Electronic Development Services Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Revised Items are Italicized.

Meeting Number 18 July 21, 2021, 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM Live streamed

Note: Due to COVID-19, our facilities are closed to the public. Access is not permitted to the Markham Civic Centre and Council Chamber.

Members of the public can participate by: 1. JOINING THE ZOOM LINK AT

https://zoom.us/j/91700152609?pwd=eFdGL1BYM0haV3U3eWREYTgyRkxOZz09

2. EMAILING A WRITTEN SUBMISSION: Members of the public may submit written deputations by email to [email protected]. Written submissions must be received by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting* *If the deadline for written submission has passed, you may: a. Email your written submission directly to Members of Council; or b. Make a virtual deputation at the meeting by completing and submitting an online Request to Speak Form *If the deadline for written submission has passed and Council has finished debate on the item at the meeting, you may email your written submission directly to Members of Council. 3. REQUEST TO SPEAK / VIRTUAL DEPUTATION : Members of the public who wish to make a live virtual deputation, please register prior to the start of the meeting by: 1. Completing an online Request to Speak Form , or, 2. E-mail [email protected] providing full name, contact information and item they wish to speak, or, 3. If you do not have access to email, contact the Clerk's office at 905-479-7760 on the day of the meeting. *If Committee has finished debate at the meeting on the item, you may email your written submission directly to Members of Council. The list of Members of Council is available online at this link.

Alternate formats for this document are available upon request. Closed captioning during the video stream may be turned on by clicking the [cc] icon located at the lower right corner of the video screen.

Pages Page 2 of 65

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

3.1. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES – JULY 8, 2021 6 (10.0)

That the minutes of the Development Services Committee meeting held July 8, 2021, be confirmed.

4. DEPUTATIONS

5. COMMUNICATIONS

5.1. COMMUNICATIONS - CITY OF MARKHAM COMMENTS ON 19 PROPOSED REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 7 (10.0)

Note: Please refer to Item #7.1 for staff report.

That the following communications providing comments regarding the above subject matter be received for information purposes:

1. Irene Ford

2. Don Given

5.2. COMMUNICATIONS - CITY OF MARKHAM - INTERIM PARKLAND 29 CASH-IN-LIEU STRATEGY (6.3)

Note: Please refer to Item #7.2 for staff report.

1. That the communication submitted by Mustafa Ghassan providing comments regarding the above subject matter be received.

6. PETITIONS

7. REGULAR REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

7.1. CITY OF MARKHAM COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGIONAL 31 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO ALLOW URBAN PARK USES IN THE GREENBELT (10.0)

P. Wong, ext. 6922

Note: On June 21, 2021 Development Services Committee deferred the above subject matter to a future meeting. Page 3 of 65 1. That the staff report entitled ‘City of Markham Comments on Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt’ dated June 21, 2021 be received; and, 2. That Council not support the proposed ROPA 7 application to amend the Regional Official Plan to redesignate the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture to allow active urban parkland/ recreational uses on lands outside of natural heritage features and their vegetation protection zones; and, 3. That with the exception of permitting stormwater management facilities, trails and road/servicing infrastructure as provided for in the Markham Official Plan 2014, Council confirm support of the use of all of the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham for conservation, natural heritage restoration and passive recreational uses rather than active urban parkland and recreational purposes, consistent with the Markham Official Plan, the Future Urban Area Subwatershed Study, the approved Berczy Glen and Robinson Glen secondary plans and the Rouge North Management Plan; and, 4. That if the ROPA 7 application to amend the Regional Official Plan to redesignate Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture is approved, that Markham Council not support active urban parkland and recreational uses and other non- agricultural uses in any resulting designation that may be required for the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham, and; 5. That this report and resolution be submitted to York Region and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as Markham’s comments on proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No 7; and further, 6. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

7.2. CITY OF MARKHAM - INTERIM PARKLAND CASH-IN-LIEU 48 STRATEGY (6.3)

L. Yip, ext. 3363

Note: Parvathi Nampoothiri, Manager, Urban Design will be in attendance to provide a presentation on this matter. 1. That the report entitled, “City of Markham - Interim Parkland Cash-in- Lieu Strategy” be received; and, 2. That the City provide a reduction of up to 25% of the value of Cash-in- Lieu of Parkland Dedication for medium and high density residential apartments at the discretion of the Commissioner of Development Services; and, 3. That the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland for medium and high density residential apartments be effective immediately upon the approval of this strategy until a new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council; and, Page 4 of 65 4. That the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland only be applied to medium and high density developments where there is no other agreement with the City related to the conveyance of Parkland or payment of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland; and, 5. That in situations where land is to be dedicated to the City for parkland and a balance is to be paid through cash-in-lieu of parkland, the value of the land dedicated be deducted from the total Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland calculated for the entire development; and, 6. That the reduction be applied only through development agreements to be executed subsequent to the adoption of this recommendation; and further, 7. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

8. MOTIONS

9. NOTICES OF MOTION

10. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

As per Section 2 of the Council Procedural By-Law, "New/Other Business would generally apply to an item that is to be added to the Agenda due to an urgent statutory time requirement, or an emergency, or time sensitivity".

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS

12. CONFIDENTIAL

12.1. DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

12.1.1. ADVICE THAT IS SUBJECT TO SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE [Section 239 (2) (f)]

13. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 65

Information Page

Development Services Committee Members: All Members of Council

Development and Policy Issues Chair: Regional Councillor Jim Jones Vice-Chair: Councillor Keith Irish

Transportation and Infrastructure Issues Chair: Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton Vice-Chair: Councillor Reid McAlpine

Culture and Economic Development Issues Chair: Councillor Alan Ho Vice-Chair: Councillor Khalid Usman

Development Services meetings are live video and audio streamed on the City’s website.

Alternate formats for this document are available upon request.

Consent Items: All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine and are recommended for approval by the department. They may be enacted on one motion, or any item may be discussed if a member so requests.

Please Note: The times listed on this agenda are approximate and may vary; Council may, at its discretion, alter the order of the agenda items.

Note: As per the Council Procedural By-Law, Section 7.1 (h) Development Services Committee will take a 10 minute recess after two hours have passed since the last break.

Page 6 of 65 1

Electronic Development Services Committee Meeting Minutes

Meeting Number 16 July 8, 2021, 9:30 AM - 3:00 PM Live streamed

Alternate formats for this document are available upon request ______

Roll Call Mayor Frank Scarpitti Councillor Reid McAlpine Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton Councillor Karen Rea Regional Councillor Jack Heath Councillor Andrew Keyes Regional Councillor Joe Li Councillor Amanda Collucci Regional Councillor Jim Jones Councillor Khalid Usman Councillor Keith Irish Councillor Isa Lee Councillor Alan Ho

Staff Andy Taylor, Chief Administrative Marg Wouters, Senior Manager, Policy & Officer Research Christina Kakaflikas, Acting Director, Brad Roberts, Manager, Zoning and Economic Growth, Culture & Special Projects Entrepreneurship Marty Rokos, Senior Planner Biju Karumanchery, Director, Planning David Porretta, Manager of Traffic & Urban Design Engineering Bryan Frois, Chief of Staff Hristina Giantsopoulos, Election & Ron Blake, Senior Development Committee Coordinator Manager, Planning & Urban Design Laura Gold, Council/Committee Francesco Santaguida, Assistant City Coordinator Solicitor Frank Clarizio, Director, Engineering Loy Cheah, Senior Manager of Martha Pettit, Deputy Clerk Transportation

Page 7 of 65 2

1. CALL TO ORDER In consideration of the ongoing public health orders, this meeting was conducted electronically to maintain physical distancing of participants. With the passage of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 (Bill 197), municipal Council Members are now permitted to meet remotely and count towards quorum. The Development Services Committee meeting convened at 9:35 AM with Regional Councillor Jim Jones in the Chair for all items on the agenda. Committee welcomed Frank Clarizio the new Director of Engineering. Committee recessed from 11:38 – 11:50 AM, and recessed form 1:06 – 1:45 PM. Councillor Amanda Collucci left the meeting at 11:30 AM and returned at 12:48 PM.

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There was no disclosure of pecuniary interest.

3. DEPUTATIONS Deputations were made regarding the following items: 1) 8.1 - School Zone Traffic Safety Update 2) 9.1 - Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update (Ward 7)

4. COMMUNICATIONS 4.1 COPPER CREEK DRIVE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT UPDATE (WARD 7) (5.12) Note: Please refer to Item #9.1 for staff report. The Communications for this item were received under agenda item No. 9.1- Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update (Ward 7).

5. PETITIONS Nimisha Patel submitted a petition regarding the Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update. The petition was received under agenda item No. 9.1.

6. CONSENT REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

Page 8 of 65 3

6.1 CYCLING AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CPAC) MINUTES – APRIL 15, 2021 AND MAY 20, 2021 (16.34)

Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath Seconded by Councillor Khalid Usman 1. That the minutes of the Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CPAC) meetings held April and May 20, 2021, be received for information purposes.

Carried

6.2 VARLEY-MCKAY ART FOUNDATION OF MARKHAM MINUTES – APRIL 12, 2021 (16.0)

Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath Seconded by Councillor Khalid Usman 1. That the minutes of the Varley-McKay Art Foundation of Markham meeting held April 12, 2021, be received for information purposes.

Carried

7. PRESENTATIONS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES 7.1 CITY OF MARKHAM COMMENTS TO THE PROVINCE ON A MINISTER’S ZONING ORDER (MZO) REQUEST BY TUNG KEE INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REPRESENTING SOW CAPITAL LIMITED (“THE OWNER”) TO THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING (“MMAH”) TO PERMIT A 332,149.85M2 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT AT 3143 19TH AVENUE (WARD 2) FILE NO.: MZO 21 121854 (10.5) G. Day, ext. 3071 Biju Karumanchery, Director of Planning & Urban Design, introduced the item. Ron Blake, Senior Manager of Development Planning, addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the staff report. The report provides the City’s comments on the Minster’s Zoning Order (MZO) submitted by Tung Kee Investment Limited representing SOW Capital Limited to permit the development of a film studio.

