Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 2005PICKF2edNG Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, January 24, 2005 7:30 PM Chair: Councillor Brenner ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of January 10, 2005 PAGE 1-8 (11) 1. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 01-05 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 26/03 SEAN REGAN DEVELOPMENTS 1603 FINCH AVENUE (PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1) PAGE 9-22 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-05 DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW "RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT, OCTOBER 2004" RESPECTING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, COMMERCIAL POLICY AND RURAL RESOURCES 23-75 o OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT 02-05 FUTURESIGN MULTIMEDIA DISPLAYS AMENDING ADVERTISING AGREEMENT 76-80 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT 05-05 GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY CENTRE LEASE RENEWAL -HORIZON HOUSE WHERE HEAVEN AND EARTH MEET 81-85 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, January 24, 2005 7:30 PM Chair: Councillor Brenner CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT 01-05 NWMO DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 2, UNDERSTANDING THE CHOICES CITY OF PICKERING'S COMMENTS TO NWMO 86-107 CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 06-05 ENDORSEMENT OF BILL 165 - E~FCTED OFF/C/ALS IMMUNITY ACT, 2004 108-114 CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 07-05 APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT WHITES ROAD, 1100 BEGLEY STREET, 1865 KINGSTON ROAD AND 726 KINGSTON ROAD 115-120 CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 59-04 2005 ANIMAL SERVICES BUDGET 121-130 Referred at the December 20th Council AQenda (111) OTHER BUSINESS (IV) ADJOURNMENT Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, January 10, 2004 7:40 PM Chair: Councillor Ashe PRESENT: Mayor Dave Ryan COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. McLean D. Pickles ALSO PRESENT: E. Buntsma - (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer and Director, Operations & Emergency Services N. Carroll - Director, Planning & Development G. Paterson - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer B. Taylor - City Clerk S. Reynolds - Division Head, Culture & Recreation D. Watrous - Committee Coordinator ABSENT: T. J. Quinn - Chief Administrative Officer (Medical Leave) Mayor Ryan commented on the Tsunami Disaster and acknowledged the work of Councillors Brenner and McLean in aid of the victims. (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of December 13, 2004 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, January 10, 2004 7:40 PM Chair': Councillor Ashe (11) 1. DELEGATION Gordon Dick, representing the Pickering Rotary Club, addressed the Committee with respect to Tsunami Relief requesting a grant for the use of the hall at the Recreation Complex. He advised that this event would be a day of family activities with an evening buffet. All monies raised at this event would be deposited into the Durham Community Tsunami Relief Fund, which has been set up by the Rotary Club. Representatives of the Hindu community presented $8,513.00 to Mr. Dick for this relief fund advising that a further $2,000 would be forthcoming. (111) 1. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 48-04 BRAMALEA LIMTIED -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1347 -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1472 -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1473 -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1571 FINAL ASSUMPTION OF PLANS OF SUBDIVISION By-law Forwarded To Council PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 46-04 BRAMALEA LIMITED/MARSHALL HOMES CORPORATION -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1254 (PHASE 1) BRAMALEA LIMITED -PLAN OF SUBDIVSION 40M-1418 (PHASE 2) BRAMALEA LIMITED -PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1419 (PHASE 3) FINAL ASSUMPTION OF PLANS OF SUBDIVISION By-laws Forwarded To Council 2 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, January 10, 2004 7:40 PM Chair: Councillor Ashe OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 01-05 TENDER FOR PICKERING MUSEUM VILLAGE PROGRAM CENTRE TENDER NO. T-6-2004 Approved See Recommendation #1 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 40-04 -NO PARKING BY-LAW -AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2359/87 -FILE: BEGLEY STREET AND TANZER By-laws Forwarded To Council OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 41-04 -NO PARKING BY-LAW -AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2359/87 FILE: GLENGROVE ROAD By-law Forwarded To Council OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 43-04 -STOP SIGN BY-LAW -AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2632/88 FILE: COPPERSTONE DRIVE By-law Forwarded To Council CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-05 2005 INTERIM LEVY AND INTERIM INSTALLMENT DUE DATES Approved See Recommendation #2 -3- ( KERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, January 10, 2004 7:40 PM Chair: Councillor Ashe o CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 01-05 CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE FOR 2005 Approved See Recommendation #3 CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 03-05 ESTABLISHMENT ROUGEMOUNT COOPERATIVE HOME-'S NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH- 400 KINGSTON ROAD Approved See Recommendation #4 10. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 05-04 FLAG PROTOCOL -POLICY/PROCEDURE Approved As Amended See Recommendation #5 11. PROCLAMATIONS "FAMILY LITERACY WEEK" "MARRIAGE CHECKUP WEEK" "RACING AGAINST DRUGS DURHAM WEEK" Approved See Recommendation #6 (IV) OTHER BUSINESS 1. Councillor Brenner gave notice of a motion, seconded by Councillor McLean to proclaim January 29~h as 'Tsunami Relief Day'. (v) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. -4- PICKERING Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 2005-01 0¸5 That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on January 10, 2005, presents its first report to Council and recommends: OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 01-05 TENDER FOR PICKERING MUSEUM VILLAGE PROGRAM CENTRE TENDER NO. T-6-2004 That Report OES 01-05 regarding the Pickering Museum Village Program Centre, be received; and That Tender No. T-6-2004 submitted by D. J. McRae Contracting Ltd. for the construction of a new Program Centre at the Pickering Museum Village in the amount of $751,236 (CST extra), be accepted; and That the total gross project cost of $1,002,949.52 and a net project cost of $937,336 including tender amount and other project costs identified in this report be approved; and That Council authorize entering into an agreement between the City and the Pickering Museum Village Foundation for the shared cost and financing of the Program Centre Project and the Hotel Restoration Project; and That pre-budget approval be given in the amount of $547,336 for Program Centre project including moving of hotel and financing to be included in the 2005 current and capital budgets and Council consider including $250,000 in the 2006 Capital Budget for its share of the Hotel Restoration project; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a) Debt financing through the Region of Durham in the amount of $451,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined; and b) Contributions from the Pickering Museum Village Foundation in the amounts of $60,000 for Program Centre project and $36,000 for moving the hotel; and c) The balance of funding in the estimated amount of $336 be included in the 2005 Current Budget; and -5- PICKER1NG Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 2005-01 d) Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $57,700 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2006 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and e) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2004 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario; and f) The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 7. That staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-05 2005 INTERIM LEVY AND INTERIM INSTALLMENT DUE DATES That Report CS 02-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be received; and That an interim levy be adopted for 2005 for all of the realty property classes; and That the interim levy instalment due dates be February 25 and April 28, 2005; and That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is completed; and That the attached by-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be read three times and passed by Council; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. -6- Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 2005-01 07 CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 01-05 CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE FOR 2005 That Report CS 01-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2005, be received and forwarded to Council for information. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 03-05 ESTABLISHMENT ROUGEMOUNT COOPERATIVE HOMES NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH - 400 KINGSTON ROAD That the letter from the Durham Regional Police Service dated December 7, 2004 endorsing the establishment of the Rougemount Cooperative Homes Neighbourhood Watch, be received; and That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses the Rougemount Cooperative Homes Neighbourhood Watch and approves the installation of Neighbourhood Watch signs at the entrances to the subject area. That the appropriate staff of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 05-04 FLAG PROTOCOL -POLICY/PROCEDURE That Report CAO 05-04 regarding the Flag Protocol Policy for The Corporation of the City of Pickering, be received; and That Council endorse the Flag Protocol as set out in the Flag Protocol Policy and Procedure with the following amendment: a) That upon the death of a spouse, son or daughter of the Mayor or Member of Council the flags at City properties be flown at half-mast. -7- 08 PICKER1NIG Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 2005-01 o PROCLAMATIONS "FAMILY LITERACY WEEK" "MARRIAGE CHECKUP WEEK" "RACING AGAINST DRUGS DURHAM WEEK" That Mayor Ryan be authorized to make the following proclamations: "Family Literacy Week" - January 24 - 31, 2005 "Marriage Checkup Week"- February 14- 18, 2005 "Racing Against Drugs Durham Week" - May 1 - 6, 2005 -8- 09 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03, be REFUSED to permit the establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing six residential units, submitted by Sean Regan on behalf of Sean Regan Developments, on the lands being Part of Lot 20, Concession I (1603 Finch Avenue), City of Pickering. REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 01-05 Date: January 6, 2005 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03 Sean Regan Developments 1603 Finch Avenue (Part of Lot 20, Concession 1) City of Pickering Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03, be REFUSEDto permit the establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing six residential units, submitted by Sean Regan on behalf of Sean Regan Developments, on the lands being Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 (1603 Finch Avenue), City of Pickering. Executive Summary: The applicant requests a change to the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing six residential units (for a total of 12 units). The subject property is located on the south side of Finch Avenue, west of Guild Road and directly east of the hydro corridor (see Location Map, Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 & #2). It is recommended that the application be refused, as it represents over development of the site and is not compatible with the neighbourhood. Financial Implications: proposed development. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Background: 1.0 Comments Received 1.1 At the May 16, 2002 Public Information Meeting (see text of Information Report, Attachment #3 - no comments received at the Meeting) 1.2 Comments Received From Agencies The Durham District School Board - no objections. Report PD 01-05 Subject: Sean Regan (A 26~O3) Date: January 6, 2005 Page 2 2.0 2.1 Veridian Connections - no concerns. Region of Durham The proposal conforms to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan. A road widening along the Finch Avenue frontage will be required to provide for a right-of-way width of 18 metres from centerline. Further details at site plan stage. - A noise study is required to address the impact of road noise on the proposed residential units. Discussion Housing form and density is consistent with Official Plan Designation, though inappropriate for the size and configuration of the subject site, The subject property is within the "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area" designation of the Village East Neighbourhood. This designation permits medium density residential development at a density of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare. When applied to this property this results in a range of 7 to 18 units. The proposal is consistent with this designation at 12 units, or approximately 50 units per net hectare. The subject site, however, is a unique shape, and tapers into a long narrow "strip" of land behind several lots fronting Guild Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Although this long narrow "strip" of land within the site is not useable for building or parking it does constitute lot area and is included in determining the unit density range permitted under the Official Plan. Technically the proposed 12 unit development falls within the density range permitted by the Official Plan, however, the actual useable land area results in the units being sited on only a portion of the site. This confinement of the development to a po. dion of the site results in several site functioning difficulties. The narrow proportions of this site, and the undevelopable long narrow "strip" create a challenge for development that is within the range for medium density, and that is functional and appropriate for the neighbourhood. Although the Official Plan sets the unit density range within which development may occur, it is the review of a Zoning By-law Amendment that determines the density, within that range, that is most appropriate. Due to the irregular configuration of the site, staff do not believe it is possible to appropriately develop this site within the Official Plan's designated density. Staff have considered alternative development options and it appears that the site may be able to support one block of six units. Staff discussed this alternative with the applicant, however, the applicant continues to pursue the original submission. Six units would fall shod of the Official Plan requirements whereby seven units would be the minimum number of units permissible. However, Section 14.1(f)(ii) of the Official Plan permits Council to consider a minor deviation from the Official Plan densities if lower than required. Report PD 01-05 Subject: Sean Regan (A26/03) Date: January 6,2005 Page 3 2.2 2.3 The applicant's current design represents over-development of the site and does not allow for adequate vehicle flow, safe pedestrian movements or proper site functioning. Development within the medium density range may only be possible on this site if additional land is acquired to achieve a more functional lot configuration. Not every parcel of land designated for medium density development is capable of being developed independently. A comprehensive redevelopment involving additional properties is required. Area residents and City staff have expressed concerns regarding the safe functioning of the site and the compatibility of the proposed development with the neighbourhood. It was requested at the Statutory Information Meeting that a resident working group be established to consider the proposed land use. Following the Information Meeting, staff worked with the applicant, however were unable to bring the proposal to a level that warranted detail review by a resident working group. Consequently such a meeting was not held. Prior to the January 24th meeting date, residents who made comment on the application will be notified of staff's recommendation for refusal. Although constrained, the site has future development potential and staff are willing to work with the applicant if additional land is acquired or an acceptable alternative design is achieved. Ideally, this site would be best suited for development at a time when additional property could be acquired and an appropriate form of medium density could be achieved. Staff acknowledges that the applicant has approached adjoining landowners to purchase additional land area, but to date has been unsuccessful. Density, by itself, does not control housing form. Protection and enhancement of the character of existing neighbourhoods must also be considered. If additional designs and/or additional land is acquired Planning & Development staff will continue to review alternatives and discuss options with the land ownedapplicant. Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the staff recommendation for refusal of the application. The applicant advised that he is unable to attend the January 24, 2005 Executive Committee meeting, however, his agent Dermot James Walsh will attend on his behalf. Report PD 01-05 Subject: Sean Regan (A 26/03) Date: January 6, 2005 Page 4 i2, Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Text of Information Report Region of Durham Comments Veridian Corporation Comments Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Neil Carroll, Director, PlamSing & Development Ly~da~aylor, ~I~IP, RPP Manager, Development Review MD:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Recommende~ Pickering~ ~C/i~..C~o~ Thomas J. Quir~n.,, Chief ~ ,n.p..side~atio n of ,dministrative Officer _i.,; ATTACHMENT REPOR;[ # PD FINCH PR( )PERTY · - AVEN U E City of Pickering PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONCESSION 1, LOT 20 OWNER S, REGAN FiLE No. A 26/03 ' FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-9 P!an,ning ~ Dev_etePment .Department JDATE MAR. 9, 2004 DRAWN BY JB '~ ISCALE I:S000 CHECKEDBY MD PA- ATTACHMENT !~ TO ~PORT ~ PD ~/2 / - ~'~.~ FINCH AVENUE ! PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 05-04 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF April 15, 2004 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03 Sean Regan Developments 1603 Finch Avenue (Part of Lot 20, Concession 1) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1603 Finch Avenue is located on the south side of Finch Avenue, west of Guild Road (see Attachment #1); the hydro corridor abuts the subject property on the west side; existing residential properties back on to 1603 Finch Avenue from Guild Road; currently existing on the site is a single detached residence. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to amend the existing "R3" - Residential zoning that requires 18 metre lot frontages, to a zoning that would permit two, 'three storey apartment blocks each containing six residential units; an internal driveway enters the site from Finch Avenue and provides parking for residents and visitors; the proposed development has a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per net hectare (see Attachment #2). Information Report No. 05-04 ATTACHMENT -- ~...~.~T0 Page 2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Reqional Official Plan identifies the property as being within the 'Living Area' designation; 'Living Areas' should be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors; 'Living Areas' shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads; Pickerinq Official Plan identifies the subject property as being designated an 'Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area' within the Village East Neighbourhood; this designation permits medium density residential development at a density of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare (the proposal is for approximately 50 units per net hectare); Zoninq By-law 3036 ('R3' - Detached Dwellings) the subject property is currently zoned "R3" - Detached Dwellings by By-law 3036; this zoning permits detached dwellings only with a minimum of 550 square metres lot area and lot frontage minimum of 18 metres. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION at the time of writing this report no comments or concerns have been received by residents, City departments or external circulation; Staff Comments in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · impact of change from existing Iow-density development to the Official Plan designated medium density. This will include reviewing appropriate setbacks, height and privacy issues; · provision of adequate resident and visitor parking within the site boundaries; · internal vehicular flow; · the current draft site plan design appears to represent an over development. The proposed buildings have a footprint that are too large for the site and do not take the provision of appropriate on-site vehicular flow and parking into account; · potential for future use of the rear section of the subject site. Information Report No. 05-04 Page 3 5.0 6.0 6.1 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION Information Received full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department: · site plan drawing; · elevation drawing. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Mike Duff Planner II MD:Id Attachments ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager- Development Review Copy: Director, Planning & Development The Regional Municipality of. Durham Planning Department 16t5 DUNDAS ST, E. 4TM FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON LIN 6A3 ;ANADA 905-728-773;1 Fax: 905~436-6612 Email: planning@ regiOn.durham.oh'.ca www. region .durham .on.ca A.L. Georgieff, .MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning "Servi~e ,E~'~llence for ~ek,Comrnunities" May 14, 2004 ATTAOHMErg'f #~_¢~ TO Mike Duff, Planner II City of Pickering Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario 'LIV 6K7 Dear Mr. Duff: 'Re: Zoning Amendment Application A 26/03 Applicant: Sean Regan.'Developments Location.:. Part of Lot' 20, Concession 1 Municipality: City of Pickering We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to the Durham Regional Official .Plan, the proposed. method of servicing, and' the delegated provincial' plan review responsibilities. The application proposes to rezone.the subject property to permit the development of two apartment blocks each containing six residential'. Units. The proposed development would'achieve a density of approximately 50 dwellingunits per net hectare: Driveway aCcess to the development woUld be provided from Finch Avenue. Durham-Regional' Official Plan The subje.ct lands are designated ,Living'Area'" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this'designation are to' be developed to: · incorporate the widest possible variety of housing tYPes, sizes and tenure; · provide liVing accommodations addressing various socio- economic 'factors; and · provide a compact form through higher densities.and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial.roads. The proposed amendment conforms to the policies of the Durham .Regional Official Plan. 100% Post Consumer t~,~I'ACHMENI #_?