,865.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved. Attachments: 1.Supply & Services Memorandum dated April 30, 2021 2.Location Map - 115 - CS 02-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Tender No. T2021-32 Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Rob Gagen Brian Duffield Supervisor, Parks Operations (Acting) Director, Community Services Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Manager, Supply & Services Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer RG:nw Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 116 - To: Brian Duffield Director, Community Services April 30, 2021 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services Subject: Tender No. T2021-32 Tender for BRK Park – South East and South West Baseball Lighting Closed: April 28, 2021 – 2:00pm File: F-5400-001 Tender No. T2021-32 was advertised on the City’s website on April 6, 2021. An optional site visit was held on April 14, 2021 at 10:00 am. Five companies have submitted a bid for this project. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been completed by S&S and Sentry Electric Inc. is the compliant low bid at a value of $508,000 (HST excluded). The unsuccessful Bidder’s tendering deposit, other than a bid bond, shall be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (w). Three (3) bids have been retained for review at this time and are attached. Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 29 Pre-Condition of Award and Item 20 Tendering Specifications, the following documentation will be requested of Sentry Electric Inc. for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise if Supply & Services is to proceed with collecting the following documentation: (a)A copy of the City’s Health and Safety Policy form currently dated and signed; (b)A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (c)The City’s certificate of insurance or approved alternative form completed by the Bidder’s agent, broker or insurer; and (d)Waste Management Plan. A budget of $700,000 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement. Memo Attachment #1 to Report CS 02-21 - 117 - Page 2 If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out below excludes HST. As such, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11, where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is: (c)Over $250,000, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council. Please include the following items in your report: 1.if Items (a) through (b) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or designate, if required; 2.if Item (c) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 3.if the list of subcontractors is acceptable to Community Services; 4.if Item (d) is acceptable to Community Services; 5.any past work experience with low bidder Sentry Electric Inc. including work location; 6.without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable to Community Services; 7.the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 8.the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 9.Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 10.related departmental approvals; and 11.related comments specific to the project. After receiving Council’s approval, an approved “on-line” requisition will be required to proceed. Enquiries can be directed to the City’s website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening or to Supply & Services. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. lc Attachments - 118 - BEACHSANDYROADBAYRIDGES KINSMEN PARK P-024 SOUTH-WEST BASEBALL DIAMOND SOUTH-EAST BASEBALL DIAMOND Attachment #2 to Report CS 02-21 - 119 - p](KERJNG Report to Council Report Number: CS 26-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Brian Duffield (Acting) Director, Community Services Subject: Tender for Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement -Tender No. T2021-10 -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-10 submitted by SMID Construction Limited, in the amount of $489,290.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $617,545.00 (HST included), including the amount of the Tender and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $556,118.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $556,118.00 as follows: a)the sum of $222,500.00 be funded by Federal and Provincial grant funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) COVID-19 Resilient Infrastructure stream; b)the sum of $247,500.00, as provided for in the 2021 Civic Complex Capital Budget be funded by a 10-year internal loan; c)the sum of $31,118.00 by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization reserve; d)the sum of $55,000.00 from property taxes; e)the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: Tender T2021-10 was issued for the replacement of the existing ramp, heating system and overhead garage door serving the underground parking at the Pickering Civic Complex. The existing ramp is original, constructed in approximately 1990, and two of the six existing electrical in-slab heating zones have failed. These zones cannot be repaired without risking additional damage to the other zones or total failure of the heating system. Given the age of the asset, a full replacement that also extends the life of the access ramp is the safer and better - 120 - CS 26-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement Tender T2021-10 Page 2 long term solution. The ramp must be partially removed and rebuilt to allow for a new, energy efficient and more resilient hydronic heating system to be installed. This project was identified as a candidate for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) COVID-19 Resilient Infrastructure stream, made available in early 2021. The City’s successful application has secured $222,500.00 in Provincial and Federal grant funding for this project. Tender No. T2021-10 was released and made available to the public on the City’s website on Thursday, April 15, 2021. A mandatory site visit was held on Wednesday, April, 2021. The Tender closed on Thursday, May 6, 2021. Four companies submitted bids for this project. The lowest compliant bid submitted by SMID Construction Limited, in the amount of $489,290.00 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $617,545.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost is estimated at $556,118.00 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1. Tender Amount Tender No. T2021-10 $433,000.00 HST (13%) 56,290.00 Total Gross Tender Cost $489,290.00 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2021-10 $433,000.00 Warning Signal (Optional Price) 6,500.00 Consulting, Testing & Inspection 50,000.00 Controls 5,000.00 Contingency 52,000.00 Total Cost $546,500.00 HST (13%) 71,045.00 Total Gross Project Costs $617,545.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (61,427.00) Total Net Project Costs $556,118.00 - 121 - CS 26-21 Subject: Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement Tender T2021-10 May 25, 2021 Page 3 3. Approved Source of Funds Description Parking Garage Overhead Door Replacement Parking Garage Ramp Replacement Parking Garage Ramp Replacement Parking Garage Ramp Replacement Parking Garage Ramp Replacement Parking Garage Waterproofing Repairs -Design Account Code 5700.2103.6500 5700.2107.6500 5700.2107.6500 5700.2107.6500 5700.2107.6230 5700.1806.6500 Source of Funds Property Taxes 10-Year Internal Loan ICIP Grant (Federal) ICIP Grant (Provincial) 10-Year Internal Loan Rate Stabilization Budget $55,000.00 197,500.00 178,000.00 44,500.00 50,000.00 31,486.00 Required $55,000.00 197,500.00 178,000.00 44,500.00 50,000.00 31,118.00 Total Funds $556,486.00 $556,118.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $368.00 Discussion: The Civic Complex opened in 1990, including the existing underground parking garage and outdoor access ramp. Winter control for this ramp is provided by a series of electrical heating cables inlaid into the concrete ramp and set out in six distinct zones. Two of those zones have failed in recent years, and the system has reached the end of its serviceable life. Electrical heating cable systems are prone to cascading failures, and attempts at partial repairs carry significant risk of causing further damage to other parts of the system. The current system has already lasted much longer than its expected lifecycle and needs to be replaced. Partial removal of the existing ramp will be minimized in order to manage costs. The new heating system will be hydronic, consisting of a series of tubes cast into the slab and running a glycol solution, very similar to the type of systems used in arena rink slabs. Hydronic systems have a higher initial capital cost, but incur lower operating costs, require less energy to operate, have an anticipated lifecycle that is nearly double that of electrical heating cables and provides greater overall reliability. The project will include installation of a warning signal for pedestrians crossing - 122 - CS 26-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement Tender T2021-10 Page 4 the sidewalk at the top of the ramp, waterproofing repairs to the existing concrete retaining walls and replacement of the existing overhead door at the entrance to the underground parking garage. If sufficient funds are available, upon completion of the primary scope, the overhead door to the garbage enclosure off the ramp will also be replaced. This project was identified as the best potential candidate for the City’s application to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) COVID-19 Resilient Infrastructure stream, made available in early 2021. The successful application has secured $222,500.00 in Provincial and Federal grant funding for this project, maximizing the available funds for which the City was eligible. Work on projects funded by the grant must commence prior to September 2021 and be completed before the end of this calendar year. The ramp replacement has been scheduled to occur over the summer in order to meet these requirements and also coincide with the normally reduced level of activity at City Hall during this period, and is expected to be completed by September 2021. Tender No. T2021-10 was released and made available to the public on the City’s website on Thursday, April 15, 2021. An mandatory site visit was held on Wednesday, April 21, 2021. The tender closed on Thursday, May 6, 2021. Four companies submitted bids for this project. The low bidder, SMID Construction Limited, has submitted a signed copy of the City’s Health & Safety form. The Certificate of Insurance is deemed acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit. Staff have reviewed previous work experience of SMID Construction Limited, and their submitted waste management plan, and deemed them to be acceptable. Community Services’ staff will initiate a requisition upon approval of requested funding. Upon careful examination of all bids and relevant documents received, the Community Services Department recommends the acceptance of Tender No. T2021-10 submitted by SMID Construction Limited, in the amount of $489,290.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $556,118.00 be approved. Attachment: 1. Supply & Services Memorandum dated May 11, 2021 - 123 - CS 26-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement Tender T2021-10 Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, RAIC Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Manager, Supply & Services Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA (Acting) Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer BD:vp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 124 - -~o/ P](KER]NG Memo To: Brian Duffield May 11, 2021 Director, Community Services From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services Subject: Tender No. T2021-10 Tender for Civic Complex Garage Ramp and Overhead Door Replacement Closed: May 6, 2021 – 2:00pm File: F-5400-001 Tender No. T2021-21 was advertised on the City’s website on April 15, 2021. A mandatory site visit was held on April 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Four companies have submitted a bid for this project. Restorex Contracting Ltd. is rejected in accordance with Purchasing Policy 23.02.11. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been completed by S&S and SMID Construction Limited is the compliant low bid at a value of $433,000 (HST Excluded). The unsuccessful Bidder’s tendering deposit, other than a bid bond, shall be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (w). Three (3) bids have been retained for review at this time and are attached. Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 31 Pre-Condition of Award and Item 20 Tendering Specifications, the following documentation will be requested of SMID Construction Limited for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise if Supply & Services is to proceed with collecting the following documentation: (a)A copy of the City’s Health and Safety Policy form currently dated and signed; (b)A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (c)The City’s certificate of insurance or approved alternative form completed by the Bidder’s agent, broker or insurer; and (d)Waste Management Plan. A budget of $475,000 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement. Attachment 1 to Report CS 26-21 - 125 - If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out below excludes HST. As such, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11, where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is: (c) Over $250,000, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council. Please include the following items in your report: 1. if Items (a) through (b) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or designate, if required; 2. if Item (c) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 3. if the list of subcontractors is acceptable to Community Services; 4. if Item (d) is acceptable to Community Services;; 5. any past work experience with low bidder SMID Construction Limited including work location; 6. without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable to Community Services;; 7. the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 8. the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 9. Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 10. related departmental approvals; and 11. related comments specific to the project. After receiving Council’s approval, an approved “on-line” requisition will be required to proceed. Enquiries can be directed to the City’s website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening or to Supply & Services. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. Page 2 lc - 126 - Report to Council Report Number: LEG 08-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Right of Entry By-law -File: L-2100-002-20 Recommendation: 1.That Report LEG 08-21 regarding a Right of Entry By-law be received; 2.That Council adopt one of the following options: Option A: That the Right of Entry By-law included as Attachment No. 3 to this Report be enacted; or Option B: That the Right of Entry By-law included as Attachment No. 3 to this Report not be enacted, but that staff be directed to monitor, on an ongoing basis, by-law enforcement and complaint matters for which a Right of Entry By-law may be of use, to determine if such a by-law should be enacted in future; and 3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this Report. Executive Summary: As directed by Council, the Right of Entry By-law is presented with this Report for Council’s consideration. A public consultation regarding the draft Right of Entry By-law has been carried out. Over 70 percent of residents who responded to the survey were opposed to the by-law, however, only 167 residents responded to the survey. A Right of Entry By-law, if enacted by Council, would address access difficulties experienced by some homeowners attempting to carry out repairs on their properties. It is expected that such problems will be infrequent. Administration of a Right of Entry By-law would require staff resources from both the Corporate Services Department (Municipal Law Enforcement) and the Engineering Services Department. Financial Implications: Adopting a permitting system and by-law that is administered and enforced by the City will require staffing resources ranging from simple administrative costs to process a basic low-impact application, to extensive officer costs to inspect, monitor, and enforce high-impact work of a contentious nature. Staff do not anticipate a significant volume of Right of Entry permit applications, however, the administration of a Right of Entry By-law will require staff resources from both Corporate Services (Municipal Law Enforcement) and Engineering Services. As a result, it is not possible to establish a cost to administer the By- law. Administrative costs and basic inspection fees will be recoverable through the implementation of application and renewal permit fees as follows: - 127 - LEG 08-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Right of Entry By-law Page 2 Permit Type Fee Amount High-impact work, right of entry permit application $1000.00 High-impact work, right of entry permit renewal $500.00 Low-impact work, right of entry permit application $100.00 Low-impact work, right of entry permit renewal $50.00 The above costs and fees do not include any allowance associated with enforcement related to non-compliance, including potential prosecution. These costs would include both officer time and legal costs. If implemented, the Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services will report back through the 2022 Budget process on any additional costs required to administer and enforce a permitting system based on actual volumes experienced in 2021. Fees can be increased in future Budget years based on the actual costs of administration. Discussion: Pursuant to Resolution 357/20 dated June 29, 2020, Council directed the City Solicitor to draft a Right of Entry By-law based on examples in Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor. The By-law was drafted and presented to Council at its July 27, 2020 meeting. On that date, Council directed staff to conduct a public consultation regarding the Right of Entry By-law, and to bring the By-law back to Council together with the results of the public consultation. Resolution 357/20 dated June 29, 2020 is Attachment No 1 to the report. Resolution 386/20 dated July 27, 2020 is Attachment No. 2 to this Report. Purpose and Provisions of Draft Right of Entry By-law The draft Right of Entry By-law is Attachment No. 3 to this Report. The authority to enact a Right of Entry By-law derives from Section 132 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which authorizes the City to pass a by-law that grants the owner or occupant of land to enter adjoining land, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to any building, fence or other structures on the land of the owner or occupant, but only to the extent necessary to carry out the repairs or alterations. In urban areas where houses are built close together and close to the property line, some homeowners may need to pass through or temporarily occupy a portion of a neighbouring property in order to make repairs or alterations to their own property. When these situations arise, it is necessary for the property owner to gain permission from their neighbour to enter the adjoining property. Without this permission, the property owner could be subject to allegations of trespass. The property owner can approach their neighbour and negotiate an agreement, either in writing or verbally, to gain entry. If the neighbour gives their consent, the property owner may enter and undertake the necessary work without any requirement for municipal involvement. The proposed Right of Entry By-law provides a mechanism by which entry can be gained by seeking authority to enter from the City in situations when property - 128 - LEG 08-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Right of Entry By-law Page 3 owners requiring access are unsuccessful at negotiating authorization with adjoining property owners. The proposed Right of Entry By-law outlines a formal permit process to be handled through Municipal Law Enforcement Services, and will require a completed application form to be submitted along with confirmation of insurance and a security deposit. The permit will indicate the period and times during which the right of entry may be exercised and proper notification to be given to the adjoining property owner. A permit issued by the City under the proposed Right of Entry By-law only authorizes access to adjoining lands to undertake repairs or alterations to buildings, fences or other structures. The by-law cannot be used to gain entry to a neighbouring property to undertake new construction, and cannot be used to gain access to the interior of a neighbouring building. The conditions under which right of entry must be exercised are that it must be done at a reasonable time, with reasonable notice, for the purpose of making repairs and alterations to buildings, fences or other structures, and only to the extent necessary to carry out the repairs or alterations. In addition, the person exercising the right to enter the adjoining land must restore the land to its original condition, provide compensation for any damages caused by the entry, and provide a security deposit. The proposed Right of Entry By-law is intended primarily to address urban areas of the City where structures are built close to lot lines, making repairs or alterations difficult without encroaching onto a neighbouring property. The Right of Entry By-law only permits entry onto adjoining lands for repairs or alterations when necessary, and if no other access is available. The proposed by-law will not affect areas where property owners can repair or alter buildings, fences or other structures while remaining on their property. The draft Right of Entry By-law represents a reasonable intrusion on the private property rights of Pickering homeowners. Results of the Public Consultation As directed by Council, staff conducted a public consultation, including posting on social media, to seek public and stakeholder input regarding the draft Right of Entry By-law (Attachment No. 3). The public consultation included a survey, notices in the Community Pages of the Pickering News Advertiser, a media release and facility posters. The results of the public consultation are included in this Report as Attachment No. 4. Over 70 percent of survey respondents were opposed to the passage of a Right Of Entry By-law. Set out below are representative samples of the comments made by survey respondents (typographical errors have not been corrected): • It would be good if we can have the next steps if some one doesn’t like the way their neighbours have done the clean ip job after the temporary use of my property. Where will i be complaining about that then. • If my neighbour will damage any of my property I should be able to say no to the access • I don't feel that access should be given in cases of majour endeavours such as installing a pool or anything that would involve the destruction of the accessed property and that any changes to the accessed land be restored to the original - 129 - LEG 08-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Right of Entry By-law Page 4 condition • I think this is a really bad idea given how no one gets along with their neighbours anymore. It's hard enough keeping the shared property clean when you have neighbours with no respect for the shared space and your property. There is no reasonable reason to need to step foot on your neighbours' property • I have paid to own private property you can't change the rules now. Also if they get hurt while coming onto my property I'm responsible and can be sued. Will you pay for the legal cost if you put this through? • Totally against the bylaw. Potentially will get challenged in courts • This bylaw is meant for situations where there is acrimony between neighbours. The appeals process is likely to cause further dragging out for no good reason given that scenario, and allowing high impact work would offer an incentive to legally piss off your neighbour by claiming you really only had that choice when you may come up with a justification for higher impact work than was necessary originally simply to spite your neighbour. Allowing only low impact and denying an appeals process seems like the best way to navigate this likely minefield • If the Right of Entry By-Law passes then it must include a means by which an individual can appeal the decision and with reasonable cause be granted the denial of the Right of Entry. There should also be consideration given to whom would be financially responsible for any loss of turf, gardens or walkways etc. And the responsible parties must be stated plainly in the Right of Entry By-Law so that everyone involved is completely clear has to who is financially responsible and the time frame clearly given for any replacements and/or repairs to the trespassed homeowner. • Neither low impact work nor high impact work should be allowed. They knew when they bought what their property was/is. • We live in a townhouse that has no access to backyard. We are unable to do certain types of construction to our backyard due to this restriction. We have on both sides and to the back. Some are allowing is access to their backyard, and others are not. So we are stuck. • There must be more than 24 hours notice to the adjoining landowner about the approved work. Also there should be a more clear The maximum fine is quite high for the consequences of contravening the act, this could apply to either landowners. • Neither. Will Pickering cover the cost of any damage incurred if property owner refuses to pay? • There should also be provision that clean up be part of the bylaw if the contractors make a mess that goes on to the other neighbour's property and cover any damage if any occurs • for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to any building, fence or other structures on the land of the owner or occupant, but only to the extent necessary to carry out the repairs or alterations. • You have to take into account if there is a dog on the other property. If there is the permit to work on the others land will be governed by the Dog Owners Liability Act. If there is a dog on the other property then the permit is a no go. • 30 day advanced notification The purpose of entry needs to be clearly outlined Any damage done to the neighbour's property the repair of the damage is the - 130 - LEG 08-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Right of Entry By-law Page 5 responsibility of the owner doing the work The neighbour should have the right to view the credentials of the workmen( insurance, WSIB, permits, etc). • City Gov is infringing way too much on our rights. • A key thing that I don't see is liability being addressed. A formal permit should be required and the applicant should be accountable for damage to the neighboring property as well as addressing liability re the workers. If a neighbor causes damage to my property it is their responsibility • It does not take in account that while alterations of structure are being made the homeowner is unable to use their property ex. Back yard until said work is done. Equipment needs to be removed from premises every day as debris and nails etc lying around can cause injury ex. Kids If property owner cannot use property due to by law. Property owner should be compensated. Bylaw if passed should allow property owner to set when they can do work as it is the property owners dwelling. • I don't agree with this by law it should be the homeowners right to allow access to their property. As someone that has had to deal with neighbors entering my property without permission or paperwork I'm very much against it. This will just end up causing more issues between neighbors. I've had a neighbor enter my property when I wasn't home to do there fence, & they destroyed my backyard by breaking the sprinkler system, & they went over the property line. If you pass this by law your just giving right to cause more issues like this • Government gives up the right to allowances to private property when it collects taxes. Residents who pay taxes have a right to their own properties without the City taking that away. If the City want's rights, expropriate. This is ABSOLUTELY not acceptable. • What about insurance? What if someone gets hurt on the neighbour's property and has no insurance, or not enough insurance? How is the neighbour going to be keep safe from lawsuits? What if a homeowner's insurance company says no? • My property has damage done to it every time a neighbour has work done. Either the work done was not completed properly and we suffer the continuous affects from it or each time our neighbour has had work done we have a clean up job to do and our property damaged. I am not in favour of anyone being on my property that I work hard to keep looking nice and pay taxes for. • If damage is done to neighbouring property would the city be responsible if repairs are not made While the majority of survey respondents were opposed to the Right of Entry By-law, it must be noted that only 167 people responded to the survey. Corporate Communications staff confirm that, given Pickering’s population of almost 100,000 residents, this sample size is not statistically reliable as a measure of public opinion. The concept of a Right of Entry By-law is a reasonable one, and the attached draft By-law has been drawn up so as to strike a balance between the homeowner’s need to do property repairs and the neighbour’s private property