Page 9 of 65 4

David McKay, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscaping Architecture, representing the applicant, provided a presentation on the proposed development. Committee provided the following feedback relative to the staff report:

 Supported the project as it is anticipated to bring many economic benefits to Markham (i.e. jobs, a new industry, and supports the development of Markham as a destination);  Thanked the applicant for protecting the natural heritage features on the site and for maintaining the buffer;  Inquired if the applicant was willing to build a trail in the natural heritage resources located on the site and connect it to Markham’s existing trail network;  Discussed the future revenue the proposed development is anticipated to create and the timeframe for generating this revenue;  Discussed the future of the Donald Cousens Parkway in this area;  Expressed concern that the project will impact traffic congestion in the area, as there is currently minimal public transit servicing the area;  Expressed concern that many development projects are proceeding through the MZO process, and questioned what the City is/has done to improve Markham’s planning process;  Recognized that the project would not meet its target timelines without proceeding through the MZO process and that the City would likely miss out on this opportunity if it proceeded through the City’s regular planning process;  Questioned if the applicant has a tenant lined up for the proposed film studio;  Suggested that the City should find another location for the proposed Catholic Cemetery at 19th and Woodbine Avenue;  Suggested that in the future, a GO station should be requested on the Stouffville or Richmond Hill line to serve this area;  Noted that there may be some benefits to including a residential component to the proposed development;  Suggested that the proposed film studio will help develop various types of employment in the new employment area and that it fits well with the vision for the area;  Questioned if the proposed development will create high tech jobs for different age groups. Mr. McKay responded to inquiries from the Committee, advising that the applicant has submitted the proposed development as an MZO due to the tight project timelines, and to seize the opportunity to build a film studio prior to producers looking elsewhere. The remainder of the project will include an office building and other ancillary uses, and proceed through the regular planning process. Mr. McKay noted that based on his experience working with York Region and the City of Vaughan, transit routes can be adjusted to address employment trends. Mr. McKay clarified that the original proposal included a residential component, but this component was

Page 10 of 65 5 removed from the project as it does not comply with the City’s Official Plan, noting there is substantial residential development being planned in the areas surrounding the development. It was also clarified that the film studio would use private servicing in the interim and that there is a potential tenant for the studio. Mr. McKay further advised that the proposed development will create a combination of high tech and low tech jobs for different age groups. Mr. McKay agreed to look into the timeframe the revenue forecast is based on, and into the possibility of enhancing/restoring the natural heritage feature on the site and developing a trail that connects to the City’s existing trail network. Biju Karumanchery, Acting Commissioner of Development Services advised that the City hired a consultant to review Markham’s planning process. The consultant has provided a list of recommendations of which some have already been implemented. An update on this matter will be brought forward to the Development Services Committee in the early fall. Mr. Karumanchery noted that development applications are processed quickly in Markham in comparison to other municipalities, but recognized the need to make continuous improvements to the process. Mr. Karumanchery advised that it would take 2.5 to 3 years for the project to be completed through the regular planning process, as there is currently no secondary plan for this area. Projects that were able to be expedited in the past already had a secondary plan in place. Staff support the MZO approach, as the proposed development is a great opportunity for Markham. Staff have worked with the applicant to ensure that the proposed project would not seriously compromise City and Regional interests. Mr. Karumanchery further advised that a joint study by both City staff and York Region have in the recent past recommended that the Donald Cousens Parkway Extension is not necessary.

Amendment to the Main Motion: Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath Seconded by Councillor Alan Ho The City of Markham supports the proposed project by SOW Capital Limited to permit employment development at 3143 19th Avenue (Ward 2). Carried Main Motion: Moved by Mayor Frank Scarpitti Seconded by Councillor Alan Ho 1. That the report titled, “City of Markham Comments to the Province on a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) request by Tung Kee Investment Limited Partnership representing SOW Capital Limited (“the Owner”) to the Minister

Page 11 of 65 6

of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) to permit a 332,149.85m2 employment development at 3143 19th Avenue (Ward 2), File No.: MZO 21 121854”, dated July 8, 2021, be received; and,

2. The City of Markham supports the proposed project by SOW Capital Limited to permit employment development at 3143 19th Avenue (Ward 2); and, 3. That the City of Markham supports the Minister’s Zoning Order request, by Tung Kee Investment Limited Partnership representing SOW Capital Limited, subject to the recommended revisions to the Order, attached in Appendix ‘B’ to this Staff report; and,

4. That this report be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the City of Markham’s comments on the MZO request by Tung Kee Investment Limited Partnership representing SOW Capital Limited for the lands at 3143 19th Avenue; and further, 5. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Carried

8. PRESENTATIONS - TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES 8.1 SCHOOL ZONE TRAFFIC SAFETY UPDATE (ALL WARDS) (5.12)

Loy Cheah, Senior Manager of Transportation introduced the item. Nelson Costa, Manager, Corridor Control and Safety, Transportation Services, provided a presentation entitled “New Signs and Lower Speed Limits in School Zones”. The following deputations were made on the school zone traffic update:

Amit Arora supported using a consistent approach to address school zones, including reducing the speed limit in local school zones to 30 km per hour in local schools zones, and creating a buffer to help protect schoolchildren. Nimisha Patel spoke in regards to the success of the City’s Active School Travel (AST) Pilot Project implemented at 9 elementary schools in Markham, suggesting that the program be extended to other school zones. Ms. Patel also supported the reduction of the speed limit in

Page 12 of 65 7 school zones, and using the pop up pylons in other areas of Markham as a traffic calming measure. Committee discussed the following relative to the School Zone Traffic Safety Update:

 Requested the rationale for reducing the speed limit on Highway 7 to 40 km per hour by the Saint Patrick’s Elementary School, suggesting that it should remain at 50 km per hour instead;  Questioned why the speed limit was only being reduced on certain days and at certain times rather than at all times;  Supported having flashing beacons in addition to the new provincial signs;  Suggested that the changes to regional school zones will not reduce driver confusion;  Expressed concern that residents will complain regarding getting more speeding tickets in regional school zones where the speed limit is being reduced;  Suggested that the speed limit should be 40 or 50 km per hour (one consistent speed) in all school zones in York Region;  Requested that the new safety measures be applied to the Kennedy Montessori school zone, as even though it is a small school there are traffic safety concerns that need to be addressed;  Suggested that the reduction of the speed limit on Highway 7 by Saint Patrick Elementary School be postponed;  Suggested that the speed limit be reduced to 30 km/per hour in local school zones.

Mr. Costa responded to inquiries from the Committee, advising that the challenge with having one consistent speed limit in all school zones is that the speed limit is typically set by the characteristics of road. For example, Highway 7 transitions between various speed limits, as its road characteristics vary. The speed limit is being dropped during rush hours on weekdays (rather than at all times), as motorist are already operating at reduced speed of approximately 10 km/per hour at this time. The speed limit will be reduced in the section of the road that is within 150 metres from the school in both directions during peak times. The changes are being made to help improve driver awareness, reduce confusion, to improve the enforceability of the regulations, and to protect vulnerable road users. The speed limit will not be further reduced in school zones on regional roads where the speed limit has already been reduced. The Region has also requested that flashing beacons be permitted to be used in addition to the new provincial sign. Mr. Costa was requested to email Councillor Karen Rea the answers to her questions.

Moved by Regional Councillor Jack Heath Seconded by Mayor Frank Scarpitti

Page 13 of 65 8

1. That the memorandum dated June 21, 2021 entitled “School Zone Traffic Safety Update (All Wards), be received, and,

2. That the deputations by Amit Arora and Nimisha Patel on the “School Zone Traffic Safety Update (All Wards)”, be received, and, 3. That the Region be requested to assess the impact of its new school zone traffic safety measure and report back on the assessment to local municipalities, and, 4. That the City of Markham endorses York Region’s request to the Ministry of Transportation for the inclusion of flashing lights/beacons to the new school zone maximum speed limit signs, and 5. That this resolution be forwarded to York Region and the Ministry of Transportation, and further, 6. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Carried

9. REGULAR REPORTS - TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES 9.1 COPPER CREEK DRIVE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT UPDATE (WARD 7) (5.12)

Loy Cheah, Senior Manager of Transportation, provided a presentation entitled “Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update”. The following deputation was made on the Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update: Nimisha Patel submitted a community petition advocating for safe pedestrian crossings on Copper Creek Drive. Ms. Patel noted that 94% of the 420 residents who signed the petition did not feel that implementing a road diet on Copper Creek Drive will provide for safe pedestrian crossings, as there will still be no place to safely cross in a 1.44 km stretch of road. Ms. Patel noted there has already been two accidents on Copper Creek Drive and advocated for the

Page 14 of 65 9 installation of four way stop signs to ensure pedestrian can safely cross the street to access Harmony Park, retail, and school buses. Committee discussed the following feedback on the Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update:

 Suggested that voice of the community needs to be heard and that residents need to feel safe when crossing Copper Creek Drive;  Supported the road diet as it will help reduce speeding on Copper Creek Drive, but suggested that additional safety measures that address the safe crossing of the road also need to be put in place;  Supported the installation of PXOs (pedestrian crossings) over the installation of four- way stop signs on Copper Creek Drive;  Noted that York Region School Boards should not be requiring students taking the school bus to cross Cooper Creek Drive, and suggested reaching out to the School Boards in this regard;  Noted that there are challenges of installing four-way stops signs prior to them being warranted;  Discussed installing 2 to 3 additional PXOs on Copper Creek Drive to permit for safe pedestrian crossing;  Suggested that PXOs were needed to support the retail businesses, as residents need to be able to safely cross Copper Creek Drive to access the retail establishments;  Expressed concern that residents may not be familiar with PXOs;  Suggested PXOs be piloted on Copper Creek Drive and if effective be considered for other areas of Markham with similar issues;  Suggested that opportunities for the reuse of installed PXO equipment be considered once traffic signals are warranted at Rizal and Copper Creek Drive;  Suggested that the City needs to re-visit traffic calming measures previously used, such as raised intersections, and speed humps, noting that the City’s Fire & Emergency Services staff no longer have an issue with these traffic calming measures;  Suggested that residents will need to be educated on how to use the PXOs;  Questioned if the PXOs will include smart technology so that the City can collect data on how many residents are using the crossing.