~ TO REPOR1 ~ PD~ Page2 Municipal Servicing Municipal water supply and Sanitary sewer service are available to the subject lands. Transportation A road widening along the Finch Avenue frontage will be .required to provide for a right-Of-way width of 18 metres from centerline. Additional comments respecting th:e proposed access will be provided upon the submission of a detailed site plan, ' Provincial Pian Review. ResponSibilities The application has been sCreened in accordance with-the provincial plan review responsibilities. The subject lands.front onto Finch Avenue, which is designated as aType-B arterial .road in the Durham Regional Official Plan. A Noise Study should be completed to address the' impact of road noise on the prOposed residential units. :No further provincial interests are.affected by the proposal. If yo'u have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, :RaY Davies, Planner Plan lm plementation Current Operations Branch cc. Pete Castellan, Durham Region Works Department R:\rd~zoning~pickering a2.6-03.doc ~?R-2E-2004 THU t0:6~ 6N F~× NO, ?, 02 ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO REPOR~ # REF. NO.; A 26/03 VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW Senn Rcgan Develop 1603 Finch Avenue Picketing *~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBMISSION DATE: Match 26, 2004 11. 12. Electric Service is available on the road allo~rtnce touching this property, Servicing will be fi:om rhe north side of Finch Avenue, The applicant muse provide accm:mno~tion o= aite for thc Cm?o~ation's txamffotmer(s), * outdoor padmount in a 5m X 6m clear area A separate room(s) with outside -~cce~ i~ required to accommodate the Corporation's meters. Indivi&lal me~=ring for each mt is =equi,ed. The Applicant must provide a con,ere encased underground duct system from a supply point o~the no~th ~ide of Finch Avenue to a u:ansfonner location on the property. The Applicant must pay the Co~oration's costs to supply and install tmde-tground ,ervice cables algng the route of 5, above. l~limamd range of eosl:s -To be determined, 2~e following standard fixed fee co,t, will apply (all fig~tres are approximate): Service Connection Fcc $130.00 pet unit The Applicant must make direct application to the Co,potation to obtain upccific approval of r. he decttical sereice arrangements and related work for thin project The applicant is cautioned that tenderu, contracts,, or work initiated prior to obtaining specific approval veill be subject to change. A $cr~ich~g Agreement mus~ be signed with thc COrporation in order to obtain sen, itSmg for th,{s site, A Multi-Tenan~ Agreement m~st be entered into ;md may be registered on title as p~trt of the ser¢icing requlrements, Legml costs foe this will be charged to thc Applicant, 3.11 work from th= public road allowance to the service eh=attar and the metering arrangements must comply with the Corporation's reqtfirements and speci.ficafions. The Appl/caat w/ll be required ~o grant to the Corporation a standard occupation easememt, regitr, e~ed on titte, for primary access. Page 2 ~v~i~iDiAN CONNECTIONS DE VELOPMEN .t APPLICATION ~V.1..~W 13. 14, 15. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant shall, by agreement confim~ .~cceptance of the terms amd conditions of providing electmeal .~ervicz, ' W4=re cranes or material hmadliag equipment or workers must work in proximity ro existing overhrad wires, with the capability of cot, met or coming v~ithin th: limits of appa:oach, ne develope,/bul].dc£ shall pay all cnut~ for the tempo~aBr relocation, burial, or protect/on of the wkes, or other action deemed necessary by V=ridian to provide for worker safer? and the semmty of the electrical system. ' Landscaping, specifically r~ees, shrubs, and/os othe~ should be relocated away from the Co~oration'.q transformer to avoid interference with equipment access. Loprdded appcara.nce of r~ees fi:om tximmhag may r~sult. 16. 17. 18. ¸i9. rzchmcal Repze~entattve - Dave Telephoae 427-9870 Bxt. 3233 W'~ nor artenfl u,'heduled City of Pick,-xing DART Meeting for, this d~velopm~:nt. Other: · Further building der. ails ~r~ required before final meterin.g and transforme:~ requ~l:ements cfm be made. Veridian Connections has no objection to the proposed development. Please fbrwa~d a copy of Lrst submission ~ivil dedgm so that Veridian Conneedon~ may prepare an elec~¢al design md an Offer re Semce. All of the above tend Jr/OhS of,qerv~ce arc subject to Ontario Ene,gy Boaxd (OEB) approval. Fy\Wot0 Docurraa~u\V=idla,~\l~nginuurin$ & ~onstrardan\Dev~lopmanc Appliml'inn l~vtu~tkPmkurin~\~tFt4\Senn 'ge~n DuvMepm~nts. 1~:~3 Iqn'~ Avmuu. ana Rev. Date: November I: 1999 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED as the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review; and That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's Growth Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the "Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply; and 3. That in formulating agricultural designations, a vibrant and economically productive "countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than the strict agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004", and accordingly; a) That the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and non- agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in Pickering and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar proximity to urban areas; and b) That in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also INCLUDE the following: · continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the DROP; and · continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot; and · permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation; and · continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions, by amendment to the Regional Official Plan; and · continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local official plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on open space lands; and · continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local official plan; and · establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in proximity to urban areas. That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Table" would be used only: when a regional official plan amendment is required; and where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this matter; and That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to Report PD 06-05; and That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed, thereby allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy and avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 06-05 Date: January 11,2005 25 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: DUrham Regional Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" respecting the Natural Environment, Commercial Policy, and Rural Resources Recommendations: That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED as the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review; That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's Growth Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the "Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply; In formulating agricultural designations, that a vibrant and econOmically productive "countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than the strict agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004", and accordingly; a) that the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and non-agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in Pickering and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar proximity to urban areas; and, b) in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also INCLUDE the following: · continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the DROP; · continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot; · permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation; · continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions, by amendment to the Regional Official Plan; · continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local official plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on open space lands; Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11, 2005 Page 2 o · continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local official plan; and, ° establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in proximity to urban areas. That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Table" would be used only: when a regional official plan amendment is required; and, where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this matter; That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to Report PD 06-05; That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed, thereby allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy and avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies; That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. Executive Summary: In October 2004, the Region released the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environmental, commercial and rural area components of the Official Plan Review. Revised directions for population, employment and. land supply are to be addressed later, once the Provincial growth management directives are confirmed through the "Places to Grow" initiative, to be released in March 2005. In addition, outstanding housing policy issues are to be addressed in a separate Regional Housing Directions Study. In October 2004, the Region also provided a "Regional Staff Response" to comments received from area municipalities and other stakeholders on the four earlier Discussion Papers (see extract for City of Pickering Attachment #1). City of Pickering comments on the Discussion Papers were contained in Report PD 06-04, endorsed by City Council March 1,2004, by Resolution #27/04, Item #2 (see Attachments #2 and #3). The purpose of the "Recommended Directions Report" is to provide a basis for amendments to the Regional Official Plan, anticipated in spring 2005. Detailed comments are set out in Appendix I to PD 06-05: Detailed Staff Comments on Region of Durham Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October, 2004". Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11,2005 Page 3 As noted earlier, the Region has not yet finalized its recommended directions on population, urban land and employment land policies. The Region has now received Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for approval and the City's application to amend the Regional Official Plan to implement the local amendment. Therefore, it is recommended that the Region incorporate the results of the City's Growth Management Study and related amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in finalizing their Recommended Directions Report on population, urban land and employment policies, and in the implementing amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan. City staff is satisfied that, in general, the recommended directions for commercial policy provide the basis for appropriate amendments to the Regional Official Plan. City staff is satisfied with some of the recommended directions on rural resources but disagrees with a number of the recommended directions including the following: · to delete the current Regional Official Plan policy permitting severances for surplus dwellings from a non-abutting farm, severances of farm retirement lots, country residential subdivisions and cemeteries in the agricultural areas; · to require amendments to the Regional Official Plan for stand-alone farm-related commercial uses and associated lot-creation; and · to merge the Region's two Agricultural Area designations into one land use designation that would permit only agricultural and farm-related uses. Golf course proposals would not be permitted in the newly merged Agricultural Area designation. City staff recommends that a new rural 'countryside' designation be established permitting agriculture, agri-tourism, and non-agriculture countryside uses (spas, rural theaters, etc.)in near-urban areas. Similarly, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions for achieving a sustainable and healthy environment but requests that the direction requiring an Environmental Impact Study (ELS) for development in proximity to natural hedtage features be clarified. The ElS table, which establishes distances from natural heritage features that would trigger an ElS, should only be used when regional official plan amendments are necessary and when local official plans have no rural area policies in place. The Regional Official Plan Review is proceeding ahead of the Province's finalization of the Greenbelt Act/Greenbelt Plan, Places to Grow Act~Plan, Ontario Municipal Board Reforms, and revised Provincial Policy Statement. It is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan amendments that would implement the recommended directions until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed. This will allow the Region to incorporate any necessary revisions into the draft amendments and thus avoid the need to recirculate the draft amendments. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Januaw 11,2005 Page 4 Background: 1.0 Durham Regional Official Plan {DROP) Review: 1.1 Regional staff releases the "Recommended Directions Report dated October 2004" for review and comment. The Regional Report recommends directions for the environment, rural and commercial components of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. In response to the submissions that were received, the Region has indicated that a further review of population forecasts and urban lands needs is being undertaken. The Region has indicated that the results of that analysis may be further impacted by the ongoing Provincial Growth Management initiative. Therefore, the recommended directions relating to population, employment and urban land needs will be presented to Regional Planning Committee subsequent to the confirmation of Provincial Growth Management directives at a later date. 2.0 Discussion: 2.1 Staff acknowledges and appreciates that the "Recommended Directions Report" largely respects the earlier City recommendation that the RegiOn pursue more strategic policies that do not unduly duplicate policies in local official plans. The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose that Natural Heritage Features be shown on a new Schedule of the DROP. However, the scale of the mapping on the proposed new Regional Official Plan Natural Heritage Schedule allows for detailed mapping to be provided in local official plan schedules. This retains an acceptable level of local municipal control over detailed implementation of natural heritage policies. A number of other directions have been revised to appropriately remove the duplication with local official plan policies. The level of policy duplication had been a matter of concern in the earlier Discussion Papers. 2.2 The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose an overly restrictive policy approach for Pickering's rural area, whereas a "Countryside" policy approach would be more appropriate. The recommended directions for "Protecting our Rural Resources" continues to view Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing that the rural areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different characteristics, contexts, and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas located north and well east of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to urban areas is more typically mixed and diverse. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11, 2005 Page 5 Rather than build on the differences, the Region is continuing to propose to collapse the two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Aqricultural Reserve" and "General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and farm-related land uses. The designations relate purely to soil capability and do not consider social or economic influences on rural land. While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with the Pickering's Official Plan policy and the City's Growth Management Study to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy. In keeping with this approach, a new Countryside Area designation and associated policies is recommended for inclusion in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas in north and east Durham Region. The Countryside designation would permit a broader range of complementary uses beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses. As well, it is appropriate to restrict the location of intensive agricultural operations adjacent to Pickering's urban areas that are only subject to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae. Instead, staff is recommending that the Region provide significant buffers for intensive livestock operations thereby reducing the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby urban residents. Lot Creation Policies Despite Pickering Council comments in favour of retaining the policy to permit severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the DROP, the "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to delete this current provision of the DROP. Further, despite Pickering Council comments to continue the policy that permits consideration of one farm retirement lot from a total farm holding, the "Recommended Directions Report" recommends deletion. Further, despite of Pickering's support for the earlier Regional position to permit 'stand-alone' farm-related commercial uses, including severances, for this purpose on an as-of-right basis, the "Recommended Directions Report" now recommends continuation of the current policy to permit such uses only by amendment to the DROP. Hamlet Growth Policies The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes a new direction to guide the growth of hamlets. The earlier Discussion Paper proposed detailed guidelines for the onerous settlement capacity studies required to justify hamlet growth. The "Recommended Directions Report" now proposes a firm limit of 25 percent to the growth of each hamlet and that hamlet development may proceed within this limit if technical studies (hydrogeological and environmental) conclude that private services will be sustainable. Staff generally supports this approach. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11,2005 Page 6 2.3 3.0 Golf Courses The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to prohibit golf courses on all agricultural lands. While staff agrees that golf courses should not be permitt~-~ on prime agricultural lands (class 1, 2 & 3 soils) that are designated Agricultural Area or Major Open Space System in the Regional Official Plan, we propose that golf courses should be permitted on lands with lower capability soils with either designation, by amendment to the local official plan. This approach is consistent with the policies in the Province's Draft Greenbelt Plan for 'Rural Area' lands. Country Residential Subdivisions Despite Pickering Council recommendations to the contrary, the "Recommended Directions Report" continues to recommend the prohibition of any new country residential subdivisions in the rural area. Staff recommends that Pickering Council request the Region to retain the existing policy to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions by amendment to the Regional Official Plan. Council should request the Region to address the City's comments on the Recommended Directions prior to initiating amendments to the ROP. A copy of staff's detailed comments on the recommended directions is provided for Council's review and endorsement (see Appendix I). Further, as the Table shows, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions. However, staff is recommending a number of minor revisions to the recommended directions and, in some cases, requiring further clarification. It is recommended that Council request the Region to address the City's comments raised in this Report on the Recommended Directions of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review prior to preparing amendments to the ROP. Council should request that Regional staff incorporate policy changes from the various proposed Provincial Government policy initiatives in the proposed amendments to the Durham Region Official Plan before they are circulated for comment. The Greenbelt Act, 2004, the Draft Greenbelt Plan, the Places to Grow Act, Plan and Regulations, Ontario Municipal Board Reform, Planning Act Reform and a revised Provincial Policy Statement (under the Planning Act) may each include new directions to govern municipal official plan policy not anticipated by the recommended directions of the Regional Official Plan Review. While not proposing that the Region defer further consideration of all aspects of the DROP Review until details of the emerging policies are available such as the commercial review, it is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan amendments until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed. Proposed amendments on rural, environmental and urban policies would be affected. Delaying release of these key draft amendments would avoid the need to recirculate multiple revisions to the policy. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11, 2005 Page 7 APPENDIX Detailed Comments on the Region of Durham "Recommended Directions Report" dated October 2004 Official Plan Review Attachments: 1. Regional Staff Response to Pickering Comments Provided in Report PD 06-04 2. Text of Report PD 06-04 3. City Council Resolution #27/04, Item #2 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPI¢ Manager, Policy N[il da~'r~l~', RPP Director, ¢fanf~ng & Development SG:Id Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Divisio H~orate Projects and Policy Recommen~tion of Pickering~~ ~homas J. Ouinn, nistrative Officer APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 06-05 DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW "RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT OCTOBER 2004" 33 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Recommended Directions Towards a sustainable and healthy environment Protecting Watershed Planning Water Resources That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. Staff supports the clearly support the preparation and recommended direction to not require a implementation of watershed plans watershed plans as a prerequisite to as an effective land use planning development. However, previous comment tool in the protection of the recommending that the Region should also Region's natural resources, consider existing and future watershed plans Watershed plans shall be prepared in reviewing development proposals or in accordance with currently infrastructure projects was not incorporated. accepted practices. It is recommended that additional wording be That the ROP be amended to included as follows: acknowledge that the municipalities will work with the "That the ROP be amended to conservation authorities to ensure acknowledge that the municipalities will that the appropriate policies to work with the conservation authorities to ~mplement specific watershed ensure that the appropriate policies to )lans are incorporated into the implement specific watershed plans are respective official plans, incorporated into the respective official plans, and that the Region consider watershed plans and local implementation strategies in their review of development proposals and infrastructure projects." Water Quantity Protection That the ROP be amended to Requires clarification. require that applications for development (excepting wetland The types of development applications that restoration projects and domestic requires a study should be specified (e.g. LD, usage and livestock operations) C orA, OPA, and ZBL). As well, the issue of' that require a Permit to Take peer reviews and any required monitoring Water, or that have the potential to imposed, as a condition of approval impact water quantity, be previously raised by Picketing, has not been accompanied by a study verifying satisfactorily addressed by Regional staff. that there is sufficient water supply to support the proposed use and, on a cumulative basis, confirm that there are no impacts on surrounding water users and the natural environment. Page 1 34 Protecting That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need toreviewRegional Water include policies that promote and poficy in order to determine how it would be Resources support water conservation, implemented at the local level. (continued) Infiltration (recharge) That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need to review Regional require development in the rural policy in order to determine how it would be area to maintain and where implemented at the local level. possible enhance infiltration and recharge functions. Within urban areas, the policy should seek to minimize hard surfaces through the review of development applications and the use of alternative municipal standards where practical. Aquifer Vulnerability Areas That the ROP be amended to: Partially Agree. However, it appears that all · add a figure in the form of a map development proposals abutting or in that illustrates high aquifer proximity to a high vulnerability area would vulnerability areas; be required to carry out a hydro~leological · require that area municipalities study. The scale/type of development incorporate high aquifer applications that would be required to vulnerability area mapping into undertake these studies in the rural and their respective official plan, and Urban areas requires clarification. Also, it is that the mapping be refined unclear as to why applications for through the preparation of more development in high aquifer areas within detailed studies such as urban areas require a contaminant watershed studies; management plan while applications within · require applications for the rural areas do not. development abutting or in proximity to a high aquifer vulnerability area to carry out a hydrogeological investigation verifying the degree of vulnerability of the site; · require applications for development in high aquifer vulnerability areas within urban areas, be accompanied by a contaminant management plan that defines the approach to the mitigation of impacts; · restrict land uses in high aquifer vulnerability areas within the rural area that have the potential to contaminate groundwater unless it can be verified through an appropriate study that the site is not considered to be a high aquifer vulnerability area; and Page 2 Protecting · encourage existing land uses Water that have the potential to Resources contaminate groundwater in (continued) these areas to develop best management practices such as: safe storing/handling waste; restriction on volumes of chemicals/material stored on site; - routine inspections; - spill contingencies; and - road salt management plans. Abandoned Wells That the DROP be amended to Agree. However, the policy should require include a policy that abandoned the landowner to be responsible for wells and boreholes be properly decommissioning abandoned wells and decommissioned, boreholes. Groundwater Discharge Area That the ROP be amended to add a Agree. However, the scale/type of general policy requiring development development applications that would be applications in areas where subject to this policy requires clarification. groundwater discharge could be significantly impacted, to demonstrate that alteration to groundwater flows will be minimized. Regional Wellhead P. rotection Areas That the ROP be amended to: There are no Regional wells in Pickering. · illustrate the capture zones and associated time of travel zones for the wellhead protection areas on an appropriate map; · prohibit the following uses with respect to land in wellhead protection areas: storage, except by an individual for personal or family use of: · petroleum fuels; · petroleum solvents and chlorinated solvents; · pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; · construction equipment; · inorganic fertilizers; · road salt; Page 3 ;~aper Areas : Protecting · contaminants listed in Water Schedule 3 (Severely Resources Toxic Contaminants) to (continued) Regulation 347 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990; and · any other use that could adversely affect the quality and quantity of groundwater reaching a well; · prohibit the following uses with respect to land in the zero to two year time of travel zone within every wellhead protection area: storage of animal manure except by an individual for personal or family use; animal agriculture, except by an individual for personal or family use; and - storage of agricultural equipment, except by an individual for personal or family use; · require every person who carries on a restricted use listed as owner or operator, prepare and maintain a site management and contingency plan that is aimed at reducing or eliminating the creation of restricted materials and their release into the environment; · require that once a preferred location for a new municipal well has been determined, the ROP should illustrate the capture zones and include policies to protect these zones; and · require area municipal official plans to incorporate wellhead protection areas and associated time of travel zones, as well as policies restricting uses that have the potential to negatively impact groundwater quality and quantity reaching the well. Page 4 3? Protecting Hydrogeological Studies Water Resources That the Region develop a Agree. However, the development of the (continued) hydrogeological study guideline on hydrogeological guidelines should also be how to hydrogeological studies prepared in consultation with local should be prepared, study municipalities and conservation authorities. components and matters that should be confirmed through the study to ensure adverse impacts are minimized. Enhancing Natural Heritage System Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to: Agree with recognizing a Natural Heritage Features System consisting of a number of features. · recognize a Natural Heritage Pickering staff agrees with the Region System for the Region, identifying only Provincially and/or regionally consisting of: significant features. significant wetlands; significant areas of natural and scientific interest; fish habitat (including all permanent and intermittent streams); significant habitat of endangered and threatened species; significant wildlife habitat; significant valleylands; and significant woodlands; · delete the environmentally sensitive areas illustrated on Map A and replace it with a separate map illustrating a Natural Heritage System; · require that where environmental features, such as significant wildlife habitat and valleylands have not been identified on the Natural Heritage System mapping, these areas be identified through watershed plans or through the review of development applications in consultation with the appropriate conservation authority; · require area municipal official plans to detail mapping of the natural heritage system and allow for the exact boundaries, or refinements to boundaries, of the Natural Heritage System to be determined through watershed plans or site investigations prepared for development applications. Page 5 Enhancing · in order to provide guidance to Natural how they are identified, the Heritage definitions of the natural Features heritage system components (continued) should be included in an appendix of the ROP; · prohibit development and site alteration within the Natural Heritage System, with the exception of the following permitted uses, provided the environmental integrity is maintained: - forest, fish and wildlife management; conservation and flood or erosion control projects; transportation, infrastructure and utilities; Iow intensity recreational uses; and existing agricultural operations; · recognize that, with the exception of provincially significant wetlands or endangered and threatened species, aggregate extraction and agricultural related structures may be permitted in the Natural Heritage System, provided the environmental integrity is maintained; and , require that in the event that portions of the Natural Heritage System are damaged or destroyed, there should be no adjustment to the boundary of these areas, and the Region should require replacement or rehabilitation of the ecological features, functions and/or landforms. Vegetative Setbacks That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. The recommended direction require that in the consideration of should be clarified to indicate that the ElS development located in proximity to Requirement Table, which establishes a Natural Heritage feature, the distances from natural heritage features that ROP requii'e an Environmental would trigger an Environmental Impact Impact Study, which shall, among Study, should only be used when other matters, establish an amendments to the Regional Official Plan undeveloped vegetative setback, are required and when local official plans Proximity shall be defined as have no policies for its rural areas in place. outlined in the table below. Page 6 Enhancing An ElS may be scoped to suit It should be noted that the Pickering Official Natural individual circumstances. Plan already includes a chart outlining the Heritage conditions under which an Environmental Features Report may be requested for development (continued) (see Natural Heritage Features ElS applications not requiring an amendment to Requirements Table in Attachment #1 the Regional Official Plan. to this Appendix) It is recommended that additional wording be added as follows: "That the ROP be amended to require that in the consideration of applications for local official plan, draft plan or zoning amendments within an area municipality whose official plan does not contain rural policies, or applications to amend the Regional Official Plan proposing development located in proximity to a Natural Heritage feature, the ROP require an Environmental Impact Study, which shall, among other matters, establish an undeveloped vegetative setback. Proximity shall be defined as outlined in the table below. An ElS may be scoped to suit individual circumstances." Woodland Target That the ROP be amended to Partially agree with increasing woodland establish a target for woodland coverage. It is more appropriate for the coverage of 30% of the Region's various watershed plans to establish land area. Studies such as woodland coverage targets for each Watershed plans may vary the watershed than establishing a general target woodland target for a watershed of 30% for the entire Region. that is in keeping with the overall target of 30%. The use of It is recommended that the ROP not indigenous tree species to achieve establish a woodland coverage target of this target is encouraged. 30% for the entire Region and, instead require watershed plans to establish appropriate targets for each watershed. Corridors and Linkages That the Major Open Space Agree with protecting linkages and corridors System designation be examined at the Regional scale. However, need to to confirm that all corridors and review Regional policy in order to determine linkages that should be recognized how it would be implemented at the local at the Regional scale are level. appropriately designated. Further, that the existing policies of the ROP be strengthened to encourage the protection of linkages and corridors in the consideration of development applications and the formulation of more detailed policies in the area municipal official plans. Page 7 Enhancing Urban Tree Strategy Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to Agree. Features encourage the preparation of area (continued) municipal tree strategies that will advance the implementation of the woodlands coverage target. Land Securement Strategy That the ROP be amended to: Agree. The recommended direction expands on the previous proposed direction · require an indication of the in terms of the Region's role in land Region's support for the use of securement and the tools that may be used land securement tools such as in securing lands. Pickering had previously acquisition, stewardship and requested that up to two severances be conservation easements as a considered for the severance of land for means of enhancing the natural heritage conservation purposes Region's natural environment, where acquisition is sought by municipalities, Securement efforts should focus conservation authorities or non-prefit on areas identified as part of the entities. natural heritage system, including the targeted areas; It is recommended that: · require the following factors to be considered when determining "...Two severances may be permitted for Regional involvement in land this purpose where it adjusts a property securement efforts, but not boundary or creates a lot, provided that the limited to: severed parcel is rezoned to permit only - damaged or degraded lands; natural heritage conservation uses." - nature and immediacy of threats to the land; - proximity to existing property in public ownership; and - the overall cost of purchase and long term management of the lands; and permit the acquisition of land in appropriate locations by municipalities, conservation authorities or non-profit entities for natural heritage conservation purposes. A severance may be permitted for this purpose where it adjusts a property boundary or creates a lot, provided that the severed parcel is rezoned to permit only natural heritage conservation uses. Trails That the ROP be amended to Agree. It should be noted that Picketing indicate that the Region will work staff is participating in the Regional Trail with the area municipalities and Coordinating Committee for the purpose of other stakeholders to develop a developing a Regional Trail network. Regional Trail Network. Page 8 Enhancing Lake Iroquois Shoreline Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. This is a new direction Features identify the Lake Iroquois Shoreline recommended by Regional staff.. However (continued) on the Natural Heritage Schedule need to review Regional po/icy in order to and general policies be added to determine how it would be implemented at maintain and enhance the the local/eve/. /t should be noted that the significant landforms and Pickering Official P/an recognizes the former environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline by both po/icy and lands, designation. Improving Air Air Quality Quality That appropriate amendments to Agree. the ROP addressing air quality be implemented through the Transportation Master Plan. That the ROP be amended to: · acknowledge the potential implications of climate change, and indicate an intent to respond as knowledge and understanding of what can be done from a planning perspective to mitigate impacts emerges; · require that in the planning and development of the Region, consideration be given to improving air quality; · indicate the Region's intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants generated by its own activities and functions; and · include a policy supporting alternative renewable, green energy sources. Measuring the Health and Sustainability Health and Sustainability That the ROP be amended to: Agree. of the Region's Communities · add a new goal to encourage community planning and design that enhances public health and safety; and · encourage the inclusion of policies in the area municipal official plans that promote healthy and safe living environments. Page 9 Environmental Contaminated Sites Policy Considerations That the ROP be amended to: Agree. · encourage area municipalities to include provisions in their Official Plan to outline the process that must be satisfied prior to development proceeding in areas where soil contamination is known or suspected; and · include a general policy that prior to considering an approval for development, proponents shall ensure that contaminated sites are cleaned up such that there will be no adverse effect, in accordance with provincial guidelines. It is also recommended that the ROP include a provision that the Region support the remediation of contaminated sites through various programs and initiatives Light Pollution That the ROP be amended to Agree. encourage local municipalities to incorporate policies in their official plans and to adopt lighting standards to minimize light pollution. Page 10 ape Area~ ~eco mmenaea wreczJons Commercial Policy Review Planning for Commercial Planning Future Commercial That the ROP be amended to Agree. A more general commercial Development establish criteria to define Regional framework in the ROP is appropriate. interest in commercial planning as However, the po/icy should be clarified to follows: indicate that the Region's interest in commercial planning should be focused on · any commercial proposal of proposals that would have the potential to 56,000 m2 or larger, on an negatively impact the planned function of individual or cumulative basis; Main Central Areas/Regional Centres · any commercial proposal instead of all CentralAreas. requiring a market population of 75,000 or more; and It is recommended that the wording in the · any commercial proposal that third point be revised as follows: would have the potential to negatively impact the planned "any commercial proposal that would have function ofCentralAreas, the potential to negatively impact the planned function of Regional Centres." Commercial Central Hierarchy Hierarchy and Central Area That the ROP be amended to Agree. More general principles relating to require that Sub-Central Areas will the role, scale and form of Central Areas in be designated in area municipal the ROPis appropriate. official plans similar to Community and Local Central Areas (policy 9.3.1). Floor Space Floor Space Allocations Allocations for Central Areas That the ROP be amended to Agree. The removal of the retail floor space delete the policy allocating a/locations in the ROP as a means of floorspace to Central Areas (policy directing and controlling commercial growth 9.3.3). is appropriate. Requirements Market Studies for Market Studies It is recommended that the ROP be Agree. The removal of the retail impact amended to: study requirement is appropriate. However, minor expansions to existing regional · require a retail impact study for 'centres' should be exempt from the applications which would result in requirements for a reta# impact study. the expansion of an existing Central Area that would be of "Regional Interest" (policy 9.3,6); · delete the policies directing area municipal councils to require i retail impact studies (policies 9.3.7 and 9.3.8); and · add a new policy to require a retail impact study for any retail commercial development proposal that is of "Regional Interest". Page 11 paer, Ar ~ecomrnenaea u~rec~ons sta~ ~ommen~ peas Nodes and Centres and Corridors Corridors That the ROP be amended to: · provide a clear policy framework Agree. However, the policy framework at for "Centres and Corridors" the Regional level should provide direction to including policies to establish local municipalities to provide detail policies Regional corridors as areas of and designations promoting these areas for intensive mixed-use mixed-use development. development and to encourage similar direction for local corridors; · amend the Regional Structure Map 'A' to designate "Regional Corridors"; and · delete policies related to Special Purpose Commercial uses. Commercial Pending the completion of No comment. Uses in Employment Lands Study. Employment Areas Urban Form Pending completion of Arterial No comment. Road Corridor Design Guidelines Study Retail Growth Retail Growth and Location of New That Policy 9.3.6 be further Agree. Commercial amended to: Areas · delete the requirement for the Region to require the preparation of a retail impact study for the designation of a new "Centre", unless it is determined to be of "Regional Interest"; · specify that area municipalities shall be responsible for designating new "Local Centres", having regard to Policy 9.3.2; and · require that the designation of any new Regional Centres shall be by amendment to the ROP. Page 12 Protecting Our Rural Resources Rural Consent Surplus Farm Dwellings (Non- Disagree. There is no need to change the Policies Abutting Farms) current ROP po/icy. That the ROP be amended by It is recommended that the Region retain deleting policy 12.3.12, which policy 12.3.12 that permits consideration provides for the consideration of of the severance of a surplus dwelling