rights. At the same time, the cost to the City of administering a new Right of Entry By-law, and the demand it will impose on staff resources, are uncertain. To properly administer and enforce the Right of Entry By-law staff in both Corporate Services (Municipal Law Enforcement) and Engineering Services will be required. Specifically, the expertise of Engineering Services staff will be required to determine - 131 - LEG 08-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Right of Entry By-law Page 6 appropriate permit conditions, to set reasonable security deposit amounts for permit applicants and to perform necessary inspections. Attachments: 1.Resolution 357/20 dated June 29, 2020 2. Resolution 386/20 dated July 27, 2020 3.Draft Right of Entry By-law 4.Results of Public Consultation Prepared/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 132 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum July 6, 2020 To: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on June 29, 2020 Motion to Enact a Right of Entry By-law Upon Adjoining Land for the purpose of making repairs for alterations to the building fences or other structures Council Decision Resolution #357/20 Whereas many homes in Pickering have easements attached to the deed; And Whereas, an easement is a legal right benefitting property or a piece of land (known as a dominant land) that is enjoyed over another piece of land owned by someone else (servient land). A common example of the easement is one that allows the owner of the dominant land to do something on the servient land; And Whereas, often home owners have to gain access to their property by entering upon adjoining land for the purpose of making repairs, alterations or improveme nts; And Whereas, if a neighbour refuses access for these repairs, alterations or improvements, the only recourse is a civil action through the court system; And Whereas, By-laws may be passed by Councils of local municipalities pursuant to the Municipal Act, for permitting an owner or occupant of any building, fence or other structure, or the agent or employee of such owner or occupant to enter upon any adjoining land for the purpose of making repairs, alterations or improvements to such building fence or other structure, but only to the extent necessary to affect such repairs, alterations or improvements, and that every such By-law shall provide that the adjoining land be left in the same condition as it was prior to such entry; And Whereas, many municipalities in Ontario including Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor have right of entry By-laws that require the submission of a comprehensive permit application and application fee before one is allowed to access his or her neighbour’s property; Further, each By-law imposes a penalty for damage caused to the neighbouring property; Attachment 1 to Report LEG 08-21 - 133 - And Whereas, these applications are only required if a resolution between the property owners cannot be reached amicably; And Whereas, if this By-law is contravened and a conviction is entered, the Superior Court of Justice or any court of competent jurisdiction may, in addition to any penalty imposed on the person convicted, issue an order prohibiting the continuance or repetition of the offence by the person convicted; Now therefore be it resolved: That Council direct the City Solicitor to draft a by-law similar to Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor and report back to this Council with a draft for the July 27, 2020 Council meeting to be adopted, and to commence any notifications that may be required. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer - 134 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum July 31, 2020 To: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on July 27, 2020 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 04-20 Right of Entry By-law Council Decision Resolution #386/20 1. That Report LEG 04-20 regarding the attached Right of Entry By-law be received; 2. That Corporate Services staff be directed work with Corporate Communications staff to conduct a public consultation, including posting on social media, to seek public and stakeholder input regarding the attached Right of Entry By-law; 3. That the attached Right of Entry By-law be presented to Council at its October meeting together with the results of the public consultation; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Interim Chief Administrative Officer Attachment 2 to Report LEG 08-21 - 135 - Attachment 3 to Report LEG 08-21 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7849/21 Being a by-law authorizing entry upon adjoining lands for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to buildings, fences or other structures. Whereas under section 132 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 (the “Act”), the Council of a local municipality may pass a by-law to authorize the owner or occupant of land to enter adjoining land for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to any building, fence or other structures on the land of the owner or occupant but only to the extent necessary to carry out the repairs or alterations. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Definitions In this By-law: (a) “alteration” includes, but is not limited to, a structural change to the exterior or interior of an existing building, fence or other structure, but does not include a total replacement of an existing building, fence or other structure; (b)“applicant” means the owner or occupant of land who applies for a permit, or any person authorized by the owner or occupant to apply for a permit on the owner’s or occupant’s behalf; (c)“building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy; (d) “By-law Manager” means the City’s Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services or their designate; (e)“City” means the municipal corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City of Pickering as the context requires; (f)“high-impact work” means a repair or alteration that requires entry on the adjoining land for the erection of temporary structures, such as scaffolding; the placement of, or access for, any type of heavy equipment; or the distressing of the adjoining land, including the removal of a structure or fence, or the excavation or removal of any landscaping or paving; - 136 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 2 (g)“land” includes buildings, fences and structures; (h) “low-impact work” means a repair or alteration that requires entry on the adjoining land to carry out work that does not include the erection of temporary structures, such as scaffolding; the placement of, or access for, any type of heavy equipment; and the distressing of the adjoining land, including the removal of a structure or fence, or the excavation or removal of any landscaping or paving; (i)“occupant” means any person or persons over the age of 18 years in possession of the land; (j)“officer” means a municipal law enforcement officer employed by the City to enforce municipal by-laws; (k)“owner” means the registered owner of the land or a person authorized in writing by the registered owner of the land to act on the owner’s behalf for the purpose of filing an application under this By-law; (l)“permit” means a permit issued under this By-law that authorizes right of entry on adjoining lands; (m)“permit holder” means the owner or occupant to whom a permit has been issued under this By-law; (n)“repair” includes: (i)maintenance and upkeep; and (ii)the provision of facilities, the making of additions or alterations or the taking of any other action that may be required to ensure that a building, fence or other structure conforms with the standards established in a by-law or the Act; and (o)“structure” means anything installed, constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but does not include an inground swimming pool. 2.Interpretation When reading and interpreting this By-law: (a)unless otherwise specified, references in this By-law to parts, sections, subsections, clauses and schedules are references to parts, sections, subsections, clauses and schedules in this By-law; (b)references in this By-law to any statute or statutory provision include references to that statute or statutory provision as it may from time to time be amended, extended or re-enacted; - 137 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 3 (c)this By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires; (d)references in this By-law to items in the plural include the singular, and references to the singular include the plural, as applicable; and (e)the words “include”, “includes” or “including” are not to be read or interpreted as limiting the words, phrases or descriptions that follow them. 3.Right of Entry on Consent or by Permit (1)The owner or occupant of land may enter adjoining land, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to any building, fence or other structures on the land of the owner or occupant but only to the extent necessary to carry out the repairs or alterations: (a)if the owner of the adjoining land has given prior consent to this entry; or (b)if the By-law Manager has issued a permit for this entry and the entry occurs during the period specified in the permit. (2)The power of entry under section 3(1)(b) is subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a)the power of entry may only be exercised by a permit holder or his or her employees or agents and only if they comply with all of the conditions of the permit and the provisions of this By-law; (b)a person exercising the power of entry must display or, on request, produce proper identification; (c)the permit holder shall provide reasonable notice of the proposed entry to the occupant of the adjoining land, as described in section 4(2)(j)(iv); (d)the permit holder, his or her employees or agents, shall not create any hazards or allow any hazards to exist on the adjoining land; (e)the permit holder shall, in so far as is practicable, restore the adjoining land to its original condition and shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the entry or by anything done on the adjoining land; and (f)without limiting the generality of (e) above, restoring the adjoining land to its original condition includes removing any equipment or materials left on the adjoining land as a result of the entry. - 138 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 4 (3)The power of entry under section 3(1)(b) does not authorize: (a)entry into a building on the adjoining land; (b)the use of the adjoining land for any other work or activity other than that described on the permit; (c)the storage of materials or equipment, or the parking of vehicles, on the adjoining land; and (d)an exemption to any person from complying with other City by-laws. (4)In the case of entry under the consent of the owner of the adjoining land under section 3(1)(a), the conditions and limitations in sections 3(2) and 3(3) apply to the power of entry, with necessary modifications, unless the owner granting the consent and the owner or occupant exercising the right of entry agree otherwise. (5)No person shall fail to permit a right of entry being exercised in accordance with a permit issued under this By-law. (6)Any permit issued under this By-law is not transferable. 4.Permit Application (1)To obtain a permit, the owner shall file a complete application with the By- law Manager on a form prescribed by the City. (2)An application for a permit must include the following: (a)the name, address, and telephone number of all contractors that will carry out the proposed work for which entry is required on the adjoining land; (b)the municipal business licence number of every contractor or trade that is required to be licensed by the City; (c)the insurance type and number of every contractor or trade that is required to be insured in accordance with municipal or provincial regulations; (d)the nature of the proposed work that requires use of the adjoining land and the proposed use of the adjoining land, including what equipment will be used, if and how the adjoining land will be distressed, and whether any nuisances will result from the proposed use of the adjoining land (for example, dust fumes, noise, or restricted access); - 139 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 5 (e)the proposed attenuating measures to control each of the nuisances identified under (d) above; (f)an estimate of the time that the proposed work will require use of the adjoining land, as described in (d) above is expected to take; (g)the days and times that entry will be required; (h)the proposed remediation measures required to bring the adjoining land, in so far as practicable, to its original condition; (i)an estimate of the time required to do the remediation work described in (h) above; (j)a signed form acknowledging the permit holder’s obligation to: (i)use the adjoining land only to the extent necessary to carry out the work on the adjoining land as outlined in the permit; (ii)not use the adjoining land for any other purpose, including for the storage of materials or equipment and the parking of vehicles; (iii)provide a security deposit and agree to its forfeiture if deemed necessary by the By-law Manager to comply with the permit holder’s obligations to restore the adjoining land and provide compensation for damages; (iv)provide at least 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupant of the adjoining land before any contractor enters the adjoining land; (v)systematically mitigate all nuisances with respect to the use of the adjoining land to the extent practicable; (vi)restore the adjoining land to its original condition and provide compensation for any damages caused by the entry or by anything done on the adjoining land to the satisfaction of the By-law Manager; and (vii)without limiting (iv) above, to hold the owner of the adjoining land harmless in the event of any damages to people or property as a result of anything done on the adjoining land to the extent allowable by law; - 140 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 6 (k)proof that the owner of the adjoining land has been included as a named insured in the liability insurance of the owner for the period covering the estimated time of the proposed work on the adjoining land; and (l)the permit application fee set out in the City’s current General Municipal Fees By-law. (3)The notice required under section 4(2)(j)(iv) may be served personally on the person to whom it is directed or by registered mail to the last known address of that person, in which case it shall be deemed to have been given on the third day after it is mailed. (4)The permit application fee is non-refundable. 