David Porretta, Manager of Traffic Engineering, advised that PXO technology does not currently have the capability to count the number of crossings. However, staff can install a video camera to observe how many residents are using the crossing. Mr. Cheah responded to inquires from the Committee, advising that with the road diet installation staff do not object to the installation of the PXOs, but do not recommend this type of crossing under the current 4 lane road configuration and traffic operating conditions. This will

Page 15 of 65 10 be the first installation of this type of PXO in Markham. Consequently, residents will need to be educated on how it works and it could take some time for pedestrians and motorists to become familiar with how it works. The PXO equipment could possibly be reused when signalization is warranted at Rizal and Copper Creek Drive, but it will be subject to the equipment lifecycle and condition. Staff can look at reducing the speed limit on Copper Creek Drive to 30 or 40 km/per hour once staff have had an opportunity to complete an appropriate monitoring period for the street.

Moved by Councillor Khalid Usman Seconded by Mayor Frank Scarpitti

1. That the Deputation by Nimisha Patel regarding the “Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Demonstration Project Update (Ward 7)” be received, and, 2. That the Communications by Raymond Wong, Legacy Community Ratepayers Association, Katherine and Dave Kalmbach, Community Letters submitted on behalf of Nimisha Patel (letters by an engineer, Juanita Nathan, York Region District School Board Trustee, Paul Calandra, MPP, James Ecker, former York Catholic District School Board Trustee, Dawn Adam, Senior Manager, Planning & Property Development Services, York Region District School Board and Joachim Tsui, Manager, Planning Services, Planning & Operations, York Catholic District School Board), regarding the “Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Demonstration Project Update (Ward 7) “ be received, and, 3. That the community petition submitted by Nimisha Patel regarding the Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Project Update (Ward 7) “ be received, and, 4. That the information memorandum entitled, “Copper Creek Drive Traffic Calming Demonstration Project Update (Ward 7)” be received; and 5. That the Copper Creek Traffic Calming Demonstration Project construction proceed to completion as scheduled; and 6. That staff monitor the performance and effectiveness following project completion to ensure satisfactory mitigation of traffic speeds and improved opportunities for safe pedestrian crossings; and 7. That staff implement intersection traffic control measures, such as all-way stops and traffic signals, subject to meeting Provincial warrant criteria prescribed by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario; and

Page 16 of 65 11

8. That Staff install PXOs (pedestrian crossovers) at Copper Creek / Boswell, and at Copper Creek/ Rizal as soon as budget allocation is approved and design and construction can be procured; and, 9. That City of Markham write a letter to the York Region District School Board and the York Region Catholic District School Board requesting that school bus pick-up and drop-off stops on Copper Creek Drive be removed from the bus route where the school children have to cross the street; and further, 10. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Carried

10. REGULAR REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES 10.1 RECOMMENDATION REPORT APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY LIVANTE HOLDINGS (BG PHASE V) INC. ON BLOCK 94, REGISTERED PLAN 65M-4328 (NORTH SIDE OF VETMAR AVENUE, WEST OF VICTORIA SQUARE BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WOODBINE AVENUE) TO FACILITATE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (WARD 2) FILE NO. SPC 19 114746 (10.6)

Ron Blake, Senior Manager of Development Planning, addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the staff report regarding the site plan control applicant submitted by Livante Holdings Inc. to facilitate a mixed used development comprised of an 8 storey building with commercial uses on the ground floor, and 32 stacked townhomes.

James Koutsovitis, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., representing the applicant, provided a presentation on the proposed development. Committee discussed the following relative to the staff report:

 Mayor Frank Scarpitti requested more information on the elevations;  Expressed concern regarding the design of the building;  Suggested that there should be enough space for businesses to have patios facing Victoria Square Boulevard;  Expressed concern regarding the reduction of parking, noting that the area is not on rapid transit;  Questioned who has access to the rear-yard amenity space;

Page 17 of 65 12

 Inquired if the there was still room for boulevard trees with the reduction in the front set- back from Woodbine and Victoria Square Boulevard. Mr. Blake advised that staff support the reduction of parking spaces from 410 to 360 spaces due the residential visitor spaces being shared with the commercial spaces, and alternative modes of transportation being incorporated into the development. For example, the development will include 94 bicycle parking spaces, a car share service for at least the first two years of occupancy, and sharing the commercial and residential visitors spaces takes advantage of the different times of peak parking demand for these uses. Mr. Blake further advised that the building was being brought closer to the street on Woodbine Avenue and on Victoria Square Boulevard to create a relationship between the pedestrian and pedestrian oriented uses that are being proposed at grade. Trees will still be planted on the boulevard on these streets.

Mr. Koutsovitis responded to inquires from the Committee, advising that staff have also supported the 94 shared commercial and residential visitors parking spaces, as a shopping centre rate was applied for the commercial parking spaces (this rate requires a greater number of commercial parking spaces). Mr Koutsovitis advised the reduction in parking for the residential units is minor. The number of spaces per unit was reduced from 1.25 to 1.18 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Koutovitis clarified that a York Region Transit bus does service the area, but that he was unaware of frequency of the service. Mr. Koutsovitis further advised that the stacked townhomes on the ground floor will have access to the rear-yard amenity space and units on the second or third floor will have balconies or rooftop terraces.

Moved by Councillor Alan Ho Seconded by Mayor Frank Scarpitti 1. That the report titled “Application for Site Plan Approval submitted by Livante Holdings (BG Phase V) Inc. on Block 94, Registered Plan 65M-4328 (north side of Vetmar Avenue, west of Victoria Square Boulevard and south of Woodbine Avenue) to facilitate a mixed use development (Ward 2)” be received; and, 2. That the Site Plan application (SPC 19 114746) submitted by Livante Holdings (BG Phase V) Inc., to facilitate the development of an 8 storey building and 3 storey stacked townhouses with a total of 224 residential units and 1680 m2 of commercial space (Ward 2) be endorsed in principle, subject to the conditions in Appendix ‘A’, and that Site Plan Approval be delegated to the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; and, 3. That Site Plan Endorsement shall lapse and site plan approval will not be issued, after a period of three (3) years from the date of endorsement in the event that the site plan agreement is not executed within that time period; and,

Page 18 of 65 13

4. That Council assign servicing allocation for a maximum of 224 dwelling units; and further, 5. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Carried 11. MOTIONS There were no motions.

12. NOTICES OF MOTION There were no notices of motion.

13. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business.

14. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcement. 15. ADJOURNMENT The Development Services Committee adjourned at 4:34 PM.

Page 19 of 65

From: Clerks Public Subject: FW: ROPA 7 Agenda Item 7.1

From: IRENE FORD Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:28 PM To: Clerks Public Cc: [email protected]; Regional Councillor, Joe Li - Markham ; Councillor, Keith Irish - Markham ; Councillor, Alan Ho - Markham ; Councillor, Reid McAlpine - Markham ; Councillor, Karen Rea - Markham ; Councillor, Andrew Keyes - Markham ; Councillor, Amanda Collucci - Markham ; Councillor, Khalid Usman - Markham ; Councillor, Isa Lee - Markham ; Deputy Mayor, Don Hamilton – Markham ; Mayor Scarpitti ; [email protected] Subject: ROPA 7 Agenda Item 7.1

CAUTION: This email originated from a source outside the City of Markham. DO NOT CLICK on any links or attachments, or reply unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayors, Regional Councillors and Markham Councillors,

Markham Development Services Committee Meeting Item 7.1 CITY OF MARKHAM COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO ALLOW URBAN PARK USES IN THE GREENBELT (10.0)

Once again I am submitting strong objections to the endorsement of ROPA 7 by Markham Council. The City of Vaughan 'received' the staff report and developers request they did not support nor oppose ROPA 7. At a minimum I am asking Markham Council to do the same. The request is premature and should not be endorsed nor approved by the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

This developer has already received special treatment through endorsement of a MZO on Block 41 in Vaughan and recently was at the TRCA seeking permit approval that was not consistent with provincial policy. It is evident as recently reported by the Toronto Star that the province is not upholding the protection that the Greenbelt as intended. It is not simply enough to say the land is protected as Greenbelt, the land must also be protected with the appropriate designations. This protection must be enforced and respected by all levels of government otherwise the Greenbelt Plan is meaningless. This decision as well as many others will be precedent setting for future Greenbelt protection. Support for ROPA7 will portray Markham Council as serving and representing developers vested private interests above the public interest.

‘The province is turning a blind eye’: Doug Ford’s hands-off approach to Greenbelt disputes worries residents, environmental groups

There are a few questions that you need to ask yourselves prior to allowing the agenda item below onto the floor of council. I recommend you review the potential implications that could arise from allowing the agenda to move forward to a vote.

 How does a letter by a developer asking for changes to Greenbelt legislation that Council isn't authorized to make get onto the city's agenda?

1 Page 20 of 65

 Approving the request allows the developer to circumvent the normal planning application process that would open it up to an appeal.  Approving the request avoids all public scrutiny and debate on the matter.  Approving the request creates a monetary gain for the developer that would not be possible without council's actions and offers little that is in the grater public interest.  Vaughan and Markham Staff have documented their recommendations which do not support the developers requests.