the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment. from a non-abutting farm by amendment. Retirement lots That the ROP be amended to Disagree. There is no need to change the delete policy 12.3.13, which current ROP, as the po/icy is a/ready permits the consideration of one restrictive. farm retirement lot from the total farm holding. It is recommended that the Region retain policy 12.3.13 that permits consideration of one farm retirement lot from the total farm holding. Farm-related Industrial Uses Agree. That the ROP continue to provide the current general framework for the consideration of farm-related industrial uses in Agricultural Areas and the Major Open Space system, but be amended to: · provide policies to guide the consideration of lot creation for such uses; and · require area municipalities to provide details in their respective official plans. Farm-related Commercial Uses Disagree. The ROP should provide genera/ 9olicies for these uses and local OP's provide That the original proposed direction the detailed policies for "stand a/one" farm- to permit "stand-alone" farm- related comrnercia/ uses. Amendments to related commercial uses in the local OP's are the most appropriate Agricultural Areas and Major Open rnechanism to evaluate these uses as Space System, as-of-right, not be opposed to amending the ROP. pursued. It is recornmended that: "That the ROP be amended to indicate that "stand-alone" farm-related commercial uses in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space System may be considered by amendment to the ROP or an area municipal official plan where appropriate policies are in place." Page 13 , Recommended Directions staff com me Areas : Rural Consent Lot Line Adjustments Policies (continued) That the ROP be amended to Agree. clarify policy 12.3.15, wh ich provides for the consideration of severances for minor lot line adjustments. Rural Hamlets Settlement Partially agree. The recommended direction Policies That the ROP be amended to: to limit the scale of ham/et growth to 25% of existing development is reasonable and · clarify the policies to reflect the would be consistent with the Oak Rides form, type and limited scale of Moraine Conservation Plan and draft development intended for Greenbelt P/an relating to ham/et growth. Hamlets; However, it should be recognized that, similar · incorporate policies that to the ORM Conservation Plan and Draft establish a firm limit to Hamlet Greenbelt Plan, the size limit for any development of 25% of existing particular hamlet could be reviewed when development or the current future comprehensive reviews of the Regional development potential identified Official P/an are undertaken. in area municipal planning documents, whichever is greater; and · clarify that Hamlet development may only proceed if required technical studies conclude that development on private individual services will be sustainable. Country Residential Subdivisions Disagree. There is no need to change the That the ROP be amended to: current ROP po/icy as it permits country residential subdivisions subject to meeting · delete the polices that provide stringent criteria. for the consideration of new Country Residential It is recommended that the Region retain Subdivisions; and the current policy that permits · add policies to clarify that no consideration of country residential new Country Residential subdivision proposals by amendment to Subdivisions will be permitted to the ROP, locate in the rural area. Rural Clusters Residential lnfilling That the ROP be amended by No comment. deleting those parts of policy 13.3.14 that permit the identification of new clusters. The remainder of policy 13.3.14, which 3ermits lot creation within clusters already identified in planning documents, will be retained. Page 14 Rural 10-Acre Lots Residential Infilling That the ROP be amended by No comment. (continued) deleting policy 13.3.16, which provides for the consideration of severances for rural residential infilling within concentrations .of 4 hectare (10 acre)lots. Rural Rural Employment Areas "' Settlement That the ROP be amended: No comment. Policies · to permit limited Rural Employment Areas only in the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge and the Municipality of Clarington, subject to the preparation of a comprehensive industrial study for the municipality; and · to provide guidance, by adding specific study requirements that must be followed to establish the need and location of new Rural Employment Areas. Rural Golf courses Non-farm Use Policies That the ROP be amended to: Partially agree. Pickering had recommended that golf courses be · prohibit golf courses in orohibited from prime agricultural areas but Agricultural Areas; should be permitted by amendment on/ands · require all proposed new golf of lower agricultural capability. In Pickering, courses and golf course there are limited opportunities for golf expansions in the Region be courses in the urban areas due to /and considered by amendment to constraints and in the open space system the ROP or an area municipal due to natural heritage features. The amendment where appropriate Countryside Area designation proposed by policies are in place; Pickering would permit tourism and · require that all amendment recreational uses. Golf course proposals applications for new or would be assessed through the current expanding golf course be official plan amendment process. accompanied by the required technical studies including: It is recommended that: - a hydrogeological study; and - a Best Management "Golf courses may be considered by Practices report that amendment to the Countryside Area addresses design, designation to the ROP or an area construction and operational municipal official plan where appropriate considerations, including policies are in place." traffic; and Page 15 Rural In the event that the Countryside Area Non-farm Use designation is not endorsed by the Regiona/ Policies P/anning Committee, it is recommended (continued) that the Region permit the consideration of golf course proposals in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space System subject to an amendment to the ROP or an area municipal official plan where appropriate policies are in place.' · limit the scale of clubhouses and other associated uses in rural Agree. areas to ensure such uses will be secondary to the primary use of the golf course. Regional Nodes That the ROP be amended by: Agree. · deleting the policies and designations as they pertain to Regional Nodes in Urban Areas; · deleting policies pertaining to the consideration and establishment of new Regional Nodes in the rural area; and · adding policies to "grandfather" existing rural Regional Nodes in order to allow for their continued recognition and planning status. Aggregate Resources Areas That the ROP policies be amended: Protection of Si,qn f cant A.q.qre.qate No comment. Resource Potential Areas · to reflect new (current) geological, socio-cultural and environmental constraint information and license status of aggregate resource extraction areas (Map 'A', Map 'C' and Schedule 4);to delete the study requirements contained in policies 19.2.2 and 19.2.4, but retain the policy intent of protecting such features/resources; Page 16 Rural Assessment of Potential Impacts Non-farm Use from A,q,qre.qate Operations Policies (continued) · to specify that Site Plans and technical reports, as required by the Provincial standards established under the Aggregate resources Act and Regulations, should be submitted, where appropriate, at the time aggregate related amendment applications are being considered, to address the requirements of the ROP; · to require an assessment of operational aspects of pits and quarries; such as exhaust emissions and lighting impacts, and that the Plan require that mitigation measures be provided for all potential impacts of the operation, at the time aggregate related amendment applications are being considered; · to clarify policy 19A.3.9 (b)(v) by indicating that the required assessment of potential impacts on residents in the vicinity of proposed resource extraction areas or aggregate-related industrial uses, should address the considerations and concerns identified in the remainder of policy 19A.3.9: Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries · revise policy 19A.3.7 to require No comment. that, in addition to the site-by- site rehabilitation programs, specified in the Aggregate Resources Act, that rehabilitation plans, which are submitted in support of ROP amendment applications, be reviewed in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Study in accordance with policy 2.3.17; and · that such rehabilitation plans be considered in conjunction with adjacent and/or groups of operations in an area, in order to provide for a more comprehensive rehabilitation program; Page 17 :~aper Areas Rural · to provide that the Region take Non-farm Use the lead role in coordinating Policies cross-jurisdictional matters and (continued) identifying opportunities to provide linkages and corridors with natural heritage features when reviewing rehabilitation plans; · to require that: progressive rehabilitation be undertaken in a timely manner in accordance with the approved site plan; the site be restored to blend in with land form patterns of adjacent land; and rehabilitation sites be restored to either the same soil capability as pre- excavation, or to a vegetative state using native sPecies; · to add a policy to encourage area municipalities to continue to participate in the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties (MAAP) Program, to facilitate the rehabilitation of abandoned pits; and, ROP Policy 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6 Conflict · to resolve the policy conflict between Policies 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6 by no longer requiring an amendment in order to make changes to Map 'C'. Peat That the ROP be amended by Agree deleting policies relating to the regulation of peat extraction activities. Gas Stations and/or Gas Bars That the ROP be amended by Agree. deleting policy 16.3.34, which permits the consideration of gas stations/gas bars in the Agricultural Area and Major Open Space System. Page 18 5;.' ; Recommended Directions Staff Commen~ aper: Areas:;::; Rural Other Non-Farm, Non-residential Non-farm Use uses Policies (continued) That the ROP be amended by Agree. deleting cultural and health facilities as permitted uses from policy 5.2.1. Such uses would continue to be permitted in Urban Areas and Hamlets. Cemeteries That the ROP be amended to Disagree. Pickering had recommended that prohibit the establishment of .new the establishment of cemeteries be subject cemeteries in Agricultural Areas. to an amendment to either the ROP or local OP's. It is recommended that the Region retain the current policy that permits consideration of cemeteries subject to the amendment process. Non-Agricultural Uses That the ROP be amended: See comment on One Agricultural Designation below. · to permit non-agricultural uses, such as riding and boarding stable, kennels, allotment gardens and fur and sod farms in the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation on existing lots; and · to provide for area municipal official plans to contain Iocational criteria for such non-agricultural uses in Agricultural Areas. Major Open Spa~;e System That the ROP be amended to Agree. require area municipalities, in their respective Official Plans, to distinguish between recreational uses which are compatible with the character of the open space land in urban, hamlet and rural areas. Page 19 ;~aper Areas: ; Agricultural One Agricultural Designation Areas That the ROP be amended by: Disagree with the recommended direction to merge the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" · merging the "Permanent and "Genera/Agricultural Area" designations Agricultural Reserve" and into one designation. "General Agricultural Area" designations on Map 'A' into one Pickering had recommended that the Region land use designation for the consider two types of rural areas - the near- purpose of agriculture and farm- urban countryside with greater diversity of related uses; and uses, and the more pure agricultural area in · revising thetextaccordingly, north and east Durham. A Countryside designation would permit a wider array of uses such as retail agricultural operations, agri- tourism and non-agricultural countryside uses. The Countryside Area designation would be consistent with the Rural Area policies of the draft Greenbelt Plan. These Rural Area policies support a range of recreational, tourism, and resource-based commercial and industrial and would also permit a full range of agricultural, agricultural-related and secondary uses The City's GMS agricultural analysis concluded that to support the principle of a vibrant countryside in Pickering that a broad range of uses beyond traditional agricultural would be appropriate. The recommended direction does not reflect the reality that the near-urban countryside is truly different from the more pure agricultural areas in north and east Durham. Further, the consideration of intensive agricultural operations adjacent to urban areas, subject only to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae is wholly inadequate. These operations should be appropriately buffered from the urban areas to reduce the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby urban residents. It is recommended that a new Countryside Area designation and associated policies be included in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas of Durham Region. Further, it is recommended that the Countryside and Agricultural policies include provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in proximity to existing and future urban areas. Page 20 Agricultural Accessory Farm Uses Areas (continued) That the ROP be amended to: Agree. · provide a general framework to guide the consideration of accessory farm uses; and · direct area municipalities to include detailed policies in their official plans to address accessory farm uses, including scale, number and potential impacts on surrounding uses. Non-Conforming Uses That the ROP be amended by Agree. clarifying the non-conforming use policy 20.4.4 by adding provisions to prohibit lot creation associated with non-conforming uses. Other Rural Basis, Goals and Directions for the Issues Rural Area That the ROP be amended by: Agree. · clarifying the "Basis, Goals and Directions" (Section 1), to recognize the distinction between urban and rural areas; and · adding policy to the "Basis" section, to acknowledge that natural resources are non- renewable and limited. Housing Policies for Rural Area That the ROP be amended by Agree. clarifying the "Housing" policies (Section 4 and policy 3.3.8 d), to recognize the distinction between urban and rural settlement areas. Rural Population Targets That the ROP be amended by: Partially agree. The rural forecast should represent the capacity planned for Durham's · deleting references to rural rural area to 2031. It is appropriate to population "targets" and consider changes at the next comprehensive replacing the term with review of the ROP. "forecasts"; · disassociating the rural forecast from the ROP's planning time horizon; and · clarifying that the rural forecast represents the maximum capacity planned for Durham's rural area. Page 21 54 Commercial Wind Turbines That the ROP be amended to: Agree. However, including commercial wind turbines under Section 5.2. 6 of the ROP that · include commercial wind relates to public electric power facilities is turbines as an electric power questionable. A new policy may be more facility under Section 5.2.6 of appropriate for commercial green energy the ROP; and enterprises. Commercial solar farms, as a · encourage area municipalities to form of green energy, should also be include policies in their official permitted in any designation. plans, to ensure that commercial wind turbines are located It is recommended that commercial solar appropriately, farms be permitted in any designation. t:\RegionalOPreview~Recommended Directions 2.doc Page 22 Attachment #1 to Appendix I Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Feature Wetlands (evaluated and unevaluated) Endangered & Threatened Habitat Woodlands ElS Requirement 120m. from edge of feature as determined by CA or MNR 50m. from edge of habitat as determined by CA or MNR 50m. from the edge of the feature Significant Valleylands 50m. from top of bank ANSI's 50m. from edge of earth science 120m for life science Fish Habitat, permanent and intermittent streams Significant Wildlife Habitat Greater of: - hazardous land limit - meander belt limit; - 30m from stable top of bank, or as otherwise determined through an ElS 50m from edge of feature as determined by CA or MNR 5G E r- A. TTACHMEN'f # / TO r= .o E 5; 'ATTACHMENT ~ / TO 0 A~ACHIV[ENT # / ~EPOFFI # PO_ _0.~ 0 ~'rI'AOHMEN7 #/~TO ~5~'0~, ~~ ~0~~ ATTACHMENT#_ / TO {:3 o~ .mE n .:-<5 m ~>~m ...... REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 06-04 Date: February 5, 2004 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Discussion Papers- "Proposed Directions" Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Recommendations: That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning & Development be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed Directions" of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion Papers. That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments in Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official Plan, including revising the "Proposed Directions": · to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region; · to restructure the Durham Plan as a more strategic policy document that recognizes the comprehensive area municipal official plans and the increased planning capabilities at the local level; · to eliminate the duplication of official plan policies on matters addressed in area municipal official plans; and · to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from urban settlements. That the .Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early release" of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning Committee on "Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan Review. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. Executive Summary: In June 2003, the Region's consultation for Phase 2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review began with the release of four Discussion Papers. The papers analyze main policy areas identified through Phase 1, including: the environment; the commercial structure; population and employment growth; urban land needs; rural/agriculture areas; and the transportation system. Transportation issues were dealt with through the Region's recent Transportation Master Plan. Report PD 06-04 'ATTACHMENT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 2 The Discussion Papers are simple to read and most of the "Proposed Directions" are easy to understand. The Papers present data on many facets of development in the Region. Regional staff met with City staff on several occasions to discuss the "Proposed Directions". The efforts of Regional staff to produce the Discussion Papers is acknowledged, and their willingness to meet is appreciated. City Planning & Development staff support the intent of the "Proposed Directions": ¢' to redefine the Region's role in commercial developments to large centres having floor areas of greater than 60,000 square metres; ¢' to change the time frame of the Regional Official Plan to 2031, forecasting a population of about 215,000 persons and employment of about 88,000 jobs for Pickering; ¢' to require conservation of the natural environment through sustainable land use and development practices; and ¢' to require conservation of the rural land resource. However, Planning & Development staff does .not support the general approach of the "Proposed Directions": x to wait until at least 2007 to address the identified urban land shortage, in Pickering, and other area municipalities; x to increase the detail of policies on the natural environment, thereby duplicating local official plan policies; and x to add more restrictions to the use of all rural lands throughout the Region, despite the near-urban countryside having a different context than north Durham. The cumulative result of the "Proposed Directions", if pursued, would be greater regional control in local matters. Increased regional involvement is unnecessary given the sophistication of local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area municipalities. Further, 'the role of local decision-making on planning issues would be weakened. The "Proposed Directions", if .followed, would duplicate local official plan policies on matters currently and more appropriately addressed in area municipal plans. Also, the "Proposed Directions" would complicate local planning roles and responsibilities, and delay the current planning process in Durham. The "Proposed Directions" do not provide enough urban land for growth in Durham and Pickering to the year 2031. Also, the urban land analysis did not take account of the natural heritage system of the Seaton lands as identified by the City's Growth Management Study. The effect is a significant shortfall of urban land to accommodate Pickering's 20-year growth targets. This ROP Review needs to establish an urban boundary with a 30-year land supply (not wait until the ROP Review in 2007 as suggested), so area municipalities can complete required secondary plan studies in a timely manner. It is recommended that the "Proposed Directions" be revised to address the City's comments in Report PD 06-04, and that a "Revised Directions" report be prepared, prior to the Region starting amendments to the ROP. 60 Report PD 06-04 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5,2004 Page 3 Financial Implications: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Durham Reqional Official Plan Review: 1.1 Regional Council initiated a two-phased approach to reviewing its Official Plan with the first phase completed in 2001. On April 5, 2000, Regional Council endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Part of the first phase involved releasing a background report, which included a summary and status of the ROP changes that have occurred in the Region since 1991, and an outline of five policy areas suggested for review in the ROP. The background report was circulated to local municipal and other interested stakeholders for review and comment. On December 18, 2000, City Council endorsed Report PD 46-00 (Revised) and requested that the Region of Durham address the issues raised in the City's Report in the review of the ROP. The City supported the review of the policy areas suggested by the Region and identified other issues for review including: · the review and update of housing policies to reflect changes to Provincial legislation and programs; · consideration of removing urban separator designations from the major open space system; · specific designations for a future extension of Clements Road in Ajax, Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townline Road north of Finch, Dixie Road, and the freeway to freeway connector between Highways 401 and 407; and · a number of technical issues. Subsequently, Regional Council considered the results of the consultation process undertaken for Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review and endorsed the following policy areas for review: · environment/open space policy; · commercial structure; · population and employment growth; · urban land requirements; · rural/agriculture policy; and · transportation system. Report PD 06-04 ' ATTACHMEI~IT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 4 1.2 1.3 Durham's Planning Committee authorized Regional staff to consult on the "Proposed Directions" of the Phase 2 ROP Review Discussion Papers. On June 24, 2003, Regional Planning Committee authorized staff to initiate the consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review. Regional staff released four Discussion Papers with "Proposed Directions", as follows: Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment - Directions on environmental issues propose significant detail and restrictions; main topics focus on water resources, natural heritage features, air quality and the health and sustainability of the Region's communities. Population, Employment and Urban Land Directions on growth management policies do not address land supply shortage; main topics include updated population, household, dwelling unit and employment forecasts to the year 2031, and urban land supply. Commercial Policy Review Directions on retailing and commercial issues relax Regional role in commercial matters; main topics discussed include the commercial hierarchy and Central Area definition, floor space allocations, nodes and corridors, and urban form. Protecting our Rural Resources - Directions on rural and agricultural issues propose more detail and severe use restrictions; main topics addressed include the agricultural land base, fragmentation, incompatible uses, rural settlements and non-farm uses. These four Discussion Papers were focused on the analysis of the policy areas identified in Phase 1 of the ROP Review. The transportation system was reviewed as part of the Region's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). On December 17, 2003, Regional Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) including specific revisions to address the City's concerns. Pickering Council received Report PD 29-03 regarding consultation process underway for Phase 2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review. On July 4, 2003, Pickering Council considered Report PD 29-03 regarding the consultation process for Phase 2 of the ROP Review. Report PD 06-04 ' A~CI'ACHMENT #~T0 RE. POR'r # PD__.O_~_.