5.Notice to Adjoining Land Owner (1)After receiving a completed application, the By-law Manager shall notify the owner of the adjoining land in writing that a permit has been requested to enter the adjoining land, and the notice shall provide all of the relevant information, set out in section 4(2), as determined by the By-law Manager. (2)The owner of the adjoining land may, within 10 business days of the date specified in the notice, make a submission to the By-law Manager to provide details of any circumstances that may be considered by the By- law Manager in establishing the conditions of the permit. (3)The By-law Manager may extend the submission time under (2) above for not more than 10 business days. (4)The By-law Manager shall provide the owner of the adjoining land with a copy of any permit or renewal of a permit that applies to the adjoining land. 6.Permit Issuance / Renewal / Refusal / Revocation (1)The security deposit required under section 7 shall be submitted before a permit is issued. (2)A permit issued under this By-law shall indicate the period and times during which the right of entry may be exercised, and this period shall not commence earlier than five business days from the date of issuance. (3)The permit shall also set out any additional conditions, as determined by the By-law Manager that reasonably relate to the right of entry (for example, the protection of a particular plant). - 141 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 7 (4)The permit holder or owner, if not the permit holder, may apply to the By- law Manager for a renewal of the permit before the expiry date of the right of entry under the current permit. (5)A permit renewal application shall include all the information and other documents required under section 4(2). (6)After a complete permit renewal application is received, the By-law Manager shall notify the owner of the adjoining land in writing that a permit renewal application has been requested by the applicant. (7)The owner of the adjoining land may, within 10 business days from the date specified in the notice, make a submission to the By-law Manager providing details of any circumstances that may be considered by the By- law Manager in reviewing the permit application renewal. (8)If a renewal is granted, it shall deem the existing permit to continue for the period specified in the approval and may provide that the right of entry is subject to any existing conditions or additional conditions as established by the By-law Manager. (9)The By-law Manager may revoke a permit or deny the renewal of a permit if there is non-compliance with the permit conditions. (10)If a permit is revoked or is not renewed, the permit holder shall, in so far as is practicable, restore the adjoining land to its original condition and provide compensation for any damages caused by the entry or by anything done on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the By-law Manager. (11)Where the By-law Manager refuses to issue a permit, the applicant shall be informed of this decision in writing and the reasons for the refusal. 7.Security Deposit (1)The security deposit for a permit for low-impact work is $500.00. (2)The minimum security deposit for a permit for high-impact work is $2,000.00. (3)The By-law Manager shall determine the amount of the security deposit required for a permit for high-impact work above the minimum amount set out in (2) above and shall base this amount on the information in the permit application, the inspection by officers, any submissions by the owner of the adjoining land, and any other information deemed reasonable by the By-law Manager for this purpose. - 142 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 8 (4)If in his or her submission, under section 5(2), the owner of the adjoining land requests a review of the amount of the security deposit established by the By-law Manager, the submission shall include a detailed estimate in a form acceptable to the By-law Manager. (5)The security deposit amount established by the By-law Manager after any review of a submission under section 5(2) shall be deemed final. (6)The security deposit for a permit shall be in the form of a certified cheque made payable to the ‘City of Pickering’. (7)In the case of low-impact work, the City may hold the security deposit for no more than 60 days after the completion of the work requiring entry on the adjoining land, the completion of any remediation work on the adjoining land, and the expiry of the right of entry under the permit, whichever is later, to ensure compliance with the permit holder’s obligations under section 3(2)(e). (8)Notwithstanding (7) above and to ensure compliance with the permit holder’s obligations under section 3(2)(e), including unseen damages, in the case of high-impact work, the security deposit shall be held for one year after the completion of the work requiring entry on the adjoining land and the completion of any remediation work on the adjoining land, whichever is later. (9)If within the period in (7) above, or after the period in (8) above, the By-law Manager determines that the permit holder has not complied with the requirements to restore the land and pay compensation for damages as required under section 3(2)(e), the City may provide the owner of the adjoining land with all or part of the security deposit and return any remainder to the permit holder. (10)The owner of the adjoining land and the permit holder may on consent authorize the City to provide the owner of the adjoining land with all or part of the security deposit at a date earlier than provided under (7) and (8) above. 8.Emergency Exception (1)If a building, fence or other structure on the land poses an immediate danger to the health or safety of any person, the owner or occupant of the land or his or her employee or agent may enter the adjoining land without a permit or prior consent, but only to the extent necessary to terminate the emergency. - 143 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 9 (2)The owner or occupant of the land shall, to the extent possible, notify the owner of the adjoining land of the emergency and the need to enter the adjoining land before entering the adjoining land. (3)All work necessary to terminate the emergency and that requires entry on the adjoining land shall be carried out as if a permit had been granted under this By-law and is subject to compliance with the conditions in section 3(2), other than notice, and to any other permit conditions retroactively imposed by the By-law Manager. (4)Unless the owner of the adjoining land waives this requirement, the owner or occupant undertaking the work on the adjoining land shall apply for a permit retroactively for the work performed to terminate the emergency as well as for any other work that will require entry on the adjoining land. 9.Inspection (1)An officer, other employee, or agent of the City may enter on lands at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not this By-law or a condition of a permit issued under this By- law are being complied with. (2)A person carrying out an inspection under (1) above, may: (a)require the production for inspection of documents or things relevant to the inspection; (b)inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the purpose of making copies or extracts; (c)require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection; and (d)alone, or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs necessary for the purpose of the inspection. 10.Enforcement (1)This by-law may be enforced by an officer. (2)No person shall make a false or intentionally misleading statement of fact, statutory declaration, application or other document required by this By- law. (3)No person shall prevent, hinder or obstruct or attempt to prevent, hinder or obstruct an officer in the enforcement of this By-law. - 144 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 10 (4)Where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed by a person, the officer may require the name, address, and proof of identity of that person, and no person shall fail to provide the requested information. 11.Orders to Comply (1)An officer who finds a contravention of this By-law may make one or more orders requiring discontinuance of the contravening activity or to do work to correct the contravention. (2)The order may be served personally on the person to whom it is directed or by registered mail to the last known address of that person, in which case it shall be deemed to have been given on the third day after it is mailed. (3)If there is evidence that the occupant of the land is not the registered owner, the notice shall be served on both the registered owner and the occupant of the land. (4)If the address of the owner is unknown or the City is unable to effect service on the owner or occupant under (3) above, a placard stating the terms of the order and placed in a conspicuous place upon land on or near the land shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to the owner. (5)If the delay necessary to give an order under the preceding subsections would result in an immediate danger to the health or safety of any person, the order may be served personally on the person to whom it is directed or by a placard stating the terms of the order and placed in a conspicuous place upon land on or near the land. 12.Offences and Penalties (1)Every person who contravenes any provision of this By-law, and every director or officer of a corporation who concurs in such contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and, subject to (2), upon conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000.00. (2)Where a corporation is convicted of an offence under (1), the maximum penalty that may be imposed on the corporation is $100,000.00. 13.Short Title This By-law may be cited as the “Right of Entry By-law”. - 145 - By-Law No. 7849/21 Page 11 14.Force and Effect This By-law shall come into force and effect on the date it is passed. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021. - 146 - Right of Entry By-law Survey 1 / 5 29.94%50 70.06%117 Q1 Do you agree that the City of Pickering should pass a Right of Entry By-law? Answered: 167 Skipped: 0 Total Respondents: 167 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Attachment 4 to Report LEG 08-21 - 147 - Right of Entry By-law Survey 2 / 5 70.91%39 58.18%32 60.00%33 Q2 If you selected yes, what type of notification do you think should be provided to the property owner being required to provide access? Answered: 55 Skipped: 112 Total Respondents: 55 A mailed letter Notice on door Email and phone... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES A mailed letter Notice on door Email and phone notifications - 148 - Right of Entry By-law Survey 3 / 5 71.62%106 29.73%44 Q3 Should there be an appeal process? Answered: 148 Skipped: 19 Total Respondents: 148 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No - 149 - Right of Entry By-law Survey 4 / 5 55.56%60 49.07%53 Q4 There are two types of work defined in the proposed Right of Entry By- law; low impact work and high impact work.Low impact work is defined as a repair or alteration that requires entry on the adjoining land to carry out work that does not include the erection of temporary structures, such as scaffolding; the placement of, or access for, any type of heavy equipment; and the distressing of the adjoining land, including removal of a structure or fence, the excavation or removal of any landscaping or paving.High impact work is defined as a repair or alteration that requires entry on the adjoining land for the erection of temporary structures, such as scaffolding; the placement of, or access for, any type of heavy equipment; or the distressing of the adjoining land, including the removal of a structure, or fence, or the excavation or removal of any landscaping or paving.Based on these definitions, should the by-law apply to both types of work or only permit low impact work? Answered: 108 Skipped: 59 Total Respondents: 108 Apply to both types of work Apply to only low impact work 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Apply to both types of work Apply to only low impact work - 150 - Right of Entry By-law Survey 5 / 5 Q5 Please provide any additional comments. Answered: 96 Skipped: 71 - 151 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 27-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act Arising from Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) -File: L-1100-055 Recommendation: 1.That Report PLN 27-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the implications for the City of Pickering on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act arising from Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), be received. Executive Summary: The Province has been reviewing the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) since 2015. In June 2019, the More Home, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108), made a series of amendments to the CA Act regarding programs, services and enforcement provisions. Most recently, significant amendments were made to the CA Act through Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), which received royal assent on December 8, 2020. Related changes were also made to the Planning Act. At Pickering’s Council Meeting of February 22, 2021, Council requested that staff report back on the implications of the legislative changes to the City (as per Council Directive Memorandum –Resolution #524/21). As such, staff have reviewed the amendments to the CA Act and the Planning Act, and concludes there are no direct implications on the City as a result of these changes. Staff has prepared a chart with the key legislative changes to the CA Act and Planning Act and have provided comments on them for Council’s information (see Staff Comment Chart, Attachment #2). Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications to the City of Pickering. - 152 - Report PLN 27-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act Page 2 Discussion: 1.Purpose This report responds to Resolution #524/21 from the February 22, 2021 Council meeting regarding Correspondence from the Director of Planning, Regional Municipality of Durham, dated January 22, 2021, regarding Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act (see Directive Memorandum – Resolution #524/21, including Correspondence (Corr. 10-21) – Covering Letter and Commissioner’s Report #2021-INFO-1, dated January 8, 2021, Attachment #1). In addition to receiving the correspondence, Pickering Council referred the correspondence back to staff to review and report back on the impacts to the City of Pickering of the legislative changes. 