This agenda item is followed by, 7.2. CITY OF MARKHAM - INTERIM PARKLAND CASH-IN-LIEU STRATEGY (6.3) This puts the questionability of agenda item 7.1 into clearer context. Are some developers being treated differently than others that directly result in a monetary gain and are you allowed to use your office to authorize this preferential treatment?

Last week Markham Council endorsed a MZO for a film studio for which the only rationale was economic benefits that may or may not be realized and the requirement to meet the developer's client's timeline of 2-3 years. There will always be economic benefits and the demand for film studios is great, nor is it going away overnight. It is concerning that the film studio previously announced in Markham supported by Mayor Scarpitti does not appear to have a site confirmed nor an active development application? The day after Markham Council supported the MZO request it became transparently clear that the film studio industry has been effectively lobbying the province about COVID restrictions. Beyond this a Minister's Film and Television Advisory Panel has been established. The Chair of which is the VP for the same organization lobbying the province and another member is associated with a controversial MZO and has a film studio under construction. While we don't know who the end user is it would be very concerning if lobbying efforts are connected to private interests who will benefit from endorsement of this MZO.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2021/07/15/several-of-doug-fords-key-pandemic-decisions-were-swayed-by-business- interests-star-analysis-suggests.html

I think that Markham Council would find if they reviewed the City's Code of Conduct that decisions that support private developer requests through ad-hoc process are

2 Page 21 of 65 anything but transparent, accountable and fair. This defies the behavior that is expected from the Code of Conduct and the higher standard of behavior expected from our publicly elected officials.

Respectfully, Irene Ford

3 Page 22 of 65

Don Given 905 513 0170 x109 [email protected]

July 20, 2021 MGP Files: 20‐2908, 14‐2314, 19‐2854, 13‐2174, 17‐2622 Mayor and Members of Development Services Committee City of Markham 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham ON, L3R 9W3 via email: [email protected]

Dear Mayor Scarpitti and Members of Development Services Committee:

RE: City of Markham Development Services Committee – July 21, 2021 Item 7.1: City of Markham Comments on Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt Comments from the Angus Glen Landowners Group, Robinson Glen Landowners, Victoria Glen Landowners and 1212763 Ontario Ltd

Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (“MGP”) are the land use planners for the Angus Glen Landowners Group, the Robinson Glen Landowners, the Victoria Glen Landowners and 1212763 Ontario Ltd (within the Berczy Glen Block) (referred to collectively as the “Landowners”), who own approximately 624 gross hectares of land within the North Markham Future Urban Area (“FUA”). Collectively with landowners in the City of Vaughan, a Regional Official Plan Amendment application was submitted to re‐designate the Greenbelt Plan Protected Countryside Areas within the New Community Areas from “Agricultural Area” to “Rural Area” (the “ROPA 7”).

The deferred Item 7.1 City of Markham Comments on Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt continues to recommend that Markham Council not support the proposed ROPA 7 application. Further to our written submission and deputation made in response to the June 21, 2021 Staff report and recommendation, this submission provides additional clarity for Markham Development Services Committee.

Proposed ROPA 7

At the Region’s direction, the ROPA request was made to all Greenbelt lands in the Cities of Markham and Vaughan to address the re‐designation on a comprehensively basis. The purpose of the ROPA application is as follows:

 Areas immediately adjacent to newly planned urban residential communities should no longer be characterized as prime agricultural, as these lands surrounded by urban development will be incapable of supporting viable farm operations.

 The proposed re-designation provides flexibility for tableland portions of the Greenbelt Plan Areas that are outside of natural heritage features and buffers, and adjacent to new urban residential development, to be used for active parkland, trails, and other major recreational uses to support the creation of complete communities in accordance with Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan policies.

140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 | Markham | Ontario | L3R 6B3 | T: 905 513 0170 | F: 905 513 0177 | mgp.ca RE: July 21, 2021 Development Services Committee, Item 7.1: City of Markham Comments on July 20,Page 2021 23 of 65 Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt

 The Angus Glen Golf Course will be reconfigured within the Greenbelt Plan lands which requires the Rural Area designation to ensure the golf course layout can be accommodated to maintain its championship status as an internationally recognized golf course.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Letter dated April 30, 2021

In their letter dated April 30, 2021 to York Region, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) confirms the Greenbelt Plan permits parkland, trails and recreational uses within rural lands of the Protected Countryside (refer to Attachment #1).

Excerpt from Page 1:

“The subject lands are comprised of separate areas of land located in both the City of Vaughan and the Town of Markham. The intent of the proposed change is to accommodate parkland, trails and other recreational uses within the Protected Countryside area of the Greenbelt Plan. Those proposed uses are permitted by the Greenbelt Plan.” (emphasis added)

Excerpt from Page 2:

“Parkland and recreational uses are permitted within the rural areas of the protected countryside within the Greenbelt Plan Area. These uses can be an important and essential element of complete communities and provide important benefits to support environmental protection, improved air quality and climate change mitigation (Policy 3.3.1). They provide essential recreational opportunities for Ontarians. There are many policies in the Greenbelt Plan which permit parkland and recreational uses within Protected Countryside. These policies could permit camping, golf courses, ski hills, hiking trails and larger parks or other recreational uses.” (emphasis added)

The Staff Report (Page 22 of 53) notes that “Markham staff are of the opinion that active urban parkland uses were never intended to be permitted in Greenbelt lands even in a ‘Rural’ agricultural designation.” The attached MMAH Letter and above‐noted excerpts clearly articulate the Province’s comments related to the intent of the Greenbelt Plan, and explicitly states that the uses proposed by the ROPA application are permitted within the Protected Countryside area of the Greenbelt Plan.

The Staff Report (Page 22 of 53) also states that the redesignation “will create pressure for not only allowing active urban parkland in the Greenbelt corridors but also for allowing additional non‐ agricultural uses such as rural residential, commercial, or industrial uses.” The Landowners are only seeking to locate only parks, recreational and infrastructure uses within the Greenbelt and support the inclusion of a policy which prohibits specific non‐agricultural uses in the Rural Area.

York Region MCR Updated Policy Directions Reports dated December 2020 and June 2021

York Region released two reports dated December 3, 2020 and June 10, 2021, both of which were endorsed by York Regional Council.

The December Report acknowledges the limited agricultural viability of the Greenbelt Fingers and future context of abutting urban uses, and states “a change to the current Agriculture policy designation is proposed for limited and narrow river valley lands that extend the Greenbelt into existing and future urban areas with Markham and Vaughan”. Staff propose a “Rural Area” or equivalent designation with permitted uses that conform with the permissions of the Protected Countryside Area policies and continued protection of key natural heritage/hydrologic features.

The June Report includes mapping titled “Map 1A – Land Use Designations” (see next page) which identifies the Greenbelt Fingers within the Angus Glen, Robinson Glen, Berczy Glen and Victoria Glen

140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 | Markham | Ontario | L3R 6B3 | T: 905 513 0170 | F: 905 513 0177 | mgp.ca Page 2 of 4 RE: July 21, 2021 Development Services Committee, Item 7.1: City of Markham Comments on July 20,Page 2021 24 of 65 Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt

Blocks as “Rural Area”. Based on this draft mapping, we understand the Region intends to redesignate the Greenbelt Fingers to “Rural Area” as part of the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process. With the MCR process still several years to completion, the existing FUA lands that are actively undergoing planning approvals now require ROPA 7 to facilitate the redesignation ahead of the MCR timing.

Figure 1 Draft Map 1A ‐ Land Use Designations Markham Excerpt

Source: York Region Policy Directions Report dated June 10, 2021, excerpt of Attachment 2, Map 1A Markham staff also acknowledge the limited viability of agricultural uses on lands immediately adjacent to new urban residential development and do not permit agricultural uses within the in‐force and effect FUA Secondary Plans. Page 24 of 53 of the Staff Report states: “In recognition of their limited viability for continued farming once development occurs, as well as the ultimate planned function of ecological and passive recreational uses, neither the Berczy Glen or Robinson Glen secondary plans (both currently in effect) identify agricultural uses as a permitted use within the ‘Greenway' designation that applies to these corridors. Instead the Secondary Plan policies reflect the intent for these lands to transition over time from agricultural uses to a natural state, incorporating trails and other nature‐related recreational uses for the benefit of the local community and the City (emphasis added)”.

We agree with staff that the Greenbelt Fingers will be incapable of supporting agricultural uses once urban residential development occurs. While landowners often convey lands encumbered by natural heritage features and buffers to the municipality, there is no requirement to do so nor is there a requirement to convey tableland portions of the Greenbelt Plan lands that do not contain any features or buffers. It is our opinion that the re‐designation to “Rural Area” allowing active parkland uses, trails and other recreational uses on tableland portions of the Greenbelt Fingers will benefit to the surrounding community and contribute to the delivery of complete communities integral to the municipality’s growth objectives.

Protection of the Angus Glen Golf Course

Development of the Angus Glen Community requires the Angus Glen Golf Course to be reconfigured to an 18‐hole golf course with the majority holes located within the Greenbelt Plan lands. The “Rural Area”

140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 | Markham | Ontario | L3R 6B3 | T: 905 513 0170 | F: 905 513 0177 | mgp.ca Page 3 of 4 RE: July 21, 2021 Development Services Committee, Item 7.1: City of Markham Comments on July 20,Page 2021 25 of 65 Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt

redesignation is required to ensure the revised golf course layout can be accommodated which includes renovation and/or reconfiguration of golf holes located within natural heritage features and their buffers as required to maintain their championship status, and existing and new supporting facilities remain as permitted uses.