- O Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 5 1.4 2.0 2.1 At that time, City staff advised that the "Proposed Directions" included major changes to the natural environment and other policy areas in the ROP, and that the rationale for these "Proposed Directions" required clarification and discussion with Regional staff and other agencies. In addition, the implications of the "Proposed Directions" on the Pickering Official Plan and the Growth Management Study were being reviewed. As part of the Region's consultation process, a Public Information Session was held in Pickering to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions" in the Region's Discussion Papers. Public Information Sessions were held across the Region (one for each of the local municipalities) to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions". Four people attended the Pickering session, held on September 17, 2003, in the Central Library auditorium. Also, Regional staff met three times with Pickering staff to discuss issues. DISCUSSION: Staff supported a ROP Review that would result in a more strategic and visionary document for growth and development in Durham to 2031. The "Proposed Directions" do not build upon the important role of local Councils to make decisions on planning issues. City staff suggested during Phase 1 of the ROP Review that the new Plan set long-term strategic directions for Durham, as six of the eight local municipalities now have comprehensive official plans. By focusing on a streamlined Regional Plan, area municipal official plans would be able to refine the broad long-term directions into detailed policies and designations that reflect local conditions. The consultants retained by the Region to undertake the commercial review also shared this view. They concluded: The level of detail for retail commercial planning in the current Plan continues to reflect the Region's historic role as having the primary responsibility for planning in the Region. Many aspects of this role are now capably performed by the area municipalities, often creating a perceived duplication in the work done at the Region. The Region's continued role in the development approval process which includes reviewing and commenting on applications for developments which are not regional in their scale, role or function is dated and is not in keeping with the objective of downloading responsibilities to the area municipalities where there is no clear regional interest. Report PD 06-04 A~-TAOHMENT ,f~TO REPOR'i ¢ PD IO_/o - (2 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 6 2.2 Currently, the Region provides only technical comments on local applications circulated by area municipalities. However, the Region has approval power on local official plan amendments. The Region should be providing more substantial comments and analysis on local applications in place of proposing more detail in their Plan and requiring more uses to be established only by amendment to the Regional Official Plan. Only fundamental challenges to strategic Regional Plan matters (such as urban area boundaries) should require a Regional Plan Amendment. A more strategic Regional Plan would build on the well-developed local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area municipalities. A more strategic Regional Plan could be achieved by removing policies that duplicate local official plans. Alternately, certain Regional Plan policies could apply only where no approved local official plan is in place. The "Proposed Directions" do not reflect differences within the Region, resulting in an overly detailed and restrictive policy approach for the environment and the rural area. The "Proposed Directions" in the Discussion Papers, if pursued, would duplicate local official plan policies, complicate municipal planning roles and responsibilities, and impede the quality and efficiency of the current planning process in Durham. The value of requiring more amendments to the ROP, especially where comprehensive local official plans are in place, is questionable. The "Proposed Directions" would effectively remove much of the responsibility for local planning issues from local Councils to the Region. Specifically, the Discussion Paper on "Protecting our Rural Resources" considers Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing the differences that are reflected in local official plans. The Region is proposing to collapse the two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and "General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and farm-related land uses. The rural areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different characteristics, contexts, and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas located north and well east of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to urban areas is more typically mixed and diverse. While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with Pickering's Official Plan policy to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy. This could be achieved by permitting a broader range of complementary uses beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses. It would be appropriate for the "Proposed Directions" to be revised to establish two different 'rural areas' for inclusion in the ROP, which better recognizes the diverse rural conditions. Report PD 06-04 ¢,TTAOHMEI~T ~¢~T0 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 7 2.3 Also, Regional staff proposes using the policies contained in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as the basis for many of the "Proposed Directions" on the natural environment. Justification for using an approach based on the ORMCP is required, given that the Oak Ridges Moraine is so unique and significant. The proposed Direction to establish 'standard' setbacks from natural heritage features in the rural area is inappropriate, Setbacks are typically established through detailed environmental reports at the local level through site-specific review. City staff agrees with the importance of conserving the environmental system. However, the detailed policies are more appropriate in local official plans. The Region should build on those policies, and local decisions, in a collaborative manner. The "Proposed Directions" in the rural discussion paper are proposing that all new golf course proposals and golf course expansions be considered by amendment to the ROP. The current ROP policy permits the establishment of golf courses within urban areas, Major Open Space System and Waterfront designations, subject to an amendment to either the ROP or local official plans. There is no value to the planning process by duplicating local planning efforts. The ROP should provide broad strategic directions for golf course proposals and rely on local official plans to provide detailed implementation policies. Regional staff has indicated that many of the "Proposed Directions" are primarily for the benefit of the Townships of Brock and Uxbridge where there is no local official plan coverage for the rural areas. The Region should consider a two-tier planning document that prescribes broader strategic policies for local municipalities with comprehensive official plans and more detailed policies for the municipalities without rural official plan coverage. This is in keeping with the current ROP where some policies are not to be applied where local official plan policies are in place. It is unnecessary and confusing to include detailed policies and maps on the same topic in both regional and local official plans. This Official Plan Review needs to address Pickering's urban land needs in light of the area of natural heritage features on the Seaton lands, The "Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper identifies most of Seaton, with the exception of the areas designated Open Space System in the current Pickering Official Plan (POP), as being developable (see Attachment #1 -Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay). The Discussion Paper includes a summary of land surplus or deficit for the period from 2001 to 2031 for Pickering. The Region estimates a shortfall of urban land for Pickering of 112 hectares at 2026. Report PD 06-04 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 8 2.4 A more recent analysis of the Seaton lands, as part of the City's on-going Growth Management Study (GMS), has found that a significant portion of the Living Area and Employment Area in the Regional Map is part of a natural heritage system (see Attachment #2 - Region Designations with Pickering Growth Management Study Natural Heritage Overlay). Further, the Main Central Area in the Regional Map is located within the Urfe Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA), a large core environmental area. It is estimated that approximately 330 hectares of Living Area and 500 hectares of Employment Area would be lost to this expanded natural heritage system. The Discussion Paper assumes 50% of the land designated Living Area remains to be developed as residential. The other 50% is used for roads, schools, parks, commercial, and stormwater management facilities. By contrast, the City's Growth Management Study assumes only 35% of the Living Area for residential development. There is a concern that the assumption in the Discussion Paper over estimates the number of houses that can be built on the land designated Living Area. With updated information on the Seaton lands, and different assumptions about lands required for other community services and facilities, the urban land shortfall for Pickering occurs sooner than 2021. Pickering's 20-year growth targets cannot be accommodated within its current urban area boundary. The "Proposed Directions" do not provide sufficient lands for growth in Durham and Pickering. The shortfall of urban land needs to be addressed now instead of reviewing adjustments to the urban area boundaries as part of the next comprehensive 5-year ROP Review in 2007. Despite significant growth in Durham Region projected by 2021 and 2031, the "Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper is proposing to maintain the current urban boundaries, and to give consideration to adjustments to the urban area boundaries as part of the next comprehensive 5-year Regional Official Plan Review in 2007. According to the Paper, there is no basis for changing Durham's urban area boundary and there is no need to require additional lands until 2026. However, as discussed in section 2.3 of this Report, the analysis of Pickering's land inventory based on new information identifies a land shortfall in less than 20 years. The Provincial Policy Statement establishes a 30-year time frame for regional official plans in the Greater Toronto Area. The Policy Statement also provides local municipalities the opportunity to designate sufficient land for urban uses and for an appropriate range and mix of housing, to accommodate growth up to a 30- year planning horizon. ?2 Report PD 06-04 ' A~ACHMEIgT #~TO Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 9 2.5 Pickering has insufficient urban land for a 20-year planning horizon (the year 2021). The urban land shortage is more severe for the 30-year planning horizon (the year 2031). The Region needs to establish an urban boundary framework for the next 30-years, which would enable local municipalities to undertake their planning reviews. Waiting until the next review in 2007 (considering that the current ROP Review has taken over three years so far) could mean that local municipalities are not in a position to have aPproved secondary plans for nearly 10 years from now. Regional staff has indicated that if Pickering's 20-year growth forecast cannot be accommodated within its current urban area boundary, any remaining share could be transferred to Oshawa and Clarington. Any transfer of Pickering's share elsewhere potentially impacts the City's long-term finances, derived in part from growth and development, to support community infrastructure and services. The shortfall of urban land should be addressed in this comprehensive review. Council should request Regional staff to revise the "Proposed Directions" in light of the City's comments on the Discussion Papers, prior to initiating amendments to the ROP. A copy of staff's detailed comments on the "Proposed Directions", as set out in the Discussion Papers, is provided for Council's review and endorsement (see Attachment #3). Clarification, duplication, and deficiencies relating to the "Proposed Directions" have been noted. The "Proposed Directions" relating to the commercial policy review are appropriate. Further, the issues previously endorsed by City Council in Report PD 46-00 (Revised) on Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review are listed in a chart attached to this Report (see Attachment #4). As the Chart shows, the Discussion Papers have not addressed all of the issues raised previously by the City in Report PD 46-00 (Revised). It is recommended that Council request Regional staff to address the City's comments raised in Report PD 06-04 on the Durham Regional Official Plan Review - Phase 2 and issue a "Revised Directions" paper, prior to preparing amendments to the ROP. Attachments: Map 1 - Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay Map 2 - Regional Official Designations with Pickering Growth Management Study Natural Heritage Overlay Chart 1 - Staff Comments on "Proposed Directions" in Discussion Papers Chart 2 - Staff Comments on Phase 1 of the ROP Review Report PD 06-04 ;F~ACHMENT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 10 73 Prepared By: ORIGINAL SIGNED ~Y Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy Approved / Endorsed By: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine Rose Manager, Policy GM:Id Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer PICKERING ATTACHMENT #. -~ TO Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 2004-3 (i) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 16, 2004 Special Meeting of February 23, 2004 RESOLUTIONS CARRIED That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on February 23, 2004, presents its third report to Council and recommends: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-04 DISCUSSION PAPERS -"PROPOSED DIRECTIONS" DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW, PHASE 2 That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning & Development be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed Directions" of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion Papers. That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments in Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official Plan, including revising the "Proposed Directions". · to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region; Resolution #27/04 - Appendix I Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the Report of the Executive Committee dated February 16, 2004, be adopted with the following consideration: Recorded Vote: Yes: Councillors Brenner, Holland, McLean, Pickles and Mayor Ryan No: Councillors Ashe and Johnson Excerpts from Council eeting inutes ~onday, ~areh ~, 2004 7:40 PM 75 to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from urban settlements. That the Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early release" of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning Committee on "Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan Review. 4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. -2- RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report OES 02-05 regarding the Futuresign Multimedia Displays Advertising Agreement, be received; and That the attached by-law, authorizing the execution of an Amending Advertising Agreement to which Futuresign Multimedia Displays will be permitted to continue to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas until May 30, 2008 be read three times and passed by Council; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: OES 02-05 Date: January 10, 2005 ?? From: Stephen Reynolds Division Head, Culture & Recreation Subject: Futuresign Multimedia Displays - Amending Advertising Agreement - File: CO3000 Recommendation: 1. That Report OES 02-05 regarding the Futuresign Multimedia Displays Advertising Agreement be received and: A bylaw be enacted to authorize the execution of an Amending Advertising Agreement to which Futuresign Multimedia Displays will be permitted to continue to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas until May 30,2008; 3. Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: The Pickering Hockey Association Incorporated has requested to enter into a formal agreement with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to sell rink board advertising on the Don Beer Arena third ice pad until May 30, 2008. Currently there is no rink board advertising on the third pad. Futuresign Multimedia Displays has an existing Advertising Agreement to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation Complex Arenas and Don Beer Arenas until December 31, 2005. The Operations & Emergency Services Department recommend that an Amending Licence Agreement be initiated with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to extend the current Advertising Agreement until May 30, 2008. Report OES 02-05 Subject: Futuresign Multimedia Displays -Amending Advertising Agreement Date: January 10, 2005 Page 2 Financial Implications: Revenues Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas 2005 - 12 Months (minimum) 2006 - 12 Months (minimum) 2007 - 12 Months (minimum) 2008 - 5 Months (minimum) Total $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $41,000.00 Background: The Pickering Hockey Association Incorporated has requested to enter into a formal agreement with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to sell rink board advertising on the Don Beer Arena third ice pad until May 30, 2008. Currently there is no rink board advertising in the third pad. The City has agreed to provide the Pickering Hockey Association the opportunity to sell sponsorships and advertising, as part of their fundraising activities, for the third ice pad at Don Beer Arena. The funds the Pickering Hockey Association generate from the advertising agreement will assist with their fundraising commitment to the City of Pickering for the construction of the third ice pad. Futuresign Multimedia Displays has an existing Advertising Agreement to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation Complex Arenas and Don Beer Arenas. This agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2005. To assist with advertising sales, Futuresign Multimedia Displays has requested that the City's current advertising agreement be extended so that it ends at the same time as the Pickering Hockey Association advertising agreement. Enactment of the draft by-law attached will authorize the execution of an Amending Advertising Agreement to be prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City in consultation with the appropriate City Departments and existing City practices. Attachments: 1. Draft Bylaw CORP0227-07/01 Report OES 02-05 Subject: Futuresign Multimedia Displays -Amending Advertising Agreement Date: January 10, 2005 Page 3 Prepared By: Len Hunter Supervisor, Facilities Operations Approved /~r~¢orse~By:,, -,* Everett-¢ull~;m~'-~ _ji~ative Officer Division Head, Culture & Recreation SR:lg Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Solicitor for the City Re co m me n d e~l~,t~h e~-~c~'l~ s i d e ratio n of Pickering ~ /~/t,~ Thomas J. Ouin~hieff~dministrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an Amending Advertising Agreement between the City and Futuresign Multimedia Displays for the right to sell advertising space at the Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 207.58 and 191 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, as amended, the Council of the C;orporation of the City of Pickering may pass by-laws for leasing premises owned by the Corporation; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an Amending Advertising Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City between The Corporation of the City of Pickering and Futuresign Multimedia Displays for the purposes of selling advertising space at the Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Bruce Taylor, City Clerk CORP0223-07/01 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report OES 05-05 regarding the Hodzon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet Lease Renewal, be received; and That the attached by-law, authorizing the execution of a renewal lease agreement pursuant to which Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet, will be permitted to continue their use for church purposes of the Green River Community Centre from February 1, 2005 to January 31,, 2006, be read three times and passed by Council; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: OES 05-05 Date: January 18, 2005 From: Stephen Reynolds Division Head, Culture & Recreation Subject: Green River Community Centre - Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet - File: CO3000 Recommendation: o That Report OES 05-05 regarding the Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet Lease Renewal be received and; A by-law be enacted to authorize the execution of a renewal lease agreement pursuant to which Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet will be permitted to continue their use for church purposes of the Green River Community Centre from February 1,2005 to January 31, 2006; 3. Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.. Executive Summary: Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet have been leasing the Green River Community Centre for church purposes over the last six years. They have requested to continue to renew their lease. The Operations & Emergency Services Department recommend that a renewal agreement be initiated with Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet for a one year term. Report OES 05-05 Date: January 18, 2005 Subject: Green River Community Centre Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet Page 2 Financial Implications: Revenues 2005-11 months@S675.00 2006 - 1 month@S675.00 $7,425.00 $ 675.00 Total: $8,100.00 Background: On November 5, 2001, Council enacted By-law 5902/01 authorizing the execution of an Agreement to renew the Lease for Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet to use the Green River Community Centre for church purposes. The Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet has requested to continue to use the Green River Community Centre as it has for the last six years. The Green River Residents' Association have indicated a possible need for the use of this facility in the future and have asked that the lease be renewed on a yearly basis only. The Department recommends that a renewal lease be initiated with Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet for a one year term. Enactment of the draft by-law attached will authorize the execution of a renewal lease agreement to be prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City in consultation with the appropriate City Departments and existing City practices. Attachment: 1. Draft By-Law Report OES 05-05 Date: January 18, 2005 Subject: Green River Community Centre - Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet Page 3 Prepared By: L e~.tLi ~.-n~,.~r v Supervisor, Facilities Operations SR:lg Attachment Everett'Buntsma (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Stepf~..~Reyn~l-~ s ' Division - e/4'6~d, Culture & Recreation Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Solicitor for the City Recom m e n~ e~;)~¢o n~ation of Plcker~n~ Thomas J. n, Chief Administrative Officer ~7~'i^CHMEN"i' #_ I TO I~EPOR,T# (~.~ t-~, c,:~ c- THE CORPORATION OF THE CiTY OF PIOKERING BY-LAW NO. 85 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Lease Agreement between Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet and The Corporation of the City of Picketing respecting Green River Community Centre (February 1,2005 to January 31,2006). WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, subsection 191(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering wishes to lease to Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet the Green River Community Centre, being that part of Lot 34, Concession 6, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-6910, and the building located thereon, for a one year term while the Green River Community Centre is not required for municipal purposes; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a renewal Lease Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City, between the Corporation of the City of Pickering and Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet respecting the use by Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet of the Green River Community Centre, being that part of Lot 34, Concession 6, Pickering designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-6910 and the building located thereon for a one year period. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk C0RP0223-07/01 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive Report CAO 01-05 concerning the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices; and That Council confirm as the City's comments on Discussion Document 2, the Acting CAO's letter of December 20, 2004, including the peer review comments provided by Acres - Sargent & Lundy (see Attachments I and 2 to this Report), and that the NWMO make particular note of the following concerns in completing its work: a. The need to ensure a full and thorough assessment of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of on-site storage on host communities; and b. The need to explicitly address issues related to community compensation and host community benefits; and c. The need to ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the remaining phases of the work; and That Council acknowledge receipt of the NWMO's letters dated January 10, 2005, to the Acting CAO and to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities (CANHC), responding to comments submitted on Discussion Document 2 (see Attachments 3 and 4). That Council request NWMO to provide continued peer review funding assistance to the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of CANHC and its member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process; and That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the NWMO, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the Ontario Power Generation, member municipalities of CANHC, M.P. Dan McTeague, M.P. Mark Holland, and M.P.P. Wayne Arthurs. PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CAO 01-05 Date: January 17, 2005 From: Everett Buntsma (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices City of Pickering's Comments to NWMO File: S-5610-011 Recommendation: That Council receive Report CAO 01-05 concerning the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO) Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices. That Council confirm as the City's comments on Discussion Document 2, the Acting CAO's letter of December 20, 2004, including the peer review comments provided by Acres - Sargent & Lundy (see Attachments 1 and 2 to this Report), and that the NWMO make particular note of the following concerns in completing its work: The need to ensure a full and thorough assessment of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of on-site storage on host communities; b. The need to explicitly address issues related to community compensation and host community benefits; and c. The need to ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the remaining phases of the work. That Council acknowledge receipt'of the NWMO's letters dated January 10, 2005, to the Acting CAO and to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities (CANHC), responding to comments submitted on Discussion Document 2 (see Attachments 3 and 4). That Council request NWMO to provide continued peer review funding assistance to the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of CANHC and its member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the NWMO, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the Ontario Power Generation, member municipalities of CANHC, M.P. Dan McTeague, M.P. Mark Holland, and M.P.P. Wayne Arthurs. Report CAO 01-05 Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2 Date: January 17, 2005 Page 2 Executive Summary: The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) released its second discussion document in September 2004. Discussion Document 2 describes the management options being considered in finding a solution for long-term storage of Canada's high level nuclear waste. To assist host municipalities in commenting on this document, the NWMO agreed to provide peer review funding thrOugh the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities (of which Pickering is a member). In late November, the consulting team of Acres - Sargent & Lundy (ASL) was selected by the CANHC to undertake a peer review of Discussion Document 2. The ASL report was completed in mid December. It highlighted "potential gaps" in the NWMO Assessment Framework and provided possible ways of addressing these gaps. ASL also commented on various other issues and provided a set of recommendations. NWMO had asked for comments on Discussion Document 2 by the end of 2004. Because of this, the Acting CAO provided a letter to the NWMO in late December, attaching the ASL report as the City's preliminary comments on the Discussion Document. NWMO was also advised in the letter that City Council would be in a position to consider that matter early in 2005 (see Attachments 1 and 2). NWMO provided a response to the City, and to a letter from the CANHC in early January (see Attachments 3 and 4). This Report recommends that Council confirm to the NWMO that the Acting CAO's letter of December 20, including the ASL peer review comments, is the City's official position on Discussion Document 2. It also recommends that Council advise NWMO that in the remaining process, NWMO undertake a full and thorough assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of on-site storage on host communities, that they explicitly address issues related to community compensation and host community benefits, that they ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the remaining phases of the work, and that they provide continued peer review funding assistance to the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of CANHC and its member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications on the City. review of DiscusSion Document 2. NWMO covered the cost of ASL's peer Report CAO 01-05 Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2 Date: January 17, 2005 Page 3 Background: The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was mandated by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to identify and recommend a suitable option for long-term nuclear waste storage in Canada. The Act required a final report to be submitted to the Minister of Energy by November 2005. In November 2003, NWMO published Discussion Document 1: Asking The Right Questions. The City provided comments on Discussion Document 1. Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices, was released by the NWMO in September 2004 (an Executive Summary of this document was forwarded to Mayor and Council at that time). In October, in response to a previous request of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities (CANHC), the NWMO agreed to cover peer review consulting costs related to Discussion Document 2, to a maximum of $20,000. NWMO also indicated that subsequent funding might be available to CANHC for the peer review of reports issued in 2005, but could not make a definitive commitment at that time. Staff from the municipalities of Clarington, Kincardine, and Pickering conducted a selection process for a peer review consultant. The firm, Acres - Sargent & Lundy (ASL) was chosen in late November and immediately began work. By mid December, ASL completed its report on Discussion Document 2. Although a December 31 deadline for comments had originally been established, because of scheduling issues, the NWMO agreed that the member municipalities of CANHC could submit their preliminary comments in December, and then obtain Council's formal position on the matter early in 2005. Accordingly, the Acting CAO submitted a letter to NWMO outlining Pickering's preliminary comments on Discussion Document 2, and attaching ASL's peer review report (see Attachments 1 and 2). ASL conducted a comprehensive review of NWMO's Discussion Document 2 and its reference materials. Their work was very helpful as it assisted with the identification of key issues and areas that municipalities should focus on at present and in the future. An Executive Summary of ASL's report is attached. In early January, the City received a written response from the NWMO as well as a copy of a similar letter NWMO sent to the CANHC (see Attachments 3 and 4). Both letters complimented the peer review work done by ASL, and thanked the CANHC, the City and Clarington for providing comments on NWMO's Discussion Document. The NWMO letter to the City also provided some assurance that community impact was a matter the NWMO would be addressing further as work progressed. The NWMO also commented on the matter of public consultation, and concurred with the importance of engaging local citizens in the work that they are conducting. The City was invited to provide input on how to improve the public consultation process in the future. Arrangements will be made with the NWMO to discuss this matter further. Report CAO 01-05 Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2 Date: January 17, 2005 Page 4 Attached to the NWMO letter to CANHC was a table that provided comments on the key points raised by ASL in their peer review report. Like the comments that were directed specifically to the City's preliminary submission, NWMO acknowledged the value of receiving constructive input on Discussion Document 2. Their response answered some of the ASL questions and provided some of the information that was requested. In several cases, NWMO concurred with process improvements that were suggested by ASL. In summary, it would appear that the peer review activities that were recently completed have had merit, and that additional peer review funding should be provided by NWMO to CANHC to ensure the member municipalities can continue to contribute to the process. The next phase of NWMO's work is critical, in that it will involve the completion of a number of studies of importance to the City leading up to the release of · the Draft Final Report in the second quarter of 2005. That work will include issues associated with impacts on existing host communities and the potential for benefits if on-site storage is chosen. The NWMO final recommendation on a preferred long-term storage solution for Canada's nuclear high-level waste is due in November 2005 and will be forwarded to the Federal Minister of Energy for consideration. For Council's information, other Durham municipalities have provided comments to the NWMO with respect to this matter. Many of these comments are consistent with the positions put forward in this Report. However, City Council should be made aware that Regional Council has previously advised NWMO that it opposes the long-term storage of nuclear waste at existing reactor sites. Also, a staff report to Regional Council on Discussion Document 2 is under preparation, and we understand that it will again reiterate this position. Council should also be aware that both Clarington and the Town of Ajax have advised NWMO that they do not support the option of long-term storage at the existing reactor sites. To our knowledge Kincardine has not yet provided a response to NWMO. Attachments: 1. Executive Summary, Peer Review of Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices, prepared by Acres - Sargent & Lundy, December 2004. 2. Letter from Acting CAO to NWMO dated December 20, 2004. 3. Letter from NWMO to the Acting CAO dated January 10, 2005. 4. Letter from NWMO to CANHC dated January 10, 2005. Report CAO 01-05 Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2 Date: January 17, 2005 Page 5 Prepared By: A.L. (Joe) Hunwicks/// Community Emergency Management Coordinator Approved / Endorsed By: Everett Buntsma (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Pol~c~'y'-~ EB:alh:tem Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended~J_ Picko~ Thomas J.~Quinn ration of rative Officer J ATrACHMENI'#,,, I TO REPORT Nuclear Waste Management Organization Independent Peer Review of NWMO Discussion Document 2, "Understanding the Choices" Prepared for Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities SL-008414 December 2004 Acres-$&L 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA SL-OO8414-final.doc Project 1 1769-010 iATTACHMENT# TO REPORTi Final 93 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 OVERVIEW The NWMO was established under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) to investigate approaches for managing canada's used nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act requires the NWMO to recommend a preferred management approach to the Government of Canada by November 15, 2005. The NWMO will 'then implement the approach chosen by the Government. In order to provide an overview of used nuclear fuel and related issues in Canada, Appendix B contains nine fact sheets developed by the NWMO that address topics such as the NWMO organization, what is "used nuclear fuel," the Canadian nuclear regulatory framework, and the NWMO study process, among others. As noted in the NWMO's Fact Sheet 9, "The NWMO Study Process," the NWMO has committed to "develop collaboratively with Canadians a management apProach that is socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible, and economically feasible." The NFWA requires that the following three main management approaches must be studied: deep geological disposal, storage at nuclear reactor sites, and centralized storage. Other methods may also be considered. To undertake the study, the NWMO has "adopted an iterative study process, undertaken in phases to allow information, analyses, and thinking to be considered in a staged manner." Discussion Document 2 was developed and issued as part of this iterative and open process to summarize the progress so far and the next steps the NWMO is taking to arrive at its recommended management approach. ASL performed a broad review of Discussion Document 2 with the overall objective of identifying questions that are not currently being asked by either the NWMO or others reviewing the NWMO's process. The intent of the review was to identify key issues and areas that we recommend CANHC focus on as NWMO continues in their process. 2.2 RESULTS Discussion Document 2 is a high level document that contains a broad summary of the NWMO's activities since Discussion Document 1 was issued. As a summary document, it contains a significant number of references to other NWMO documents that address the topics and issues related to developing the recommendation for which management approach the Canadian government should use. These references are generally located on the N-WMO web site. Appendix C provides the current site map of NVrMO's web site for SL-008414-final. doc/121304 Project 11769-010 94 JATTACHMENT# ..... TO REPORT# -? I .............. SL-008414 reference. Appendix D contains a reference table developed by ASL in its review of Discussion Document 2 that lists the web .sites referenced in the document along with the related files posted on the web. The current assessment framework is derived from the original ten questions discussed in NWMO's Discussion Document 1, "Asking the Right Questions," and consists of eight objective and associated guiding principles and influences. The framework was developed by a multi-disciplinary Assessment Team assembled by the NWMO to develop a comparative analysis of alternate approaches. The NWMO's Assessment Team based their work on the ten questions posed in Discussion Document 1 and on the NWMO's engagement with Canadians and ongoing research and analysis activities. The eight objectives of the NWMO's current assessment framework are as follows: Fairness · Public Health and Safety Worker Health and Safety · Community Well-Being · Security · Environmental Integrity · Economic Viability · Adaptability Based on the updated framework, the NWMO Assessment Team performed a comparative analysis of the three main management approaches by systematically comparing the approaches against the objectives using a multi- attribute utility analysis. The NWMO Assessment Team's report was issued in June 2004 and forms a significant basis for the information presented in Discussion Document 2. The NWMO has performed significant engagement activities and actively solicited a wide range of input on its work. The NWMO's engagement activities were designed to establish an informed dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from the Canadian public at large to governments, business interests, and interested individuals. The NWMO has developed conceptual designs, cost eStimates, transportation requirements, and preliminary project timelines for each of the main management approaches; these can be accessed on NWMO's web site as SL-008414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010 J ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT SL-008414 Final 95 noted in Appendix D. The conceptual designs and cost estimates are intended to provide sufficient detail to confirm the engineering feasibility of the management approaches to support the current phase of the NWMO's study, which is appropriate. The NWMO has arranged for independent reviews of these technical evaluations. The NWMO noted in Discussion Document 2 that these third-party reviews concluded that the designs are reasonable and feasible, that the cost estimates have been prepared in accordance with appropriate estimating methodology, and that the technical information as a whole is suitable for the options review and directional decision-making requirements of the NWMO. Based on the conceptual designs and cost estimates, the Assessment Team analyzed each of the three main management approaches within the current assessment framework. The resulting relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach is summarized in Figure E-1 (starting on page 7) in Discussion Document 2's Executive Summary (provided in Appendix F of this report to facilitate reference). The relative strengths and weaknesses are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2 below. The Assessment Team's report notes that the overall management of spent fuel in Canada is politically complicated. Under the Canadian constitution, energy policies and land management that involve the production of spent fuel are responsibilities of the provincial governments, while management of radioactive materials is the responsibility of the federal government. Discussion Document 2 notes that the NWMO will be focusing on implementation plans as their study moves forward and that implementation is a critical part of making a recommendation. The NWMO notes that the development of implementation plans will include, at a minimum, consideration of the following elements: Oversight and monitoring systems · Ongoing societal involvement · Institutional design, including human resource capacity · Ownership and liability · Dispute management · Principles to guide site selection; and · Education and information programs. The NFWA states that the selected management approach will be implemented by the NWMO "subject to all of the necessary regulatory approvals." Discussion Document 2 contains implementation timelines for each of the SL-008414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010 !ATTAI HMENT# t TO REPORT# I SL-008414 Final three main management approaches. Siting and approval for each of the approaches is a critical element of each of the timelines. The NWMO has started to assess the regulatory framework within which the selected approach will be implemented. 