2.Background Since 2015, the Province has been reviewing the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act). Of particular concern was the core mandate of conservation authorities, and to improve public transparency, consistency, and accountability in the operation of conservation authorities (CAs). A series of amendments were made in 2017. In June 2019, the More Home, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108), made another series of amendments to the CA Act. Some amendments were not proclaimed including the sections specifying the 4 areas of core mandatory programs and services of a CA, and sections setting out conditions for the provision of non-mandatory programs and services for a municipality by a CA. Following these 2019 amendments, the Province continued to consult on the core mandate, and matters of transparency, consistency, and accountability with CAs. This work culminated in Bill 229, with included changes to the CA Act and a related change to the Planning Act. Bill 229 received Royal Assent on December 8, 2020. Amendments relating to the mandated and non-mandated services of a CA, although further amended by Bill 229, remain un-proclaimed. 3.Comments Bill 229 was posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) on November 5, 2020. The Bill was associated with a Provincial financial/budgetary statement, so the ERO posting was for information purposes only and not to elicit comments. Nevertheless, a number of public agencies and stakeholders, including the Region of Durham, submitted comments to the Province. Regional Council provided comments to the Province on Bill 229 through Report #2020-P-26, dated November 25, 2020 (see Regional Report #2020-P-26, Attachment #3). The Region’s Report was written while the Bill was being debated in the Legislature. At that time, Pickering staff had reviewed the contents of the Region’s Report and generally concurred with the concerns outlined in Sections 6.2 and 7 of the report. - 153 - Report PLN 27-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act Page 3 However, prior to the proposed legislation passing third reading and Royal Assent, the Province made a series of final changes to Bill 229. The Regional Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development provided an overview of the changes to Bill 229 in Report #2021-INFO-1 (which was the subject of Corr. 10-21). As most of the changes were directed at how CAs conduct business, the recourse applicants have with decisions CAs make, and improved clarity about their funding, staff finds there to be no direct implications for the City. A summary of the key changes to the CA Act and the one change to the Planning Act, and staff’s comments regarding associated impacts to the City of Pickering, are contained in a Staff Comment Table (see Attachment #2). Attachments: 1. Council Directive including Correspondence (Corr.10-21) – Covering Letter and Commissioner’s Report #2021-INFO-1 2. Staff Comment Table 3. Regional Report #2020-P-26 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 154 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 27-21 Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum March 1, 2021 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on February 22, 2021 Corr. 10-21 Gary Muller, Director of Planning The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act Council Decision Resolution #524/21 A copy of the original correspondence is attached for your reference. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 1.That Corr. 10-21, from Gary Muller, Director of Planning, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated January 22, 2021, regarding Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, be received; and, 2.That Corr. 10-21 be referred to the Director, City Development & CBO, for review and a report back to Council on the associated impacts to the City of Pickering no later than the April 26, 2021 Council Meeting. - 155 - REc ,IT eC vY eOr:-P/CKERfN oJanuary 22, 2021 GJAN 2 Fi 2021 CLERK'S OFFICEMs. S. Cassel City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade The Regional Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7 Municipality of Durham Planning and Economic Re: . Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act Development Department Planning Division (Budget Measures) - Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, File: L 14-45 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level4 Ms. Cassel, enclosed for your information is a copy of Commissioner's PO Box623 Report #2021-INFO-1 that was provided to Regional Councillors on Whitby, ON L 1 N 6A3 Canada January 8, 2021. 905-668-7711 Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the report, please 1-800-372-11 02 Fax: 905-666-6208 contact Colleen Goodchild, Manager Policy Planning and Special planning@durham.ca Studies, at 905-668-7711 ext. 2580. durham.ca Yours truly, Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Ciary Muller Gary Muller, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning GM/mr Encl. 100% Post Consume - 156 - If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 The Regional Municipality of Durham Information Report From : Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Report: #2021-INFO-1 Date: January 8, 2021 Subject: Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) - Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, File: L 14-45 Recommendation: Receive for information. Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 On December 8, 2020, Bill 229, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) received Royal Assent. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the final version of Bill 229 , in particular Schedule 6 related to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act. 2. Previous Reports and Decisions 2.1 The following Regional staff reports related to conservation authority matters have been provided to Council over the last three years: • Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, and associated supportive documents, Report #2017-INFO-79 . • Proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and associated regulations, Report #2019-P-27 . · • Durham 's Response to Bill 108, Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan, 2019 and related Regulatory Proposal Changes, Report #2019-A-22 . - 157 - Page 2 of 5 • Bill 229 , Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) -Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, Report #2020-P-26 . • In relation to the above report , Regional Council at its meeting on November 25 , 2020 passed a resolution requesting that Schedule 6 to Bill 229 be removed. 3. Overview of Changes 3.1 Changes were made to Bill 229 during its review by the Standing Committee of Economic and Financial Affairs in early December , prior to the legislation passing third reading and Royal Assent. The following sections provide highlights of the changes made to Schedule 6 -Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) and consequential amendments to the Planning Act. 3.2 Section 14 of the CA Act was amended to ensure that at least 70 per cent of the members of a conservation authority (CA) board that are municipal councillors . 3.3 Section 14 was also amended to provide the Minister with authority to exempt CAs from the 70 per cent rule. 3.4 While the first version of Schedule 6 of Bill 229 included the ability for the Minister to appoint an additional member to a conservation authority Board from the agricultural sector, the final version of Bill 229 included restrictions of voting power for the agricultural representative. They will not be able to vote on matters related to : • enlarging an authority's area of jurisdiction ; • a decision to amalgamate a CA with another CA; • a resolution to dissolve a CA; and • budgetary matters. 3 .5 The final version of Bill 229 removed the proposed clause that directed municipal representatives on CA Boards to act on behalf of their municipalities, and not on behalf of the CA. Concerns had been raised regarding the implications of such a clause , that such a clause would severely limit a Board member's fiduciary responsibility to the authority . 3 .6 Section 17 of the CA Act has seen further amendments related to the appointment of chairs and vice-chairs and rotating amongst municipalities. The amendment - 158 - Page 3 of 5 ensures that a member appointed to the CA Board by a particular participating municipality cannot be appointed to succeed an outgoing chair or vice-chair appointed to the CA Board by the same participating municipality. The Minister now has the ability to grant permission to the CA/municipality to allow a Chair or Vice-Chair to hold office for more than two consecutive terms, and for the rotation to be augmented. 3.7 Section 28 (Permits) of the CA Act was further revised to add a provision related to permits issued where there is a Minister's Zoning Order (outside of the Greenbelt Plan Area). The change requires a CA to grant permission to an applicant to carry out a development project if a Minister's Zoning Order has authorized the development. As revised, the CA's permission may be granted subject to conditions specified by the CA, to mitigate effects on control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or conservation of land, health and safety as a result of the damage or destruction of property. The conditions may be subject to a review by the Minister, or they may be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Where CA permission is granted, the permit holder must enter into an agreement with the CA, where circumstances warrant, in order to compensate for ecological and other impacts that may result from the development project. 3.8 The "Entry Without Warrant" sections of the CA Act were revised to clarify wording related to notices and conditions; however, the changes further restrict when CA officials can enter a property without a warrant to check for compliance. The restriction requires reasonable grounds that the contravention is causing, or is likely to cause, significant damage in addition to the other conditions that were being imposed. 3.9 The permissions in the CA Act related to issuance of Stop Work Orders and enforcement tools were re-introduced through Bill 229, including penalties for offences under Section 28 of the Act. These changes still require supporting regulations that have yet to be released. 3.10 Additional regulations to be developed under the CA Act were added, including but not limited to: • prescribing budgetary matters; • respecting the process CAs must follow when preparing a budget and the consultations that are required; - 159 - Page 4 of 5 • providing for rules and procedures governing meetings at which budgetary matters are discussed, including the quorum for such meetings and the rules respecting voting on budgetary matters; • governing transitional matters related to Bill 229 itself, particularly related to permits for development projects enacted by MZOs; and • governing Minister's reviews and appeals to LPAT of Section 28 permits and specifying circumstances in which a review may not be requested, or an appeal may not be made. 3.11 Section 26 of the Planning Act was further amended to allow for CAs to continue to participate in LPAT proceedings when an appeal is related to a prescribed natural hazard risk, or if the CA is an applicant for land division {consent) in a matter under appeal. A transition policy was also introduced that permits CAs to continue as a party to an appeal until the appeal is disposed of. 4. Relationship to Strategic Plan 4.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following strategic goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan: a. Under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, Priority 1.3: to protect, preserve and restore the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways, parks, trails, and farmlands; b. Under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, Priority 1.4: demonstrate leadership in sustainability and addressing climate change. 4.2 This report also aligns with/addresses the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, which focuses on building resilience to climate change impacts. 5. Conclusion 5.1 On December 8, 2020 Schedule 6 to Bill 229 was approved by the province despite a request by Regional Council that it be removed from the Bill. Upon review, a number of the new changes to the Conservation Authorities Act are fair improvements. However, the changes that are of concern are related to those that allow the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to assume control over the CA's permit granting function and the ability to appeal permit decisions to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal. It is too early to know how these changes will impact development in Durham Region. Staff will continue to monitor and report back as may be necessary. - 160 - Page 5 of 5 5.2 Regional staff will also work with the Region's five conservation authorities to determine changes to current practice as a result of the changes to the CA Act under Bill 229. 5.3 A copy of this report will be provided to the Area Municipalities for their information. 5.4 This report has been prepared in consultation with Corporate Services -Legal Services. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development - 161 - Page 1 of 6 Staff Comment Table Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 27-21 Key Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Implications for the City of Pickering 1. Objects The objects of CAs have been revised from: “providing programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than oil, gas, minerals and coal” to: “providing programs and services only if they are prescribed by regulation for delivering programs and services they currently are authorized to deliver under the Conservation Authorities Act over the area over which they have jurisdiction, namely: • Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards; • Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned and controlled by the CA; • Programs and services related to the CA’s responsibilities and functions as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006; and • Programs and services related to the CA’s responsibilities and functions under an Act prescribed by regulation.” When proclaimed, and subject to new regulations not yet available, this amendment has the effect of focusing the scope of CAs mandatory programs and services. CAs will be able to continue to provide non-mandatory municipal programs and services. However, if financing by the participating municipality is necessary for a CA to provide that non- mandatory program or service, the CA and the municipality must enter into an agreement that meets the criteria set out in the Act and regulations. 