The Staff Report (Page 24 of 53) states that the Conceptual Master Plan assumes natural heritage and non‐active parkland and recreational uses in the Greenbelt Fingers. The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) assumed the golf course would remain in perpetuity within the Greenbelt Plan lands, and Section 2.2.3 of the City’s CMP Report states:

“Long term development within the Angus Glen Block assumes the reconfiguration of the northerly fairways to allow for the ultimate continued operation of an 18‐hole course (11 holes along both sides of Berczy Creek north of Major Mackenzie Drive plus the existing 7 holes south of Major Mackenzie Drive) while allowing for development of tablelands for neighbourhood uses.”

Staff recommendations do not acknowledge the Angus Glen Golf Course as a major recreational use, and the need to reconfigure the golf course within Greenbelt lands. It is our opinion that the redesignation to “Rural Area” provides the necessary flexibility to ensure there are no unintended consequences when the golf course is reconfigured in the future.

Zoning By‐law 304‐87 Permits Major Recreation and Parkland Uses

It is staff’s opinion that active urban parks containing play structures, sports fields and other active recreational uses are not permitted (Page 24 of 53). Under the current Zoning By‐law 304‐87, which pre‐dates the Greenbelt Plan, existing zoning for the golf course lands include permissions for golf course uses, athletic fields, skating rinks, and private or public parks. Although staff acknowledge that the golf course use is recognized as a legal existing use and therefore permitted to operate notwithstanding the “Prime” agricultural and “Greenway” designations, it is our opinion that the redesignation to “Rural Area” will protect all existing zoning permissions that include parkland and major recreational uses.

We trust that the attached information is helpful for your reference. I will attend the July 21, 2021 Development Services Committee meeting to speak to this in greater detail.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (905) 513‐0170 ext. 109.

Yours very truly, Malone Given Parsons Ltd.

Don Given, MCIP, RPP attmts: Attachment #1 – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Letter dated April 30, 2021 cc: Angus Glen Landowners Group Robinson Glen Landowners Group Arvin Prasad, City of Markham Biju Karumanchery, City of Markham Marg Wouters, City of Markham

140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 | Markham | Ontario | L3R 6B3 | T: 905 513 0170 | F: 905 513 0177 | mgp.ca Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTPage 26 of 65 #1

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministère des Affaires municipales and Housing et Logement

Municipal Services Division Division des services aux municipalités

777 Bay Street, 16th Floor 777, rue Bay, 16e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Telephone: 416-585-6427 Téléphone: 416-585-6427

By email only

Augustine Ko, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Community Planning and Development Services Corporate Services Department Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1

RE: Regional Official Plan Amendment to Redesignate Prime Agricultural Areas

Dear Mr. Ko,

Thank you for circulating the regional official plan amendment (ROPA) application to the Ministry for our review. We understand the application was submitted by a consortium of private landowners seeking to change an Agricultural Area designation to a Rural Area designation in the Regional Official Plan.

The subject lands are comprised of separate areas of land located in both the City of Vaughan and the Town of Markham. The intent of the proposed change is to accommodate parkland, trails and other recreational uses within the Protected Countryside area of the Greenbelt Plan. Those proposed uses are permitted by the Greenbelt Plan.

We note the subject lands are located entirely within the Protected Countryside, are subject to the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System, and are further identified as part of the provincial Agricultural System – being designated as a prime agricultural area on provincial mapping of the agricultural land base.

MMAH REVIEW:

The following comments are provided for your consideration. As part of our review, we have shared the ROPA application with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Page 27 of 65

Approval Authority:

In accordance with the Planning Act and O. Reg. 525/97, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority with respect to any amendment that is adopted to designate a prime agricultural area, or amends or revokes a prime agricultural area designation other than for the purposes of including all the applicable land within an area of settlement within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan Area. Accordingly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for such a Regional Official Plan amendment regardless of whether it was initiated under section 17, section 22, or section 26 of the Planning Act.

Redesignation of Prime Agricultural Areas:

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (APTG) sets out in policy 4.2.6 that provincial mapping of the agricultural land base is in effect within the Greenbelt Area. As such, municipal decisions within the Greenbelt Area must conform with the Agricultural System policies in APTG. It is noted that the subject lands are within the Greenbelt Area and thus the Greenbelt Plan applies to them.

The refinement can occur either as part of a Municipal Comprehensive Review or outside of that process, provided the policies are properly implemented.

Policy 5.3 of the Greenbelt Plan states, “Within the Protected Countryside, upper- and single-tier municipalities shall refine and augment official plan mapping to bring prime agricultural areas and rural lands into conformity with provincial mapping and implementation procedures. Until the province has completed mapping and the Agricultural System implementation procedures, municipalities shall continue to retain existing designations for prime agricultural areas within the Protected Countryside.” The implementation procedures are discussed below.

The province released Publication 856, being the Implementation Procedures referred to in Policy 5.3 of the Greenbelt Plan, in March 2020. The Implementation Procedures apply to an official plan or official plan amendment which refines the boundaries of the rural areas and agricultural system in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

Section 3.3.2.3 of the Implementation Procedures (Adding Candidate Areas to Rural Lands Within the Agricultural Land Base) states: “By definition, the agricultural land base includes rural lands. The rural lands policies in the PPS, A Place to Grow and Greenbelt Plan apply and allow for a wider range of uses than in prime agricultural areas. This includes cemeteries, fairgrounds, campgrounds and recreation sites. Rural lands provide opportunities to locate rural, non-agricultural uses where appropriate, outside of prime agricultural areas. […] Identification of rural lands within the agricultural land base is left to municipal discretion, as long as the Agricultural System purpose and outcomes are met.”

Parkland Uses in the Greenbelt Protected Countryside

Parkland and recreational uses are permitted within the rural areas of the protected countryside within the Greenbelt Plan Area. These uses can be an important and essential element of complete communities and provide important benefits to support

Page 28 of 65 environmental protection, improved air quality and climate change mitigation (Policy 3.3.1). They provide essential recreational opportunities for Ontarians. There are many policies in the Greenbelt Plan which permit parkland and recreational uses within Protected Countryside. These policies could permit camping, golf courses, ski hills, hiking trails and larger parks or other recreational uses.

Thank you for circulating the proposed ROPA to Ministry staff for our consideration. If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact Laurie Miller at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Hannah Evans Assistant Deputy Minister Municipal Services Division c. Paul Freeman, Chief Planner, York Region Laurie Miller, MSO-C Jocelyn Beatty, OMAFRA Maria Jawaid, MNRF Sean Fraser, PPPB

Page 29 of 65

SPECIALIST IN LAND MANAGEMENT + DEVELOPMENT

Markham Civic Centre July 20, 2021 101 Town Centre Boulevard sent via email: Markham, ON L3R 9W3

Attention: Parvanthi Nampoothiri, Manager, Urban Design

RE: City of Markham – Interim Parkland CIL Strategy – Markham Centre Landowners Group Inc. Response

We are writing to you in our capacity as the Group Manager to the Markham Centre Landowners Group (the “MCLOG”), which is a collective of landowners within the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Area (the “MCSPA”), who are party to the Markham Centre Cost Sharing Agreement (the “CSA”), as identified below:

o H&W Development Corporation (“H&W”) o Ruland Properties Inc. (“Remington Group) o 1771107 Ontario Inc. (“Times Group”) o One Piece Ideal Developments Inc. (“One Piece”) o 260622 Ontario Inc. (“Kingdom Developments”) o Enterprise Boulevard Inc. (“Metropia”)

We are writing to you in response to the report titled ‘City of Markham - Interim Parkland Cash-in-Lieu Strategy’ presented to the Development Services Committee on July 21st, 2021. We would first like to thank the City of Markham Staff for undertaking this review of CIL rates and the calculation methodology as we recognize the importance for the City of Markham to develop a competitive CIL rate to ensure development can proceed in a timely and financially feasible manner.

While we do appreciate that the Staff Report acknowledges concerns raised by the development industry as it relates to the City’s current parkland dedication CIL rate for medium and high-density residential units, we still hold the position that the proposed 25% reduction in CIL rates continues to result in a rate that is encumbering on development. As noted in the City’s presentation, surrounding municipalities have a CIL rate in the range of $4,200 - $10,720 per unit, and the City of Markham’s updated methodology results in a rate which would be $45,000 per unit in an intensification area. This rate calculated using the new ‘proximity ring’ methodology is still over 400% more when compared to surrounding municipalities, which we believe is a significant departure from a CIL rate that would attract development in Markham. In addition, we believe the City’s target of 1.2 ha of parkland per 1,000 people needs further consideration particularly for high-density intensification areas, and we look forward to discussing this further with Staff.

While the new proposed methodology and rates are an improvement to what is currently in place, we believe a further reduction, and a per unit cap that is more in line with surrounding municipalities is more appropriate as an interim measure, subject to change through the finalization of the 2022 Parkland By-

8800 Dufferin St. Suite 104 T 905 660 7667 Vaughan Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905 660 7067 DELTAURBAN.COM Page 30 of 65

SPECIALIST IN LAND MANAGEMENT + DEVELOPMENT

law. It is important that Markham has a competitive CIL rate to ensure economic feasibility of projects and offer much needed affordable housing units in the City of Markham and to meet the Growth Plan targets.

As the City works towards updating the Parkland By-law, we would also like to note that there are Council approved Parkland Policies for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan area which should be revisited and reviewed. Please note that that we are having on-going communication with the City of Markham Staff on the cash-in-lieu methodology, and we have prepared various studies and memorandums for the City’s review. We look forward to working in partnership with the City of Markham to further this exercise and explore additional opportunities to develop a CIL Rate that will be fair to the development industry, while also ensuring the City is able to collect sufficient funds to deliver the quality and quantum of parkland in the City that is needed to support existing and new residents.

Yours Very Truly,

Mustafa Ghassan

cc. Markham Centre Landowners Group Inc.