2.3 KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ASL identified several issues and corresponding recommendations during its independent peer review as summarized in the table below. The detailed results and discussion of these issues is presented in Section 4. Table 2-1 -- Issue and Recommendation Summary Issue ReCOmmendation Assessment Framework Although the Assessment Team's report provides alternate weightings of the different overall objectives, it does not provide the weightings for the specific influence variables associated with each objective. As a result, ASL cannot determine how balanced the assessment framework is. The Assessment Team report notes that a practical strategy for implementing an overall management approach must take the political climate into account, and that this factor is outside the scope of the Team's assessment. The Assessment Team notes that "The assessment suggests it will be necessary to ensure.., that contingency plans are known and available should they be required, at least for the period in which active management of the waste is needed to ensure safety." The Assessment Team's report presents the results of their analysis in the form of composite scores, and does not seem to consider fatal flaws (that is, an issue or problem that would exclude a particular option from further consideration). The NWMO has not systematically engaged with groups that focus and represent public opinion, such as nuclear awareness groups or environmental groups. These groups may have specific agendas that may be counter to the NWMO's ultimate objective to implement a management approach once the Canadian government makes a decision based on the NWMO's recommendation. The NWMO should provide explanations of how political climate, contingency planning, fatal flaws, and relative importance of the objectives and specific influence variables were considered, so that it is possible in future work to confirm and evaluate the overall balance of the assessment framework. The NWMO should specifically solicit input from groups that focus and represent public opinion. In addition, or alternatively, the NWMO should develop an assessment of the positions of these groups, the influence they may exert on the process, the impact this influence could have on the recommended management approach, and what can be done to gain their input or otherwise address their positions. SL4)08414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010 t ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT Acres-S&L 2-5 SL-008414 Final 97 There is a conflict between the desire of some stakeholders to "keep an eye on the waste" versus the scientific community's general preference for deep geological disposal. For example, a reactor site storage (or, to a more limited extent, centralized storage) keeps the issue and societal costs of nuclear waste more visible, and so provides an impetus for reducing the generation of this type of waste. A comparison was made to trash along the side of a road: if disposed in a landfill and out of sight, there is less of a constant reminder of the overall costs associated with creating the trash. This perspective would not necessarily be addressed by a technically focused comparative analysis and could significantly affect the current host communities due to its bias towards reactor site storage. ReCommendati on The NWMO study should ensure (1) that the conflicting desires of some stakeholders to keep the issue of used fuel visible versus the scientific community's general preference for deep geological disposal are given proper weight, (2) that the technical details of the selected management approach address this issue, and (3) that broader social values and motives (such as keeping used fuel disposal highly visible in order to highlight the issue) are considered. As part of the engagement process, the NWMO should consider establishing focus groups to identify specific concerns that people may have with "keeping an eye on The used nuclear fuel is retrievable in the two storage approaches, butby design is not retrievable in the deep geological disposal approach after the site is decommissioned. Discussion Document 2 does not fully address this issue, nor is it fully addressed in the Assessment Team's report, "Assessing the Choices." the waste" (i.e., technical or social) to support fully addressing this issue. The NWMO should more fully address the issue of retrievability as it develops more detailed comparative analyses. Management Approaches Any changes to the weighting of the different objectives and corresponding factors used in the ongoing comparative assessment process will affect the relative strengths and weaknesses. The site selection process for deep geological disposal does not include as a limitation the challenges associated with establishing the geological suitability of potential sites. This issue is an ongoing concern in the United States with the Yucca Mountain project. There appears to be a discrepancy in the advantages and limitations relative to the objective for Adaptability. For example, Adaptability was noted as being a weakness of deep geological disposal. However, the deep geological disposal approach had the same or higher performance value score compared to the other approaches in the analysis of Adaptability. Potential changes in the relative strengths and weaknesses should be reviewed as the comparative analysis process continues. Consideration should be given to the effect associated with confirming the technical suitability of potential sites (such as schedule delays and cost impacts). This discrepancy should be clarified or otherwise resolved as the comparative analysis process continues. SL~O08414-final.doc/121304 Pro.~ect 11769-010 REPORT SL-008414 Acres S&L Issue The relative strengths and weaknesses of the different management approaches as discussed in Discussion Document 2 do not provide an indication of how they might be affected by potential technical changes. Social effects on communities and siting issues are not mentioned in the limitations for reactor site storage even though the current host communities were not selected based on their suitability for extended storage. The analysis notes technical limitations for at-reactor storage (such as proximity to large bodies of water), but does not note any social disadvantages. Discussion Document 2 does not discretely analyze the impacts of the separate management approaches on the current host communities. The strengths and weaknesses noted by the NWMO in Discussion Document 2 do not mention or appear to account for a comparative assessment of the risks related to the different approaches. The comparative risks include both technical risks (such as the impact of postulated accidents) and financial risks (such as changes in the assumed discount rates used in the financial models). The sensitivity analyses conducted as part of the NWMO's ongoing comparative analysis process should consider changes in key technical assumptions. (It should be noted that the Assessment Team's sensitivity analysis addresses broader changes in future conditions; this recommendation is intended to apply at more of a technical design level.) The ongoing comparative analysis should specifically assess the overall impact of the selected management approach on the current host communities to ensure that they are afforded the same considerations and potential benefits as new host communities. Relative technical and financial risks should be identified and considered during the ongoing detailed comparative assessments that the NWMO is currently performing. Implementation Plan Background paper 7-8 notes that any proposal to postpone a decision on a preferred long-term option would itself have significant implications and may be deemed worthy of a review panel. Many of the problems and delays in the implementation of major projects with significant environmental implications stem from the failure to correctly identify all the required permits and permit application requirements associated with a given project. The NWMO should ensure that the implementation plans developed for the separate management approaches include comprehensive and specific permitting schedules that define which permits are required, when they are required, how long it takes to apply for and obtain them, and who has to make the application. Possible conflicts or uncertainties regarding the legal jurisdiction of different government agencies should be identified. SL-OO8414~final,doc/121304 Project 11769-010 IATTACHMEN'r# I TO REPORT 2-7 SL-008414 9.9 IsSue ReCommendation Problems and delays can also stem from determined opposition from one or more stakeholders (such as environmental groups or elected officials) when the EA and applications are reviewed. It should be noted that technical issues (engineering, conceptual designs, etc.) or costs are frequently not the critical parameters that determine a project's success or failure. The assessment performed by the Assessment Team is not specific with respect to the choice of economic region for a centralized storage facility or geologic repository. The NWMO's ongoing efforts will focus on developing characteristics that would be appropriate in choosing specific economic regions for deep geological disposal and centralized storage approaches. As the implementation plans are developed, the resulting details could affect the comparative assessments of the different management approaches performed up to that point. Although a phased approach is reasonable and has significant advantages, in ASL's experience, it has the )otential of negatively affecting the overall effective implementation of a project. ASL's earlier recommendation about the need to engage groups that focus and represent public opinion should be pursued in recognition that they may provide valuable information for the NWMO's implementation plans in terms of identifying potential opposition, assessing the primary concerns of potential opponents, and developing mitigation measures to address these concerns. In addition to supporting site selection, the NWMO should ensure that site-specific issues and considerations are identified and addressed within the associated implementation plans. The NWMO should ensure that the comparative assessments are updated and re-evaluated as required to be consistent with the planned implementation details. The NWMO should ensure that the overall project implementation plans include key project milestones where "go - no go" decisions are made, as well as points where designs are finalized, or "frozen," to enable the project to proceed with minimal potential for design changes. To be able to capitalize on new technical or other advances, the design parameters associated with the selected management approach should be developed and selected to maximize overall system flexibility. Last page of Section 2. SL-O08414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER · Department 905.420.4648 Facsimile 905.420.6064 cao @ci~y. pickering, on ca December 20, 2004 Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario Canada L1V 6K7 Direct Access 905.420.4660 cityofpickering, com Liz Dowdeswell President Nuclear Waste Management Organization 49 Jackes Avenue, First Floor Toronto, ON M4T 11::2 Subject: Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices Preliminary City of Pickering Comments File: S-5610-011 On behalf of the City of Pickering, I would like to thank you and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for providing funding for peer review consulting services to the Canadian Association of Nuclear HOst Communities (CANHC). The consulting team of Acres-Sargent & Lundy (ASL) have greatly assisted 'the CANHC member municipalities in developing comments on Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices. ' I am writing to you to provide a set of Picketing preliminary comments' on Document 2 so as to meet the NWMO December 31, 2004 deadline. Please find enclosed a CD containing the Final Report and supporting documents that ASL provided to the CANHC. The following preliminary comments will be incorporated into a report that will be presented at the Pickering January 17, 2005 Council Meeting. NWMO will be notified, in writing, of the results of that Meeting. We agreed with Acres-Sargent & Lundy (ASL) that Document 2 is "reasonable and appropriate and supported by the reference documents..." ASL has identified several "potential gaps" in the assessment framework and offered what seem like reasonable recommendations for NWMO to consider in the future. ASL recommended, "host communities be afforded the same considerations and potential benefits as new communities." We support ASL's recommendation and their comments. NWMO needs to more specifically address issues, related to the potential negative impact that long-term on-site storage might have on current nuclear host communities. In addition, NWMO should identify and report on the positive social and economic impacts that host communities might face. ASL drew our attention to the following wording in the NWMO Assessing the Options report: "The siting po/icy may also include benefits to a host community to compensate that community for taking on the burden associated with used nuclear fuel while a Under$ andin§ the eh ¢,OI'I ENT # TO FIFI OFIT#o -o_9 -Preliminan/City of PieKenng Uommema December 20, 2004 ~ 0 J. Page 2 much wider population shares the benefit." We agree with that statement and will actively address that matter in future submissions to NWMO. ASL highlighted the fact that the NWMO background paper 7-8 suggested that "any proposal to postpone a decision on a preferred long-term option would in itself have significant implications and may be deemed worthy of a review panel' environmental assessment (EA). We agree with that suggestion and further suggest that the On-site Reactor Storage option should also require a panel review EA as is contemplated for the other two options under consideration for long-term storage. Treating on-site storage in any other way would simply be inappropriate and unfair to the existing host communities. ASL recommended that NWMO specifically "engage nuclear awareness and environmental groups" as part of the public consultation process. We agree with their rationale and supporting arguments for that suggestion. Although ASL has briefly addressed the overall process of public consultation in their Report to CANHC, we would like to further comment on the Iow attendance count that NWMO has experienced while recently conducting four sessions in Picketing. Our observations indicate that more work is needed to inspire Pickering and area residents to become involved in the work that NWMO is undertaking next year. Once again, thank you for supporting our efforts to comment on the NWMO Discussion Document 2. The City of Pickering looks forward to reviewing and commenting.on NWMO's work during 2005. Being afforded the opportunity to obtain peer review consulting services next year will again be essential to our success in. providing meaningful input on this very important topic. Yours truly.,/,.~-'~) EB:alh Enclosure Copy: Mayor Ryan Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy City Clerk Community Emergency Management Coordinator CANHC member municipalities J,A ACHMENT #_ NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT 10''¢"''' ORGANIZATION January 10, 2005 Mr. Everett Buntsma Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 ;well PRESIDENT ,4.9814 ext 222 ~vdeswell@nwmo.ca Dear Mr. Buntsma: RE: Preliminary City of Picketing Comments to Acres-S&L review of the NWMO Discussion Document 2: "Understanding the Choices"- Letter dated December 20, 2005 Thank you for your timely response with the City of Pickering's preliminary comments to the Acres-S&L review of Discussion Document 2: "Understanding the Choices." The viewpoints of the citizens of current host communities are important to the NWMO in its ongoing study. The attached letter sent to Mayor Glem~ Sutton, Chair of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and copied to the mayor of each of the member communities comments generally on their recommendations.. That will, I believe, address a number of the points raised in your letter. In particular, you will note specific reference to further work on assessing the costs, risks and benefits to communities affected and the development of implementation plans. When the government has made a decision, about the approach, any project would of course be subject to an environmental assessment, during which there would again be opportunity for citizen engagement. In regards to the low attendance at the recent Information and Discussion Sessions in Pickering, we believe that' citizens in nuclear host communities and provinces have unique insights about nuclear waste n*tanagement. 'We will therefore continue to provide opportunities for their active involvement in the work of the NWMO. Any suggestions you have with respect to engagement activities to be implemented following publication of our Draft Study Report this Spring, would be welcomed. Fax 416.934,9091 'foil Free 1.866.249,6966 49 Jackes Avenaa First Floor Toronto Ontario Canada M4T1E2 www. Rwmo.oa Il A-i--rACHMENi # ~_.~.._ ~ ,,, TO REPORT 103 Thank you again for your comments. I look forward to the response of the Pickering City Council following their meeting on Janum~y 17, 2005. Yours truly, Elizabeth. Dowdeswell President Enclosure 104 j ATTACHMENT #, January 10, 2005 Mayor Glen Sutton Town of Kincardine 1475 Concession #5, RR #5 Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6 Dear Mayor Sutton: RE: Acres-S&L Report for CANHC "Independent Peer Review of NWMO Discussion Document2, "Understanding the Choices" I have received a copy of the Acres-S&L Report "Independent Peer Review of NWMO Discussion Document 2, "Understanding the Choices" prepared for the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities. I have also received individual comments from the municipalities of Clarington and Picketing which I understand are in the process of being forwarded to their respective councils in the next few weeks. Our Discussion Document 2 was intended to spark exactly this kind of thoughtful commentary and I certainly look forward to any additional comments that may be forthcoming from CANHC and each member community. Since we issued Discussion Document 2 we have completed significant additional work. Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to make a few general comments on the recommendations of the Acres-S&L Peer Review. (See the attached table.) You might find this of use in assessing their observations and recommendations. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance in clarifying points. We will appreciate your continuing comment and collaboration as we synthesize all of the inputs to our study and prepare our Draft Study Report for release in the Spring. Sincerely, Elizabeth Dowdeswell President CC. Maire Maurice Richard, Town of B~cancour Mayor Norm McFaflane, City of Saint John Mayor John Mutton, Town of Clarington Janice Swarz, Municipality of Clarington Mayor Ann Aikens, Town of Deep River Mayor David Ryan, City of Pickering Mayor Len Simpson, Town of Pinawa Tom Melymuk, City of Pickering nwmo JATTACHMEN'r # H ~0 I TO REPORT 105 1. Assessment Framework ASL Recommendation Comment The NWMO should * There are approximately 240 influencing factors that have been considered provide explanations of under the eight objectives in this assessment, an average of 30 per objective. how political climate, Reviewing these factors will allow you to assess whether or not all of the contingency planning, fatal important factors have been considered. The Assessment Team built its flaws, and relative assessment framework and provided its assessment as an application example, importance of objectives not as the definitive assessment. In making it public as we have, our desire is and specific influence that others are able to think through the factors on their own and from that, and variables were considered, we can learn about the relative importance of the factors. Doing so will so that it is possible in strengthen the assessment. future work to confirm and evaluate the overall balance · The issue of whether there is a threshold of performance below which a of the assessment management approach becomes unacceptable is not addressed in depth and framework, directly, per se, in the Assessment Team's work. Conceivably, it is possible that a management approach may score Iow on an objective but still be considered a good approach because performance on that objective is not deemed critical. If an approach scored very highly on all eight objectives the interpretation would be clear: since the management approach meets all the objectives which Canadians said is important, the management approach meets the needs of Canadian society and so is a good approach. However, none of the management approaches ideally meets all of the objectives. Therefore a judgement needs to be made, and it is suggested that this is ultimately a societal judgement, as to whether the mix of advantages and limitations of an approach is sufficient to warrant implementation. The NWMO should solicit · From the inception of its study, NWMO has engaged Canadians from a wide input from groups that variety of citizen and expert based groups. Face to face meetings were held focus and represent public with many of these groups at the inception of the study as part of our opinion. (This point is "conversations about expectations." Feedback on NWMO's first discussion repeated by ASL under "3. document was solicited by engaging many of these groups in a series of Implementation Plans.") national and regional stakeholder dialogues, a process which is being repeated to solicit comment on NWMO's second discussion document. The NWMO continues to meet with many of these groups to brief them on our work and to solicit comment on an ongoing basis. Several of these groups have also participated in other NWMO initiatives (such as the Scenarios Exercise, E- dialogues, Traditional Knowledge workshop, Public Information & Discussion sessions) or posted submissions. This engagement will continue until our final report is submitted. The NWMO should ensure · The NWMO understands that for many Canadians the question of how best to (1) that the conflicting manage used nuclear fuel in the long term is one which must be viewed within a desires of some broader context, whether that is support or opposition to nuclear power, stakeholders to keep the concerns about the environment, or industry jobs. This is in part why NWMO issue of used fuel visible attempted to engage stakeholders in a discussion of values. We believe that 10G jATTACHMEN'r # H- mwmo TO REPORT versus the scientific values are instrumental in determining objectives against which the community's general management approaches would be assessed finding common ground. Since preference for deep social acceptability is a concem in any recommendation the NWMO will make geological disposal are all of these perspectives must be considered. given proper weight, (2) that the technical details of the selected management approach addresses this issue, and (3) broader social values and motives (such as keeping used fuel disposal highly visible in order to highlight the issue) are considered. Use of focus groups. · The NWMO has used focus groups to explore various issues over the course of the study to date and appreciates your suggestion on further opportunities to use this tool as we move forward with the study. We will be addressing ongoing public engagement in our recommendation to government. Retrievability. · This is an important issue and will be fully addressed in our recommendation to government. 2. Management Approaches ASL Recommendation Comment Potential changes in the · The sensitivity analysis that has been undertaken by the Assessment Team relative strengths and suggests that only extreme changes in weightings change the overall results of weaknesses should be their analysis. Through our ongoing work on the comparative assessment, we reviewed as the are continuing to understand the range of strengths and weaknesses of each comparative analysis approach, however as you suggest, we will be revisiting this issue as our work process continues, proceeds. Consideration should be · The possibility of schedule delays and cost overruns has been considered but given to the effect we will revisit this point. It is an important consideration in the identification associated with confirming of schedules for implementation, implementation plans and cost estimates the technical suitability of associated with each approach. potential sites (such as schedule delays and cost impacts). Adaptability. · This point has caused confusion for a number of people. The Assessment Team is preparing a clarification note and we will be further dealing with this issue in our Draft Study Report. The NWMO expects and welcomes further dialogue on this issue, since it is such an important issue from the public perspective and A'i'rACHMEN'F # TO REPORT 107 will be key to the acceptability of any approach which the NWMO recommends. Sensitivity analysis · We are considering the issue of variation of fuel volume and will address this addressing technical issue more thoroughly in our Draft Study Report. The question of how to changes (cost or design ensure that any recommendation the NWMO makes is robust is a matter of parameters such as fuel continuing investigation and work. volume). Impact on current host · From the inception of our study, citizens and communities alike told us how communities important the perspective of current host communities is in understanding the issues and identifying appropriate solutions. The observation made will receive further consideration in our Draft Study Report. Relative technical and · As required by the legislation, we are currently undertaking a comprehensive financial risks, review of costs, benefits and risks as a supplement to the work of the Assessment Team. The results of this analysis will be reported in our Draft Study Report. 2. Implementation Plans ASL Recommendation Comment Inclusion of permitting · Discussion Document 2 did not articulate detailed implementation plans. These schedules; possible will form a key component of our Draft Study Report. We appreciate all of the conflicts or uncertainties suggestions made below and will address them specifically in the next report. regarding the legal jurisdiction of different government agencies Inclusion of site-specific · It should be reinforced that our study will not select a site. Nevertheless, we issues and considerations anticipate addressing site specific issues in a generic way in proposing how our recommendations might be implemented effectively. Ongoing up-dating of the · This will be addressed in our Draft Study Report. comparative assessment Inclusion of key · Such points are essential and will be included in our draft recommendations. milestones, go-no go decision points, design finalization points Development of design · This point will be addressed in our draft recommendations. parameters to maximize overall system flexibility. IIIIIII II II~[lllll IIIllllll IIIIr'~ll IIIIIrll'll~ I'1 II IIII Illlll' ~1111 Illllll III Ilrllllllrlll I1'1111111111 105 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report CS 06-05 regarding the endorsement of Bill 165 being the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, be received; and That the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses Bill 165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly; and That copies of this resolution be forwarded to: Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 06-05 Date: January 6, 2005 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: 'Endorsement of Bill 165 - Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004 Recommendation: That Report CS 06-05 regarding the endorsement of Bill 165 being the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, be received. That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses Bill 165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly; and That copies of this resolution be forwarded to: Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: This Report provides an overview of Bill 165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly. Report CS 06-05 Endorsement of Bill 165- Elected Officials Immunity Act January 6,2005 Page 2 Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: Please find attached to this Report a letter dated December 14, 2004 from Jerry Ouellette, MPP, Oshawa, providing a copy of Private Member's Bill 165 being the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004. As noted in the letter, the purpose of Bill 165 is to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly. This Bill is designed to assist elected officials and municipalities by allowing more freedom of speech and public debate during Council and committee meetings without the fear of court action. I believe that the intent of Bill 165 is to provide the same privileges as set out in Section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which states as follows: A member of the Assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the member brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said before the Assembly or a committee thereof. Although there is some common law governing freedom of speech by Members of Council, it is not clear on how far Members of Council are covered. Also, common law governing slander is also very unclear and provides an impediment to a full and open debate by local elected officials of important issues. Bill 165 proposes to provide legislation that would allow local elected officials to have the same freedoms of speech granted to members of the Legislative Assembly which over the years has not been abused by the members of the Legislative Assembly. Attachments: 1. Letter from Jerry Ouellette dated December 14, 2004 CORP0227-07/01 Report CS 06-05 Endorsement of Bill 165- Elected Officials Immunity Act January 6, 20051 Page 3 Prepared By: ~'Bruce Taylor City Clerk Approved I Endorsed By: A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachments Recommended~ ~onside~ation of I P Jckering C~ ~)~~ ~/~ ~ ~L~~//~~ ~ ~f Thomas J. Ql~nn ~:~1~ Administrative OfficerI' CORP0227-07/01 Ontario LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY JERRY J. OUELLETTE, M.P.P, Oshawa December 14, 2004 ATTACHMENT # .... / TO REPORT RES. Queen's Park Office: Rm. 428 Legislative Building Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A8 Tel. {416) 325-2147 Fax (416) 325-2169 Constituency Office: 170 Athol St. E. Oshawa, Ontario L1H 1K1 Tel. (905) 723-241 Fax (905) 723-1054 E-mail:jeny_ouellette@ontla.ola.org Website:www. oshawampp.com Mayor David Ryan & Council One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mayor & Council: I am pleased to be able to provide you with a copy of my Private Member's Bill, the 'Elected Officials Immunity Act 2004', which I introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This Bill, if passed will provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities, and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly. The legislation is designed to assist elected officials and municipalities by allowing more freedom of speech and public debate in chamber settings without the reprise of court action. Any support or assistance that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please contact your local MPP as well as Premier Dalton McGuinty of your endorsement of this Bill. I look forward to your valuable input and appreciate all your support. Yours Sincerely, 1 ST SESSION, 38TH LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 53 ELIZABETH II, 2004 1rc SESSION, 38~ LfiGISLATURE, ONTARIO 53 ELIZABETH II, 2004 Bill 165 Projet de loi 165 An Act to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards with certain privileges, immunities and powers Loi octroyant certains privil/~ges et pouvoirs et certaines immunit6s aux membres 61us des conseils municipaux et des conseils scolaires Mr. Ouellette M. Ouellette Private Member's Bill Projet de loi de d6put6 I st Reading 2nd Reading 3rd Reading Royal Assent December 15, 2004 1 re lecture 2c lecture 3~ lecture Sanction royale 15 d6cembre 2004 Printed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Imprim6 par l'Assembl6e 16gislative de l'Ontario Bill 165 2004 Projet de loi 165 2004 An Act to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards with certain privileges, immunities and powers Loi octroyant certains privileges et pouvoirs et eertaines immunit6s aux membres 61us des eonseils municipaux et des eon seils seolaires Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows: Grant of privileges, immunities and powers 1. An elected member of a council of a municipality or of a school board has the same privileges, immunities and powers as the law confers on a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Commencement 2. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title 3. The short title of this Act is the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004. Sa Majest6, sur l'avis et avec le consentement de l'Assembl6e 16gislative de la province de l'Ontario, 6dicte: Octroi de privileges, immunlt6s et pouvotrs 1. Le membre 61u d'un conseil municipal ou d'un conseil sc. olaire dispose des m~mes privileges, immunit6s et pouvotrs que ceux que la loi conf~re aux d6put6s ~ l'Assembl6e 16gislative de l'Ontario. Entr6e en vigueur 2. La pr6sente Ioi entre en vigueur le jour off elle re~oit la sanction royale. Titre abr6g6 3. Le titre abr6g6 de la pr6sente loi est Loi de 2004 sur l'immunitd des dlus. EXPLANATORY NOTE The purpose of the Bill is to extend to elected members of mu- nicipal councils and school boards those privileges, immunities and powers presently enjoyed by members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. NOTE EXPLICATIVE L'objet de la pr6sente loi est d'accorder aux membres 61us des conseils municipaux et des conseils scolaires les privileges, immunit6s et pouvoirs dont les d6put6s fi l'Assembl6e 16gisla- rive de l'Ontario sore pr6sentement investis. 115 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report CS 07-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purposes of enforcing the Parking By-law on private property be received; and That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 07/05 Date: January 10, 2005 From: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Subject: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road. Recommendation: That Report CS 07-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law on private property be received; and That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: None Background: Correspondence has been received from Securitas Canada and Citiguard Security Services Inc. requesting the appointment of persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road. Attachments: 1. Correspondence from Securitas Canada 2. Correspondence from Citiguard Security Services Inc. 3. Draft By-law Report CS 07-05 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers Date: January 10, 2005 J1. _1. ~' Page 2 Prepared By: Debbie Watrous Committee Coordinator BT:dw Attachments Approved By: Bruce Taylor, City Clerk Approved/Endorsed By: Gillis A. Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of ?- Pickering City ~Council -" ^ ~ '" -Thor~.-Q ui n ¢~in istrati~'"OT~ ]/ ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT 26 November 2004 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Debbie Kerns Dear Ms. Kerns, Secutitas Canada Ltd. Along with Valiant Property Management, Simerra Property Management and Newton Trewlaney Property Management requests that the Corporation of the City of Pickering approve and recognize the following employee of Securitas Canada Ltd. as Private Property Parking Enforcement Officers. Munyaradzi Chitengu This being for the properties located at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street and 1865 Kingston Road in Picketing. Please contact me at 905 571 40404 if you should have any questions. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. / Sincere?. Y,t~ "-'Todd Martin Branch Manager Securitas Canada 265 'kbrkland Boulevard, 5th Floor NorthYork, Ontario M2J 1S5 Telephone: (416) 774-2500/(800) 268-0545 Fax: (416) 774-2544 CITIGUARD SECURITY SERVICES INC. December 3, 2004 The City of Picketing By-Law Department Attention: Debbie Kearns, Committee Coordinator Re: 726 Kingston Ro~Ld.~J"i~keri~g Please add the fbllowir,.g employee as By-law Enforcement Officer for tagging at the above location: - Steven Edward ~_,ee Thank you, Yours truly. ~. ,,:..., ~i.'" ;.. . ;., Petar Martinovic i560 Brimley Road, Stoic ~ 2,90, Toronio, Onkano MIP 3G9 Te.l: 4!6-431-6888, Fax: 4i6-431-7402 120 ATTACHMENT THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain Purposes (Parking Regulation - 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section' 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by'law enforcement · officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That the following person be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officer in and for the City of Picketing in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally knoWn as: a) 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street and 1865 Kingston Road: Munyaradzi Chitengu b) 726 Kingston Road: Steven Edward Lee The authority granted in section I hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing to be an employee of Securitas Canada or upon Securitas Canada ceasing to be agents for 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street or 1865 Kingston Road or upon the person listed in section l(b) ceasing to be an employee of Citiguard Security Services Inc. or upon Citiguard Security Services Inc. ceasing to be an agent for 726 Kingston Road. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Bruce Taylor, City Clerk RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Corporate Services Report CS 59-04 regarding the proposed 2005 Animal Services Budget, be received; and That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby approves the 2005 Animal Services Budget as recommended by the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee at its meeting of November 30, 2004. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CS 59-04 Date: December 14, 2004 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2005 Animal Services Budget Recommendation: That Corporate Services Report CS 59-04 regarding the proposed 2005 Animal Services Budget be received. That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby approves the 2005 Animal Services Budget as recommended by the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee at its meeting of November 30, 2004. Executive Summary: The PAW Joint Animal Services Committee is recommending the approval of the Year 2005 Capital and Operating Budget for the Animal Services Centre in the amount of $744,800.00 of which Pickering's share is $246,455.84. Financial Implications: Current Capital TOTAL $236,455.84 10,000.00 $246,455.84 (Pickering's share only) (Pickering's share only) Background: The PAW Joint Animal Services Committee passed the following motion at its meeting of November 30, 2004: Report CS 59-04 2005 Animal Services Budget December 14, 2004 Page 2 12o That the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee adopt the 2005 animal services budget as set out in Attachment #2 in the Treasurer's Report, Item 8-04; and That the budget be submitted to the Council's of Pickering, Ajax and Whitby for approval. Attached to this Report is a copy of the PAW Committee Treasurer's Report 8-04 for your information. It is important to note that the Committee recommends the adoption of the budget set out in Attachment #2 in the Treasurer's Report and not Attachment #3 which provides for a six percent administration fee. The City of Pickering entered into an Agreement with Ajax and Whitby respecting the operation of the Animal Services Centre that allocates operating expenses on a per capita basis and capital expenses on an equal basis. Therefore, in 2005, Pickering is responsible for 33.08% of the total operating costs of $714,800 being $236,455.84 and is responsible for 33.33% of the total capital costs of $30,000 being $10,000 for a total of $246,455.84. The 2005 Animal Services budget, including current and capital expenditures is a decrease of one percent over 2004. The population figures used in the Committee Treasurer's Report are based on population data gathered by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in 2003 for the general municipal election. These figures are used to compute the apportionment of the Animal Services budget for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Attachments: 1. PAW Committee Treasurer's Report 8-04 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: //Bruce Taylor City Clerk Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachment CORP0227-07/01 124 Report CS 59-04 2005 Animal Services Budget December 14, 2004 Page 3 Recommended forthe consEieration of Pickering C Thomas J. Odinn';(C, hgf Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE PICKERING- AJAX-WHITBY JOINT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEF Item: 8-04 November 30, 2004 Subject: 2005 Animal Services Budget Recommendation: That the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee adopt the 2005 animal services budget as set out in the TreaSurer's Report, Item 8-04; and, That the budget be submitted to the Council's of Picketing, Ajax, and · Whitby for approval. Origin: The proposed 2005 animal services budget is set out in AttaChment No.1 to this report. Analysis: The budget provides for an increased'service level. In accordance with the directions of the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby (P.A.W.) Joint Animal Services Committee, the budget provides for an extended work schedule and the implementation of a responsible pet ownership program. The budget also provides for the replacement of an animal services vehicle. Alternatives: N/A Existing: N/A Financial Considerations: By agreement, operating revenues and expenditures are apportioned on a per capital basis between the City of Pickering and the Towns of Ajax and Whitby.' Capital expenses are shared equally by the three municipalities. The municipal apportionment of the estimates is shown in Attachment No.'s 2 and 3 to this report. As requested by the P.A.W. Committee, municipal apportionments are provided forthe Committee's consideration both with and without a 6% administration fee to Cover Ajax's and Pickering's shares of Whitby's overhead costs. 127 125 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 BUDGET NOTES ..ACCOUNT Operatin~ Exoenses: Salaries, Wages, Benefits Uniforms and Clothing Water Advertising, Promotion and Special Projects Equipment Rental - External ' Pound and Services Fees Animal Adoption Vehicle Replacement .E. XPLANATIO~NN Replacement of full-time animal services ~position with part-time position. Based on previous years' experience. Reflects 2004 experience. Provision made for the implementation of a Responsible Pet Ownership Program. Basedon2003 and 2004 years' experience. Reflects 2003 and 2004 years' experience. Reflects 2003 and2004 years' experience. Replacement of an animal services 1998 vehicle as per recommendation of the service deparmaent.