2. Agreements for Non-Mandatory Programs and Services The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is enabled, by regulation, to establish standards and requirements for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services. The City has been aware since the 2017 amendments to the CA Act that, at some point in the future, an agreement between each CA and the City for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services at a fee for service basis will be established. - 162 - Page 2 of 6 Key Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Implications for the City of Pickering 3. Aboriginal or treaty Rights A legal provision has been added to the Conservation Authorities Act related to aboriginal and treaty rights under the Constitution. Such a non-derogation provision would recognize that nothing in the Act would rescind or diminish the existing aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution. No implications for the City. 4. Powers of Authorities The authority of CAs to expropriate lands has been removed, but a CA could still request the Province or a municipality to expropriate lands. Where expropriation of land for a CA project is required, the expropriation would need to be undertaken or authorized through an agreement with the relevant municipality. TRCA indicated that this provision is rarely used, and as such it has no concerns with the removal of this power. 5. Duty of Authority Member The final version of Bill 229 removed the proposed clause that initially directed municipal representatives on CA Boards to act on behalf of their municipalities and not on behalf of the CA (such clause would have severely limited a Board member’s fiduciary responsibility to the CA). This is a positive return to the previous wording of the CA members’ duty. Since there is no change to the specific clause, there is no implications for the City. 6. Requiring Permit in Regulated Area to be Issued where Minister’s Zoning Order in Place CAs are required to issue a permit for development where a Ministerial Zoning Order has been granted on lands outside of the Greenbelt, with the CAs’ permit issuance being subject to conditions specified by the CA. The conditions may be subject to a review by the Minister, or may be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). No implications for the City. However, staff recognizes the important role of CAs in processing applications within regulated areas and applying their expertise. - 163 - Page 3 of 6 Key Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Implications for the City of Pickering 7. Members of the Authority Section 14 of the CA Act was amended to ensure that at least 70 percent of the members of a CA board are members of a municipal council but the Minister, upon application by a participating municipality, may grant permission to select less than 70 percent of its appointees to a CA from among the members of the municipal council, subject to such conditions or restrictions as the Minister considers appropriate. No immediate action is required from the City. Current members will complete the remaining duration of their appointments. 8. Authority Membership The MNRF is enabled to appoint a member to the CA from the agricultural sector, but the agricultural representative will not be able to vote on matters related to: enlarging a CA’s area of jurisdiction; a decision to amalgamate a CA with another CA; a resolution to dissolve a CA; and budgetary matters. No implications for the City. 9. Chairs and Vice Chairs of Board CA chairs and vice-chairs are required to rotate every 2 years between different municipalities, and a member appointed to a CA Board by a particular municipality cannot be appointed to succeed an outgoing chair or vice-chair appointed to the CA Board by the same participating municipality. However, in terms of Section 17 of the CA Act, the Minister, upon application by a CA or participating municipality, may grant permission to the CA or participating municipality to, subject to such conditions or restrictions as the Minister considers appropriate: • appoint a chair or vice-chair for a term of more than 1 year or to hold office for more than 2 consecutive terms; or • appoint as chair or vice-chair of the CA a member who was appointed to the CA by the same participating municipality that appointed the outgoing chair or vice-chair. Where the City has a council member that holds a chair or vice chair position on the CA Board, this change would have implications in terms of any proposed re-appointment to such position by the Minister. - 164 - Page 4 of 6 Key Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Implications for the City of Pickering 10. Levy Appeals All municipal levy appeals will now be heard by the LPAT (The CA Act previously provided that certain levy appeals were heard by the LPAT and others by the Mining and Lands Tribunal). It is too early to know if this new requirement will expedite or cause greater delays in decisions regarding municipal levy appeals, given LPAT’s increased mandate and current workload. 11. Planning Act Appeals CA may no longer appeal land use planning decisions independently or to act as a party to an appeal at the LPAT except where the appeal relates to a prescribed natural hazard risk or if the CA is an applicant for land division in a matter under appeal. The CA’s appeal and party status rights for existing hearings remain intact (i.e., for the Pickering Harbour Company hearing). The City can still consult a CA regarding the specifics of an appeal or request a CA to provide expertise on behalf of the City at the LPAT. 12. Provincial Oversight The MNRF has the ability to issue an order to take over and decide an application for a permit under section 28 (Permits for works in Regulated Areas) of the CA Act in place of the CA (i.e., before the CA has made a decision on the application). It is too early to know the implications for the City. 13. Provincial Oversight Where the minister has taken over a permit application or is reviewing a permit decision by a conservation authority, allow an applicant to appeal directly to LPAT where the minister fails to make a decision within 90 days. No direct implications for the City, except that the newly introduced permit appeal process to LPAT may cause even more delays and red tape in the development approval process. - 165 - Page 5 of 6 Key Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Implications for the City of Pickering 14. Provincial Oversight Allow an applicant, within 30 days of a conservation authority issuing a permit, with or without conditions, or denying a permit, to request the minister to review the conservation authority’s decision. In addition to the provision to seek a minister’s review, provide the applicant with the ability to appeal a permit decision to LPAT within 90 days after the conservation authority has made a decision. Same as number 13 above. 15. Fees for Programs and Services Provide permit applicants with the ability to appeal permit fees charged by a conservation authority to LPAT. Where a permit is cancelled, allow the permit holder to appeal the cancellation to LPAT within 90 days. Allow applicants to appeal directly to LPAT where a CA fails to make a decision on section 28 permit applications within 120 days. Same as number 13 above. 16. Accounting Practices CAs are required to follow generally accepted accounting practices. No implications for the City. - 166 - Page 6 of 6 Change to the Planning Act Implications for the City of Pickering 1. Exclusion of CAs as Public Body Section 1(2) of the Planning Act is amended to remove the CAs as “pubic bodies” under the legislation. This means the CAs will not be able to independently appeal or become party to an appeal as a public body for Planning Act matters to the LPAT. Requests to appeal by the CAs will now be coordinated through the Provincial “One Window” approach, with comments and appeals coordinated through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This is usually used for Official Plan Reviews and Amendments. It is not clear whether the CAs will retain their ability to appeal a decision that adversely affects land that it owns. The City can still consult a CA regarding the specifics of an appeal or request a CA to provide expertise on behalf of the City at the LPAT. - 167 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 27-21 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: From: Report: Date: Regional Council Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development #2020-P-26 November 25, 2020 Subject: Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, File: L14-45 Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting #019-2646, Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Bulletin Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting #013-5018, Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act Recommendation: It is recommended to Regional Council: A)That Report # 2020-P-26 be endorsed and submitted to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry as Durham Region’s response to Schedule 6 – Conservation Authorities Act, including the consequential amendment of the Planning Act, of Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act. Key recommendations are that the province: i)Reconsider the passing of Schedule 6 of Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID 19 Act; ii)Work with the conservation authorities and municipalities to address their concerns related to the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act, and then make a subsequent determination whether these changes need to be made; 4- 168 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 2 of 13 iii)Fund any non-mandatory programs or services that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry puts forward in regulation, for the province’s purposes, so that the funding commitment does not become the responsibility of the CA municipal funding partners; iv)Have the CA Act specify that municipally elected officials appointed to the conservation authority Board of Directors must be representatives from the municipal corporations who are responsible for providing the funding to the conservation authority; v)If Bill 229 with Schedule 6 is passed, provide a transition period until December 2022 to enable coordination of CA-municipal budget processes; and vi)Recognize the province’s long-standing partnership with the conservation authorities and provide conservation authorities with the tools and financial resources they need to effectively implement their watershed management role. B)That a copy of this report be forwarded to Durham’s MPPs, Conservation Ontario, the Region’s five partner conservation authorities and the area municipalities. Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purposes of this report are to: •provide background information on the Conservation Authorities Act and associated Planning Act changes introduced on November 5, 2020 through Bill 229, Support and Recover from COVI-19 Act (Budget Measures); •acknowledge the various Items of Correspondence received regarding this topic from the conservation authorities in Durham; and •Recommend a Regional position regarding the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act changes contained within Bill 229. 2.Previous Reports and Decisions 2.1 The following Regional staff reports related to conservation authority matters have been provided to Council over the last three years: •Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, and associated supportive documents, Report #2017-INFO-79. 5- 169 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 3 of 13 •Proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and associated regulations, Report #2019-P-27. •Durham’s Response to Bill 108, Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan, 2019 and related Regulatory Proposal Changes, Report #2019-A-22. 3. Background 3.1 The Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) was passed in 1946 in response to extensive flooding erosion, deforestation and soil loss resulting from poor land, water and forestry management practices. The stated purpose of the CA Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. The Act outlines the process to establish, fund, dissolve, amalgamate and operate a Conservation Authority (CA). The Act has been updated several times. 3.2 The purpose of a conservation authority is to deliver a local resource management program at the watershed scale for both provincial and municipal interests. In addition to this core purpose, conservation authority programs contribute to achieving outcomes of many provincial and municipal (both upper and lower tier) priorities including: protection from flooding hazards, ensuring healthy Great Lakes, sustainable growth, protection and restoration of natural heritage (biodiversity), outdoor recreation, health and tourism, outdoor and other environmental education curriculum, water quality and quantity, as well as, environmental monitoring and reporting. There are 36 CAs in Ontario, the majority of which are in southern Ontario. 3.3 There are five CAs within Durham Region. The names of the five CAs together with approximate areas within Durham where the CAs have jurisdiction, the names of the Regional Council representatives who sit on the respective CA Boards (19 in total), and the local councillors who sit on the respective CA Boards (6 in total) are listed below: •Toronto and Region (TRCA) – Pickering, the majority of Ajax and a portion of Uxbridge, (Councillors Dies, Ashe and Highet); •Central Lake Ontario (CLOCA) – Whitby, Oshawa, portions of Ajax and Pickering, and the western portion of Clarington, (Councillors Lee Marimpietri, John Neal, Nicholson, Pickles, Leahy, Mulcahy, Roy, Mayors Barton and Mitchell; Councillor Chapman is the Chair of the CLOCA Board); 6- 170 - Page 4 of 13 Report #2020-P-26 −Clarington is represented locally by Councillors R. Hooper (Vice- Chair), J. Jones and C. Traill •Ganaraska Region (GRCA) – the eastern portion of Clarington, (Councillor Joe Neal); −Clarington is represented locally by Councillor M. Zwart •Kawartha Region (KRCA) – the majority of Scugog, portions of Brock and a small portion of Uxbridge, (Councillor Smith); −Clarington is represented locally by Councillor R. Hooper −Scugog is represented locally by Councillors D. Kiezebrink and A. Ross •Lake Simcoe Region (LSRCA) – the majority of Brock and Uxbridge, and the western portion of Scugog, (Mayors Bath-Hadden, Drew and Barton). 3.4 Regional staff have a close working relationship with each of the five CAs within Durham. In 1996, the province delegated the Provincial Plan Review function to Durham through a Memorandum of Understanding. To carry out these responsibilities, the Region subsequently entered into a Partnership Memorandum with its five CAs to coordinate the discharge of their responsibilities with respect to natural heritage and hazard land protection. The Partnership Memorandum has been updated and renewed twice since that time. 3.5 CAs also play key role in the implementation of source protection planning in partnership with municipalities that supply water to reduce risks to drinking water. These roles were established in the Clean Water Act in 2006. All five CAs in Durham are engaged in their roles as a Source Protection Authority. 