8800 Dufferin St. Suite 104 T 905 660 7667 Vaughan Ontario L4K 0C5 F 905 660 7067 DELTAURBAN.COM Page 31 of 65

Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021

SUBJECT: City of Markham Comments on Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt

PREPARED BY: Patrick Wong, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner, Natural Heritage, ext. 6922

REVIEWED BY: Lilli Duoba, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Natural Heritage, ext. 7925

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the staff report entitled ‘City of Markham Comments on Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to Allow Urban Park Uses in the Greenbelt’ dated June 21, 2021 be received;

2. That Council not support the proposed ROPA 7 application to amend the Regional Official Plan to redesignate the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture to allow active urban parkland/ recreational uses on lands outside of natural heritage features and their vegetation protection zones;

3. That with the exception of permitting stormwater management facilities, trails and road/servicing infrastructure as provided for in the Markham Official Plan 2014, Council confirm support of the use of all of the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham for conservation, natural heritage restoration and passive recreational uses rather than active urban parkland and recreational purposes, consistent with the Markham Official Plan, the Future Urban Area Subwatershed Study, the approved Berczy Glen and Robinson Glen secondary plans and the Rouge North Management Plan;

4. That if the ROPA 7 application to amend the Regional Official Plan to redesignate Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture is approved, that Markham Council not support active urban parkland and recreational uses and other non-agricultural uses in any resulting designation that may be required for the Greenbelt Plan corridors in Markham, and;

5. That this report and resolution be submitted to York Region and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as Markham’s comments on proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment No 7;

6. And that staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Page 32 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Landowners in Vaughan and Markham have submitted a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 7) to redesignate Greenbelt Plan corridors in the Markham Future Urban Area and in Vaughan from ‘Prime’ Agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture to allow active urban parkland and other recreational uses. Although the application applies specifically to the Greenbelt corridors in the Future Urban Area (FUA), the redesignation could set a precedent for all Greenbelt corridors in Markham. ROPA 7 will create pressure for not only allowing active urban parkland in the Greenbelt corridors but also for allowing additional non-agricultural uses such as rural residential, commercial, or industrial uses.

Markham staff do not support active urban parkland in the Greenbelt corridors for three main reasons as follows: 1. Markham has consistently planned for the use of the Greenbelt corridor and Natural Heritage System lands for ecological, passive recreation and natural open space uses which are considered to be fundamental to achieving City-wide environmental objectives as well as the development of sustainable communities in adjacent urban areas; 2. The provision of active parkland in the Greenbelt could adversely affect the amount of active urban parkland and greenspace in the FUA communities and elsewhere in Markham if the City is required to provide parkland dedication credit for unanticipated urban parks in the Greenbelt; and 3. The relocation of active urban parkland to the periphery of the FUA neighbourhoods could impact the City’s ability to provide active parkland in appropriate locations within walking distance to all residents.

This report provides key considerations and implications relative to natural heritage and parkland planning and recommends that Council not support ROPA 7. In the event that Regional Council or the Province support ROPA 7, staff recommend that active urban parkland uses continue to be prohibited within the Greenbelt corridors lands in the Markham Official Plan.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide comments to York Region on proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 7 (‘ROPA 7’). The ROPA application seeks to redesignate Greenbelt Plan corridors (also known as ‘green fingers’) in north Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture thereby allowing portions of the Greenbelt corridors to be used for active urban parkland and other recreational uses.

BACKGROUND: The ROPA 7 application was submitted to York Region by the Angus Glen Landowners Group (Markham), Robinson Glen Landowners Group (Markham) and Block 41 Landowners Group (Vaughan) in February 2021, and circulated to the City for comment in March 2021. The statutory public meeting was held by Regional Committee of the Whole on May 13, 2021. It is anticipated that a recommendation report will be brought to Regional Council for a decision in September 2021. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for this application.

Page 33 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 3

The purpose of the proposed Amendment is to redesignate the Berczy, Bruce and Robinson Creek Greenbelt corridors adjacent to the Markham Future Urban Area from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture to allow portions of the Protected Countryside – Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt to be used for active urban parkland and other recreational uses. Figure 1 identifies the lands in Markham that are subject to the application.

The intent of the amendment is to permit active urban parkland within the Greenbelt lands that are outside of natural heritage features and their vegetation protection zones. Staff estimate that approximately 39 hectares out of a total of 261 hectares of the Greenbelt lands in the Future Urban Area Planning District are outside of the natural features and buffers or planned infrastructure as identified in the Berczy Glen and Robinson Glen master environmental servicing plans (see Figure 2). A large portion of these lands are proposed to remain as golf course (i.e., Angus Glen Golf Course) with other areas potentially for stormwater management facilities. The amount of active urban parkland proposed to be provided within the Greenbelt lands is not yet known and would be determined through subsequent Secondary Plan and subdivision application approvals.

Figure 1: Lands Subject to ROPA 7 Amendment in Markham

While the application only applies to the lands shown in Figure 1, the applicant’s Planning Justification Report suggests that the principle of allowing active urban parkland within Greenbelt lands should also be applied to future urban expansion lands in Markham, which would impact the Greenbelt corridors of the remainder of the Bruce and

Page 34 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 4

Robinson Creeks, Mount Joy Creek, as well as the entire Little Rouge Creek corridor, representing an additional 720 hectares of Greenbelt lands (see Figure 3).

It is noted that the application includes lands outside of the land holdings owned by the applicants, Angus Glen Landowners and Robinson Glen Landowners. The lands identified as part of the application include additional lands owned by the Victoria Glen Landowners and Berczy Glen Landowners which are identified in support of the application, as well as other lands not owned by the applicants (i.e., Romandale Farms as well as individual non-participating property owners). Romandale Farms Ltd. has informed the Region that they object to being identified as a participating landowner for the ROPA 7 application.

DISCUSSION: The designation of the Greenbelt corridors lands as ‘Prime’ agricultural vs ‘Rural’ agriculture in the Regional Official Plan determines which Greenbelt Plan policies apply

The lands subject to the ROPA 7 application are entirely within the Greenbelt Plan area and are designated Protected Countryside with a Natural Heritage System overlay in the Greenbelt Plan. Within the Protected Countryside, the Greenbelt Plan identifies lands as falling within one of three agricultural designations: ‘Specialty Crop’, ‘Prime’ and ‘Rural’. These agricultural designations are not delineated in the Greenbelt Plan, rather they are delineated in upper-tier official plans (e.g., York Region Official Plan).

The Greenbelt Plan and the Official Plan provide for permitted uses specific to each of these designations. The ‘Prime’ agricultural designation strictly limits non-agricultural uses in the Greenbelt corridor lands (outside of natural heritage features and associated buffers) to municipal infrastructure such as roads and servicing, stormwater management facilities, ecological restoration and passive recreational uses (e.g., walking trails). Active parkland is not permitted within the ‘Prime’ agricultural designation.

The ‘Rural’ agricultural designation allows more flexibility in permitted uses. The redesignation of the lands in Markham from ‘Prime’ agriculture to ‘Rural’ agriculture will create pressure for not only allowing active parkland in the Greenbelt corridors but also for allowing additional non-agricultural uses that are permitted in a ‘Rural’ designation by the Greenbelt Plan. While the ROPA 7 application identifies ‘parkland, trails and other recreational uses’ as the intended permitted uses, a ‘Rural’ agriculture land use designation would also allow consideration of rural commercial, institutional, residential, resource-based uses and other non-agricultural uses intended to support the larger agricultural and rural community. None of these uses are intended land uses for these corridors in Markham.

It should be noted that Markham staff are of the opinion that active urban parkland uses were never intended to be permitted in Greenbelt lands even in a ‘Rural’ agriculture designation. The types of parkland uses permitted in Rural lands identified in the Greenbelt Plan are large land-intensive uses that are normally found in rural areas, e.g., campgrounds, golf courses, ski hills, hiking trails, and larger parks or other recreational

Page 35 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 5

uses. Both the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan policies prohibit the expansion of urban settlement areas into the Greenbelt. The inclusion of active urban parkland in the Greenbelt could be interpreted as an expansion of the urban settlement area into the Greenbelt contrary to the intent of establishing a permanently protected landscape in the GTA. Further, allowing active urban parkland that supports adjacent urban development would have the effect of establishing urban uses in protected Greenbelt lands.

In response to a recent request by Regional staff for a definitive decision on this interpretation, the Province has implied that the Greenbelt policies are subject to municipal interpretation. Markham staff’s interpretation, which is consistent with the interpretation of planners in other municipalities, is that active urban parkland was never intended in the Greenbelt Plan, and Markham’s natural heritage and community planning is based on this interpretation.

Markham staff do not support active urban parkland in Markham’s Greenbelt corridors for three main reasons as follows, which are discussed in more detail below: 1. Markham has consistently planned for the use of the Greenbelt corridor and Natural Heritage System lands for ecological, passive recreation and natural open space uses which are considered to be fundamental to achieving City-wide environmental objectives as well as the development of sustainable communities in adjacent urban areas; 2. The provision of active urban parkland in the Greenbelt could adversely affect the amount of active parkland and greenspace in the FUA communities and elsewhere in Markham if the City is required to provide parkland dedication credit for unanticipated urban parks in the Greenbelt; and, 3. The relocation of active urban parkland to the periphery of the FUA neighbourhoods could impact the City’s ability to provide parkland in appropriate locations within walking distance to all residents.