3.6 In 2007, Regional Council approved an accountability framework related to Regional Funding of Conservation Authorities. Currently the Region provides funding to the five CAs under the following programs: •Operating Programs – expenses are apportioned to single/upper-tier member municipalities within the watershed based on their respective relative share of assessed values as outlined in legislation. •Special Benefitting – funding for projects/initiatives that do not benefit all single/upper tier municipalities within their watershed. Costs are apportioned only to the municipalities in the watershed that benefit from the specific project/initiative. •Land Management – while not required through legislation, the Region, beginning in 2018, opted to provide annual funding to each of the five conservation authorities for land management costs. 7- 171 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 5 of 13 •Special Funding – Conservation Authorities have the opportunity each year to submit a special funding request for expenses outside of those listed above. These special funding requests are reviewed individually and considered through the Region’s annual business planning and budget process. •Fee for Service – The Regional also provides funding to various Conservation Authorities for specific fee for service initiatives. 3.7 The Conservation Authorities Act has been the subject of review since 2015. 3.8 Through the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan released in November 2018, the Province committed to a further review of CAs. 3.9 In June 2019, the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108) included amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. Many of the amendments from Bill 108 regarding programs and services and enforcement provisions are yet to be put into effect through regulations. These regulations are expected to clarify the scope of CA mandates including enhanced enforcement powers to address un-proclaimed provisions and ongoing community concerns. 3.10 Through Bill 108, the CA Act was expected to be amended by: a. Defining the four core mandatory programs and services by regulation, as follows: •Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. •Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the conservation authority. •Programs and services related to the conservation authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. •Programs and services related to the conservation authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulations. b.Allowing other programs and services outside of the four core areas to be prescribed as mandatory programs and services. c.Requiring, after a specified date, that municipal financing of a non-mandatory program and service can only continue, where the conservation authority has entered into a financing agreement with its participating municipalities. d.Establishing a transition period and process for conservation authorities and municipalities to identify, through an inventory, which of their programs and 8- 172 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 6 of 13 services are mandatory and then to enter into agreements for the non- mandatory programs or services that are financed in whole or in part at the municipal level. e. Enabling the minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority. f.Clarifying that the duty of conservation authority “board” members is to act with a view to furthering the objects of the conservation authority (i.e., the range of activities the conservation authority is allowed to undertake). Conservation Authorities Act Review 3.11 Over the past 18 months, the province undertook further consultation on the core role of CAs in: a.preparing and protecting against the impacts of natural hazards; b.maintaining and managing conservation lands; and c.drinking water source protection under the Clean Water Act. 3.12 Following provincial multi-stakeholder consultation held in February 2020, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks issued an online survey to the public (survey closed March 13, 2020), that solicited input on the conservation authority model as it related to transparency, permitting, oversight, Board composition and partnership. The survey also asked for feedback on mandatory programs and services within the areas described above. Regional staff submitted a response to the survey on March 13, 2020 (see Attachment #1). Feedback gathered through the public survey has not been made public to date. 3.13 The province moved forward with a proposal to further define the core mandate of CAs through Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) on November 5, 2020, resulting in changes to both the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act. At the time of writing this report, Bill 229 was being debated at its Second Reading. The changes are expected to receive third reading in the legislature imminently. 3.14 Later this fall, the province intends to further consult on regulatory proposals (mandatory programs and services, section 28 natural hazards, section 29 conservation authority lands, agreements and transition) under the CA Act which will be posted on the Environmental Registry for public consultation. 9- 173 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 7 of 13 4.Bill 229, CA Act Changes 4.1 Key proposed amendments to the CA Act under Bill 229 are to: a.Revise the range of activities CAs can undertake to reflect the categories of programs and services that the CA is currently authorized to deliver under the CA Act for its jurisdiction namely: •Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. •Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, including any interests in land registered on title. •Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. •Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulation. b.Enable the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to, by regulation, establish standards and requirements for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services. c.Remove the authority for CAs to expropriate land. CAs could still request either the Province or a municipality to expropriate land. d.Require participating municipalities to appoint municipal councillors as CA members and that municipally appointed members generally act on behalf of their municipalities. This proposal is a change from the un-proclaimed Bill 108 provision that stated members were to act with a view to furthering the objects of the CA. e.Enable the Minister to appoint a member to the CA from the agricultural sector. This has been a longstanding request from our agricultural community. However, other interest groups and Indigenous groups have not been granted this type of appointment. f.Require that CA chairs and vice-chairs rotate every two years between different participating municipalities. g. Require CAs to follow generally accepted accounting principles. 10- 174 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 8 of 13 h. Require CAs to make key documents publicly available online (e.g., meeting agendas, meeting minutes, municipal member agreements, annual audits), if this is not current practice. i.Require CAs to submit to the Minister, a copy of any agreements related to participating municipalities appointments to its Board of Directors. j.Remove the transition provision for CAs to develop administrative by-laws. k.Authorize the Minister to issue a binding directive to a CA, and/or, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, to appoint a temporary administrator to assume control of all of a CA’s operations, following an investigation, where it is revealed that a CA has failed to comply with any provincial law. Further, the Minister would be authorized to issue binding directives to the administrator. l.Change the jurisdiction of appeals of CA decisions and municipal levies to be heard by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), as currently in some circumstances, certain appeals are heard by the Mining and Lands Tribunal. m.Enable the Minister to delegate some duties and powers under the CA Act, for example, to a ministry official. n. Authorize the Minister to issue an order to take over and decide an application for a permit under section 28 of the CA Act in place of the CA (i.e. before the CA has made a decision on the application). o.Allow an applicant, within 30 days of a CA issuing a permit, with or without conditions, or denying a permit, to request the Minister to review the CA’s decision. p.Where the Minister has taken over a permit application or is reviewing a permit decision by a CA, allow an applicant to appeal directly to LPAT where the Minister fails to make a decision within 90 days. q.In addition to the provision to seek a Minister’s review, provide the applicant with the ability to appeal a permit decision to LPAT within 90 days after the CA has made a decision. 11- 175 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 9 of 13 r.Where a permit is cancelled, allow the permit holder to appeal the cancellation to LPAT within 90 days. s.Allow applicants to appeal directly to LPAT where a CA fails to make a decision on section 28 permit applications within 120 days. t.Provide permit applicants with the ability to appeal permit fees charged by a CA to LPAT. u.Amend the un-proclaimed “warrantless entry” provisions from Bill 108 to change the circumstances when an entry to land may be exercised by a CA so that such circumstances are similar to entry powers now in effect in section 28 of the Act. v.Remove the un-proclaimed provisions from Bill 108 for CAs to be able to issue stop work orders and retain the current enforcement tools, such as laying charges and potential court injunctions. w.Add a legal provision to the CA Act related to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights under the Constitution to state that nothing in the Act would repeal or detract from the existing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution. 5.Bill 229, Planning Act Changes 5.1 A supportive amendment to the Planning Act is also proposed through Bill 229 that would add CAs to subsection 1 (2) of the Planning Act. This amendment, if passed, would exclude the CAs in the definition of public bodies under the Planning Act. This change would restrict the CA’s ability to appeal certain planning decisions to LPAT, or become a party to an appeal before LPAT. 6.Concerns raised by Durham’s partner conservation authorities related to Bill 229 6.1 Durham’s partner CAs have raised several concerns related the proposed changes to the CA Framework. These concerns are detailed in their respective Items of Correspondence included in the November 25, 2020 Regional Council agenda. 12- 176 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 10 of 13 6.2 The concerns include, but are not limited to the following: Overall a.Without having regulations to support the legislative amendments to the CA Act and Planning Act, there may be unintended consequences, inefficiencies and ineffective outcomes. Programs and Services b.The programs and services are subject to standards and requirements that may be prescribed by future regulation. Without the benefit of having the regulatory proposal, it is unknown if the regulations could restrict what CAs are able take on for their member municipalities, or to further the purpose of the Act. Appointments/Board of Directors c.Removal of the responsibility for CA Board members to represent the interests of the CA is contrary to the watershed management approach and fiduciary duty principals, which is the foundation of corporate governance. d.Term limits of only two years restricts the CA’s ability to align these terms with the terms of municipal elected officials and could pose issues where municipalities sit on multiple CA Boards. Section 28 Permit Changes and Appeal Process e. Changes to the CA role in regulating development permitting, and planning application appeal processes, could add costs and ultimately have significant impacts on Ontario's ability to provide flooding and natural hazards management/ protection and drinking water protection. f.The permit appeal provisions that would be considered by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and/or the LPAT could create more costs, delays and red tape, resulting in decisions that would not benefit from local watershed data and expertise. Enforcement Tools g.The amendments weaken a CA’s ability to enforce regulation and could directly impact a CA’s ability to: address permit compliance objectives; and address significant impacts to natural hazards and features. 13- 177 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 11 of 13 Planning Act Changes h.The amendments limit a CA’s ability to be an independent party at the LPAT to protect landholdings, fulfill mandate and ensure watershed science and data are being applied to planning and land use decisions. 7.Regional Comments 7.1 CAs are local watershed management agencies that deliver services and programs to protect and manage impacts on water and other natural resources in partnership with the federal and provincial governments, municipalities, landowners and other stakeholders. CAs have an important role in supporting the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources, and protecting Ontarians from floor risk and other water-related natural hazards. 7.2 Ontario’s Flooding Strategy, released by the province in March 2020, outlines key roles for municipalities and conservation authorities in identifying and managing flood risk based on evidence and science, and for directing development away from flood-prone areas. The changes proposed in Bill 229 could undermine the leadership and local decision-making role that the province assigns to municipalities and CAs in its Flooding Strategy. 7.3 It is recommended that the province reconsider the passing of Schedule 6 of Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID 19 Act. Schedule 6 introduces a number of changes and new sections to the CA Act and Planning Act that would significantly limit the conservation authorities’ role in watershed management and the mitigation of flooding impacts on communities (e.g. through their role the development permitting process and engaging in the review and appeal of planning applications). These changes would reduce environmental oversight of development proposals and could lead to increased environmental hazard risk, including flooding. 7.4 The province should also be requested to work with the conservation authorities and municipalities over the next few months to address their concerns related to the proposed amendments to the CA Act and the Planning Act, and then make a subsequent determination whether these changes need to be made. 7.5 It is recommended that if any non-mandatory programs or services that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry are put forward in regulation for the province’s purposes, these programs and services should be funded by the provincial government, so that the funding commitment does not become the responsibility of the CA municipal funding partners. 14- 178 - Report #2020-P-26 Page 12 of 13 7.6 With regards to municipal representation on CA Boards, it is recommended that the CA Act specify that municipally elected officials appointed to the conservation authority Board of Directors must be representatives from the municipal corporations who are responsible for providing the funding to the conservation authority. 7.7 If Bill 229 is passed in its current form, including Schedule 6, it is recommended that a transition period until December 2022 be provided to enable coordination of CA-municipal budget processes. 7.8 Lastly, the province should be requested to recognize their long-standing partnership with the conservation authorities and provide them with the tools and financial resources they need to effectively implement their watershed management role. 8.Relationship to Strategic Plan 8.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following strategic goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan: a.Under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, Priority 1.3: to protect, preserve and restore the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways, parks, trails, and farmlands; b.Under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, Priority 1.4: demonstrate leadership in sustainability and addressing climate change 8.2 This report also aligns with/addresses the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, which focuses on building resilience to climate change impacts. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The Region of Peel is considering a similar resolution to express their concerns with the proposed changes to the CA Act and Planning Act at their November Council meeting. 9.2 This report has been prepared in consultation with the CAO’s Office – Strategic Initiatives, Works Department, Finance Department, and Corporate Services – Legal Services. 10. Attachments Attachment #1:CA Act Survey, Regional staff response, March 13, 2020 15- 179 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 09-21 Date: May 25, 2021 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2021 Property Tax Deferral Program - Phase II Implementation File: F-4200-002 Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 09-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to implement Phase II of the 2021 Property Tax Deferral Program for the residential property tax class, consistent with the principles of the Council approved program established through Report FIN 02-21 and that property tax payments be deferred and interest and penalty be waived from June 1, 2021 to October 25, 2021 for those applicants that meet the criteria; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to waive interest and penalty for residential properties for an extended period from November 1, 2021 up to December 31, 2021 and that the deferral of the interest and penalty be based on financial hardship due to the pandemic; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The COVID-19 pandemic presents one of the greatest financial challenges that our community has seen in generations. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many Pickering taxpayers at the same time. With the City operating under the current province wide shutdown, staff are recommending that the City implement a second phase of the successful “Property Tax Deferral Program” that was established earlier this year through Report FIN 02-21 (Resolution #507/21). Staff are recommending that the phase two plan be based on the following principles: • Property taxes are paid in full by May 31, 2021. • Penalty and interest will be waived basically for five months (June, July, August, September, October 25, 2021) and then penalty and interest will be applied on November 1, 2021. • The applicant must establish a disruption or lack of employment beginning in March 2020 or later by providing documentation. • Residential property owners that pay their property taxes through their mortgage payment are not eligible for this program. - 180 - FIN 09-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Property Tax Deferral Program Phase II Implementation Page 2 Staff will promote this program through various communication channels such as the property tax brochure, community page ad and City website. Financial Implications: Phase One of the Property Tax Deferral Program had thirty-three participants. The cost of providing phase two of this program and the impact on the 2021 late payment charges will depend on the volume of applications received and approved. The phase one enrollment numbers indicates that the program will likely have minimal financial impact to the City. Discussion: A common theme of the current pandemic is its unpredictable nature. Twelve months ago there was very little discussion or newsprint dedicated to “pandemic waves” or ‘variants of concern.” Over the last twelve plus months, we continually learn how difficult it is to predict the future trend of the pandemic and its corresponding economic impacts. These uncertain times can translate into economic challenges for our taxpayers that requires the City to continue to be compassionate by maintaining its application based deferral program. The phase two program would operate as the earlier program with interested taxpayers completing an application and, if eligible, applicants would have the late payment fees (penalty and interest) waived for the months of June up to October 25, 2021. Applicants of the program will be required to demonstrate and provide supporting documentation of financial hardship incurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in one or more categories: suspension of pay and/or loss of pay. Staff will consider the following supporting documentation as proof of a decrease of income: Record of Employment or ROE; lay-off notice; termination letter, letter from employer and evidence of receiving of benefits under a Federal Benefit program. In addition, the property owner must not have tax arrears prior to June 1st, 2021. Applications received by the end of September 30, 2021 will be eligible to be backdated to June 1, 2021 and to receive the full 147 days of property tax deferral. If this report is approved, the current work plan is to have the phase two application posted on the City’s website to facilitate the application process. It should be noted that if any of the applicant information is incorrect or inaccurate, the taxpayer will be removed from the program and penalty will be retroactively applied to June 1, 2021. Property owners that have their property taxes paid with their mortgage payment by their financial institutions are not eligible for the property tax deferral program. As these accounts have no amounts outstanding, the property owner is encouraged to speak with their financial institution to seek any payment flexibility which they may require. Recommendation 3 provides the Treasurer the authority and flexibility to continue with the program if the need is required. One of the many lessons learned from the pandemic is that forecasting the future is more art than science. - 181 - FIN 09-21 May 25, 2021 Subject: Property Tax Deferral Program Phase II Implementation Page 3 The table below provides a comparison of the 2020 and 2021 property tax deferral programs. Comparison of Property Tax Deferral Programs By Year 2020 2021 General Application Tax Bill Billing Period Days Days Interim 60 90 Final 90 147 Total 150 237 The 2021 Property Tax Deferral Program will provide an additional 87 days or almost three additional months of property tax relief in contrast to the 2020 program. Under the application based model, those in need will receive the relief they require. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Mike Jones Stan Karwowski Supervisor, Taxation Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 182 - Memo To: Susan Cassel May 18, 2021 City Clerk From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Amending By-law for Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 Guild Road & 1970 Guild Road City of Pickering Amending By-law 7850/21 for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P. Statutory Public Meeting Date February 4, 2019 and August 10, 2020 Planning & Development Committee Date May 3, 2021 Purpose and Effect of By-law To adopt Amendment 43 to re-designate a portion of land located on the west side of Guild Road, municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit as an exception, a site specific increase to the maximum permissible density and maximum permissible floor space index for the portion of the lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation establishing a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floorspace index of 2.53, for lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road. Council Meeting Date May 25, 2021 Note On May 3, 2021, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed staff’s recommendation that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment. CM:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3100\2018\OPA 18-005P & A11-18\Memos\Official Plan Amendment By-law\By-law Chart Memo to Clerks.docx Attachments By-law 7850/21 Schedule A to By-law 7850/21 Original Signed By Catherine Rose - 183 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7850/21 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-005/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 43 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 43 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021. __________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 184 - Exhibit “A” to By-law 7850/21 Amendment 43 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 185 - Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate a portion of land located on the west side of Guild Road, municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit as an exception, a site specific increase to the maximum permissible density and maximum permissible floor space index for the portion of the lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation establishing a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floorspace index of 2.53, for lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, municipally known as 1640 Kingston Road and 1964 Guild Road, described as Lots 1, 2 and 43, Plan 316, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, minimizes adverse impacts on the existing low density neighbourhood to the north and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The subject lands are located on Kingston Road, which is designated as an arterial road and a Rapid Transit Spine under the Durham Regional Official Plan, which are intended to provide for higher density development. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1. Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure by replacing the “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” designation with “Mixed Use Area – Mixed Corridors” designation for lands located on the west side of Guild Road, municipally known as 1964 Guild Road, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. 2. Revising Policy 12.11 – Village East Neighbourhood Policies, by adding a new subsection 12.11(h): (h) despite Table 6 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floor space index of 2.53 for lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, described as Lots 1, 2 and 43, Plan 316. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 18-005/P A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. - 186 - D e nmarRo a d Kingston Road Jaywin Circle Royal RoadGuildRoadªª1 ¹ Freeways and Major UtilitiesMixed Corridors City Centre Potential Multi Use Areas City of PickeringCity Development Department© March, 2021This Map Forms Part of Edition 8 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Extract ofSchedule I to theEdition 8 PickeringOfficial PlanCityofPickering AreaShownonThis Map TownofAjax City of TorontoCity of MarkhamTownship of Uxbridge Town of WhitbySchedule 'A' to Amendment 43Existing Official Plan Land Use Structure Urban Residential Areas Mixed Use Areas!Redesignate from "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" to "Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors" Medium Density Areas - 187 - :ca Attachments Location Map Draft By-law Memo To: Susan Cassel City Clerk May 19, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Manager, Development Services Subject: Request for Road Establishing By-law - Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. - Block 89, Plan 40M-1419 - (Dencourt Drive) File: Roadded.599/D0319 Block 89, 40M-1419 is a reserve located at the westerly limit of Dencourt Drive that was acquired by the City through the registration of Plan 40M-1419 in order to ensure the orderly development of the adjacent lands to the west. Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. has entered into a Development Agreement with the City to construct 13 dwelling units on the lands adjacent to Block 89, 40M-1419. A condition of the Development Agreement included the establishment of Block 89, 40M-1419 as public highway. It is now appropriate to pass a by-law establishing Block 89, 40M-1419 as public highway. Attached is a location map and a draft by-law for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for May 26, 2021. - 188 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7851/21 Being a by-law to establish Block 89, 40M-1419 as public highway. Whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to establish it as public highway. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Block 89, 40M-1419 is hereby established as public highway (Dencourt Drive). By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 189 - Strouds Lane HighviewRoad Rosebank RoadWildflower DriveAberfoyle CourtFernam StreetAlderCourtWoodsmere Crescent Summerpark Crescent Charn w o o d C o u r t As hfield CourtWoodsideLane White Cedar DriveSilver Maple DriveBroadoak CrescentAriel CrescentKirkwood LaneSaugeenDriveDenc our t D r i v e Post Drive Garland CrescentGreenvale CrescentSpringviewDrive1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; PN-6 City Development Department Location Map File:Applicant: Property Description:ROADDED 599 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Block 89, Plan 40M-1419 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 25, 2020Dencourt DriveDETAIL INSET 1 SCALE 1:1,000 INSET 1EBLOCK 89PLAN 40M-1419 - 190 -