1. Markham has consistently planned for the use of the Greenbelt corridor lands for ecological, passive recreational and natural open space purposes

A number of planning initiatives undertaken in Markham over the past 20 years reflect Markham Council’s direction for the ecological and passive use of the Greenbelt corridor lands, including:  Natural heritage, Greenway, and Future Urban Area policies in the Markham Official Plan 2014;  The Future Urban Area Subwatershed Study and Conceptual Master Plan;  Secondary Plans for the Berczy Glen and Robinson Glen communities in the FUA (both in effect); and,  Approval of the Rouge North Management Plan and associated amendment to the 1987 Official Plan (OPA 140)

The policies of the Markham Official Plan 2014 do not support active urban parkland uses in the Greenbelt corridors The Greenbelt corridors identified in ROPA 7 application are designated ‘Greenway’ in the Official Plan, 2014. Pedestrian trails and nature-based recreational uses are currently

Page 36 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 6

permitted in lands designated ‘Greenway’, while active urban parks containing play structures, sports fields and other active recreational uses are not permitted. The existing Angus Glen Golf Course is recognized as a legal existing use under the Official Plan and the Greenbelt Plan and therefore is permitted to continue to operate notwithstanding the ‘Prime’ agriculture and ‘Greenway’ designations. It is noted that expansions to existing uses may be considered under section 4.6 of the Greenbelt Plan.

Markham’s Official Plan directs all new active urban parkland and other urban uses to lands outside of the Greenbelt and larger Greenway System.

FUA Subwatershed Study, Conceptual Master Plan and approved Secondary Plans all assume natural heritage and non-active parkland and recreational uses A key component of the comprehensive planning for the new communities in the Future Urban Area was the Subwatershed Study for the Berczy, Bruce, Robinson and Eckart Creeks. The multi-year, multi-discipline Subwatershed Study assessed the cumulative environmental impacts of the planned new communities and employment lands (45,000 new residents and 17,000 new jobs) with the assumption that the Greenbelt corridors would be used for only natural heritage and passive recreational uses.

The Greenbelt corridor lands are important to the overall ecological health and function of the Rouge Watershed and the subwatersheds. These lands contain significant natural heritage features including Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Valleylands, Significant Woodlands, Significant Wildlife Habitat, Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species as well as buffer and restoration lands necessary to protect and enhance these natural features. The Natural Heritage System in the Greenbelt Plan, including the lands outside natural features, is intended to provide essential ecosystem services, including water storage and filtration, cleaner air, wildlife habitat, support for pollinators, carbon storage and resilience to climate change.

As the lands are conveyed or acquired into public ownership, tree planting and restoration works are intended to transition the Greenbelt corridor lands currently being farmed back into a natural state. The protection of these lands within the Greenway System is important to mitigate and offset the overall impacts of planned urbanization that will result in approximately 45,000 new residents in the FUA. In addition, the Greenbelt corridor lands provide a significant opportunity to increase woodland cover and enhance the City’s local biodiversity. Markham currently has the lowest woodland cover (7.8%) of all nine York Region municipalities and it is a Council priority to protect and expand woodland and tree canopy cover.

In recognition of their limited viability for continued farming once development occurs, as well as the ultimate planned function of ecological and passive recreational uses, neither the Berczy Glen or Robinson Glen secondary plans (both currently in effect) identify agricultural uses as a permitted use within the ‘Greenway' designation that applies to these corridors. Instead the Secondary Plan policies reflect the intent for these lands to transition over time from agricultural uses to a natural state, incorporating trails and other nature-related recreational uses for the benefit of the local community and the City. To this end the Secondary Plans direct development proponents to prepare a Natural

Page 37 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 7

Heritage Restoration Plan to identify ecological restoration projects to be implemented within the Greenway System, including the Greenbelt corridor lands, concurrent with development. Council has already approved two subdivisions in the Berczy Glen Secondary Plan area which include lands within the Greenbelt corridors and required ecological restoration and trails on the Greenbelt lands as a condition of approval.

As Greenbelt lands are conveyed and acquired into public ownership, it is expected that there will be additional ecological restoration opportunities that could be undertaken by the City, TRCA and other community groups (e.g., Trees for Tomorrow community plantings) to further enhance wildlife habitat and community stewardship of the environment. The City is working with the TRCA to prepare a long-term restoration plan for all of the FUA Greenbelt corridors to help inform the design and location of city-led tree planting and wetland projects. Any new permissions for active urban parkland in the corridor would displace much needed lands for potential open space and ecological restoration.

The use of these lands for natural heritage restoration, passive open space and recreational trails, and potentially community gardens where appropriate, therefore does not represent a ‘sterilization’ of land as characterized in the applicant’s justification report but rather provides substantial ecological and recreational benefits to the local community that are integral to the creation of healthy, sustainable and complete communities in the FUA. These planned uses reflect Markham’s environment-first approach to land use planning and the City’s commitment to manage and balance growth against the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system as a green legacy for future generations.

The Conceptual Master Plan for the Future Urban Area, which provided a broad planning framework on which secondary plans are based, also assumed that all active urban parkland would be provided within the developable area of the communities and not at the edges of the communities in the Greenbelt corridors. The delineation of neighbourhoods and neighbourhood focal points (schools and parks) were based on required parkland being located central to the neighbourhoods.

The Rouge North Management Plan does not support active urban parkland uses within the Little Rouge Creek Corridor The Greenbelt Plan contains specific policies for the Rouge River watershed given the extensive public investment in establishing the Rouge National Urban Park and its predecessor, Rouge Park North. The Greenbelt Plan (section 3.2.7) requires that planning and resource management decisions within the Rouge River watershed within the Protected Countryside comply with the provisions of the Rouge North Management Plan (RNMP). In the event of a conflict between the Greenbelt Plan and RNMP policies, the more restrictive policies apply.

The RNMP provides the policy framework for protected ecological corridors including the 600 metre wide Little Rouge Creek ecological corridor. This corridor is delineated as Rouge Watershed Protection Area (RWPA) in the 2014 Official Plan. The provision of active urban parkland and recreational uses in the Little Rouge Creek corridor would not

Page 38 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 8

be consistent with the Greenbelt Plan as required by Policy 3.2.7. For the Little Rouge Creek corridor the Rouge Watershed Protection Area boundary includes all of the Greenbelt lands. The approval of ROPA 7 could have major implications to the realization of an interior forest corridor along the Little Rouge Creek if ROPA 7 sets a precedent for allowing active urban parks in other Greenbelt corridors in Markham.

2. The provision of active urban parkland in the Greenbelt could adversely affect the provision of parkland and greenspace in the FUA and across the City of Markham

ROPA 7 could result in an overall reduction of greenspace in the FUA The FUA Conceptual Master Plan and the approved secondary plans identify all active urban parkland to be located within the urban community outside of the Greenbelt corridors, and further identify the Greenbelt corridors as providing a substantial natural ecological corridor with trails on both sides of the watercourse. It is anticipated that 100 percent of the parkland dedication requirement for the ground-oriented development in the new FUA communities will be in form of park land, while cash-in-lieu of parkland will be accepted for a portion of the higher density developments along Major Mackenzie Drive.

Any new active urban parkland provided within the Greenbelt lands would require the City to give up or reduce the size of planned parkland blocks within the community, as the City cannot require the dedication of parkland above Planning Act standards. This would lead to an overall loss of planned greenspace and natural open space within the planned FUA communities.

A further consideration is that if urban parkland (e.g., sports fields) meets the definition of ‘development’ or ‘site alteration’ under the Greenbelt Plan, the Natural Heritage System policies of the Greenbelt Plan (Section 3.2.3.3) would require at least 30% of the park site to naturally regenerate into woodlands/meadows/wetlands. This would preclude the ability to use a large portion of the dedicated parkland for recreational facilities and may result in the under-delivery of both usable parkland and facilities. Active parkland conveyed to the City is typically free of encumbrances to allow for maximum flexibility in the design and siting of recreational facilities. Section 4.1.2 of the Greenbelt Plan further identifies the need for vegetation enhancement plans and a conservation plan for new major recreational uses within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System which may further complicate the delivery of recreational facilities.

In addition, any use of the City’s parkland acquisition fund to purchase additional active urban parkland in the Greenbelt corridors would reduce the City’s ability to acquire new parks elsewhere in the City. The City faces challenges with providing adequate parkland in new community areas and in intensification areas such as Markham Centre and Langstaff Centre. Staff do not support providing parkland credit for Greenbelt lands at the expense of other active, programmable parkland in the FUA communities or elsewhere in the City.

Page 39 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 9

The plans for the Greenbelt corridor lands as natural open space provide passive recreational opportunities through nature enjoyment, trails and daily exercise which enhances the overall quality of life for future residents and contributes to the development of complete communities. The passive recreational opportunities afforded by the Greenbelt lands work together with active urban parkland within the communities to provide a full range of recreational opportunities and an integrated parks and open space network.

The City’s practice is to acquire as much of the Greenway System as possible without the use of parkland dedication resources. It is recommended that the City continue to exclude the Greenbelt corridor lands from being eligible to meet parkland dedication requirements. Where Greenbelt lands are not conveyed through the development process but are desirable for passive public use, the City could consider other mechanisms to achieve the same result including easements, agreements or purchase through the Environmental Land Acquisition Fund.

3. Active parkland in the Greenbelt could impact the ability to provide parkland within walking distance to new residents

Convenient access to local parks is an important component of creating walkable and healthy communities. The identification of a parks and open space system consisting of a hierarchy of community parks, neighbourhood parks, parkettes and open space was central to the development of the Community Structure Plan for the FUA. Parks are planned to function as focal points for each community and in locations that are easily accessible for all residents (within a 5 minute walk to a neighbourhood park and a 10 minute walk to community parks) which support active lifestyles and daily exercise. Parks are also often co-located with elementary and secondary schools to create neighbourhood/community hubs.

As an increasing proportion of Markham’s population will reside in medium or high density housing forms, the importance of public parkland and open space will continue to grow. The relocation of parks from central locations within a neighbourhood to the edge of a neighbourhood within the Greenbelt corridors will lead to an uneven distribution of active parkland, an overall loss of greenspace, and will create greater challenges to meet the City’s objectives of providing parkland at appropriate locations for the benefit of all community residents. Opportunities to co-locate park and school sites would also likely be more challenging to achieve.

Additional Considerations Should the ROPA 7 application be approved, the City would have to amend the Markham Official Plan to conform with the Regional Official Plan, including a new policy framework to address a ‘Rural’ land use classification since there are currently no ‘Rural’ lands in Markham. Notwithstanding the ultimate Regional Official Plan designation, the City has the ability to be more restrictive in terms of non-agricultural land use permissions to reflect local needs and land use objectives.

Page 40 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: June 21, 2021 Page 10

Summary and Recommendations Based on the above considerations, Markham staff do not support active urban parkland in the Greenbelt corridors for the three main reasons outlined: 1. Markham has consistently planned for the use of the Greenbelt corridor and Natural Heritage System lands for ecological, passive recreation and natural open space uses which are considered to be fundamental to achieving City-wide environmental objectives as well as the development of sustainable communities in adjacent urban areas; 2. The provision of active urban parkland in the Greenbelt could adversely affect the amount of active parkland and greenspace in the FUA communities and elsewhere in Markham if the City is required to provide parkland dedication credit for unanticipated urban parks in the Greenbelt; and, 3. The relocation of active urban parkland to the periphery of the FUA neighbourhoods could impact the City’s ability to provide active parkland in appropriate locations within walking distance to all residents.

Staff therefore recommend that Council not support the ROPA 7 application. In addition, in the event that Regional Council or the Province support ROPA 7, staff recommend that active urban parkland uses continue to be prohibited within the Greenbelt corridors lands in the Markham Official Plan.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial implications related to the recommendations of this report.

HUMAN RESOURCES CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: ROPA 7 relates to the City’s goal to protect and enhance our natural environment and built form identified in Building Markham’s Future Together 2020 – 2023 Strategic Plan under ‘Safe, Sustainable and Complete Community’.

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: Planning and Urban Design staff were consulted in the preparation of this report.

RECOMMENDED BY:

Marg Wouters, MCIP, RPP Biju Karumanchery, MCIP, RPP Senior Manager, Policy & Research Acting Commissioner, Development Services

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment ‘A’: Draft ROPA 7 submitted by the applicant Figure 2: Greenbelt Plan corridors in the Future Urban Area Figure 3: Greenbelt Plan corridors in the Whitebelt

Page 41 of 65

Figure 2: Greenbelt Plan corridors in the Future Urban Area

Page 42 of 65

Figure 3: Greenbelt Plan corridors in the Whitebelt

Page 43 of 65

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

BYLAW NO. 2021-XX

A bylaw to adopt Amendment No. X to the Official Plan for The Regional Municipality of York

WHEREAS the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, permits The Regional Municipality of York to adopt an Official Plan or amendments thereto;

AND WHEREAS Regional Council at its meeting on MONTH, X, 2021 decided to adopt Regional Official Plan Amendment No. X to the York Regional Official Plan – 2010;

The Council of The Regional Municipality of York HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. Regional Official Plan Amendment No. X to the York Region Official Plan – 2010 (ROPA No. X) consisting of text and figures in the attached Schedule “A” is hereby adopted. 2. ROPA No. 6, by virtue of Ontario Regulation 525/97, is exempt from approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 3. Schedule “A” shall form part of this Bylaw.

ENACTED AND PASSED on MONTH, X, 2021.

Chris Raynor Wayne Emmerson Regional Clerk Regional Chair

Authorized by Clause X, Report X, of the Committee of the Whole, adopted by Regional Council at its meeting on MONTH, X, 2021.

Page 1 of 5 Page 44 of 65

Schedule “A”

Proposed Amendment X to the Official Plan for the Regional Municipality of York

Page 2 of 5 Page 45 of 65

AMENDMENT X

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

FOR

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

1. Purpose of the Amendment:

This amendment redesignates lands from Agricultural Area to Rural Area within the City of Vaughan and City of Markham to provide opportunities for parkland, trails, and other recreational uses in portions of the Greenbelt Plan that are outside of natural heritage features and their associated vegetative protective zones.

2. Location:

This redesignation applies to the New Community Area lands within the City of Vaughan and City of Markham, as shown on attached Figure 1, being an excerpt of Map 8 of the York Region Official Plan.

3. Basis:

Policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”) support the achievement of complete communities that improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health and expand convenient access to an appropriate supply of safe, publicly accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities.

Similarly, the Greenbelt Plan includes policies which permit a range of economic and social activities, including recreation in the Protected Countryside Area, which would contribute to building complete communities. Specifically, Section 3.3.1 of the Greenbelt Plan describes Parkland, Open Space and Trails as: “A system of parklands, open spaces, water bodies and trails across the Greenbelt is necessary to provide opportunities for recreation, tourism and appreciation of cultural heritage and natural heritage. They serve as an important component of complete communities and provide important benefits to support environmental protection, improved air quality and climate change mitigation”. Section 1.2.2.3.b also supports this intention by calling for the provision of a wide range of publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, open space areas, and trails in the Protected Countryside.

However, the Greenbelt Plan directs these uses to lands designated as “Rural Lands” in the Protected Countryside. Section 4.1 of the Greenbelt Plan states: “The rural lands of the Protected Countryside are intended to continue to accommodate a range of commercial, industrial and institutional (including cemetery) uses serving the rural resource and agricultural sectors. They are also intended to support a range of recreation and tourism uses such as trails, parks, golf courses, bed and breakfasts and other tourism-based accommodation, serviced playing fields and campgrounds, ski hills and resorts” [emphasis added].

When the New Community Area/Future Urban Area greenfield development blocks were brought into the Urban Area and re‐designated to permit urban development, the adjacent Greenbelt Plan

Page 3 of 5 Page 46 of 65

Area within each block was excluded and has inadvertently maintained the “Agricultural Area” designation. The Agricultural Area designation is no longer appropriate for these lands and the maintenance of the Agricultural Area designation conflicts with the surrounding urban uses and Greenbelt Plan permissions for parkland, trails, and other recreational uses outside of natural features and their vegetative protection zones.

Today, the majority of urban expansion areas are actively farmed or used for golf course purposes, including lands within the Greenbelt Plan Area. When developed, the adjacent urban expansion areas will transition from farmland to urban uses. The unintended consequence of having a remnant Agricultural Area designation within adjacent Greenbelt Plan Areas will result in small fragmented parcels of lands that are too small to be economically viable and if farmed would create land use conflicts. These lands that are within the Protected Countryside area of the Greenbelt but outside of natural features and their vegetative protection zones will be essentially sterilized, contributing neither to the residents nor providing any agricultural benefit to either the community or municipality.

Redesignation from Agricultural Area to Rural Area will allow opportunities for parkland, trails, serviced playing field, golf courses, and recreational use within portions of the Greenbelt Plan Area that are outside of natural heritage features and their vegetative protection zones, in accordance with existing Greenbelt Plan policies. The proposed redesignation further allows for the accommodation of uses integral to delivering complete communities, as envisioned by the New Community Area and Future Urban Area Secondary Plans and directed by the Growth Plan.

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

All of the Amendment entitled PART B – THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the attached Figure 1 being an excerpt from Map 8 of the York Region Official Plan, constitutes Amendment X to the Official Plan for the Region of York.

The Official Plan for the Region of York is hereby amended by the following:

1. That Map 8 – Agricultural and Rural Areas as shown on Figure 1 following is amended:

(a) By designating the lands outlined in black within the City of Vaughan and the City of Markham as Rural Area.

Page 4 of 5 Page 47 of 65

Page 5 of 5 Page 48 of 65

INTERIM PARKLAND CASH-IN-LIEU STRATEGY For Medium and High Density Residential Apartments

City of Markham Development Services Committee July 21, 2021 Page 49 of 65

AGENDA 1. Background & Overview

2. Municipal Parkland Comparisons

3. New Parkland Methodology - Proximity Ring Approach

4. Interim CIL Strategy Financial Implications & Recommendation Page 50 of 65

Background MARKHAM’S PARKLAND STUDY

• City of Markham commenced a Parks & Open Space Study with The Planning Partnership (TPP) in 2016 • The Study put on hold in 2019 due to Bill 108 • Bill 197 requires municipalities to establish a Parkland By-law by Fall 2022 • Background Study to determine Parkland Provision, Parkland Dedication Rate & Acquisition strategy • Interim Cash-in-Lieu rate proposed until the new Parkland By-law is in effect

We are here!

June 2021 – 2016 2019 2020 Jan, 2021 July, 2021 March, 2022 Summer – 2022 Fall – 2022

Parks & Bill 108 Bill 197 Interim Interim CIL Parkland By-law & Council Parkland Open Space Parks & Open New CIL Study Review Interim CIL Review Endorsement By-law Space Study requirements Study City Staff TPP & Other Consultants Implementation TPP put on hold introduced Page 51 of 65

Overview MARKHAM’S PARKLAND DEDICATION

OFFICIAL PLAN TARGET PARKLAND CONVEYANCE CASH-IN-LIEU + $ or 1.2 ha/1,000 People 1.2ha/1,000 People 1.0ha/ 500 units (1.0ha/ 1,000 People)

Purpose of Interim Cash-in-Lieu Strategy • Many medium-high density developments are unable to convey parkland • Markham’s recent CIL rates to-date: $28,000 – $32,000/Unit • CIL rates can be approximately $60,000/Unit for some of the current development proposals • Most GTA municipalities’ current CIL rate: $4,200 – $10,720/Unit*

*Municipalities have indicated that their per unit CIL rates cannot meet the parkland demand & are being reviewed Page 52 of 65

Municipal Comparison PARKLAND CASH-IN-LIEU RATES

PLANNING RICHMOND ACT MAX TORONTO MISSISSAUGA BRAMPTON HAMILTON VAUGHAN MARKHAM HILL RATE

Cash-in-Lieu 1ha/500u Site Area <1ha $10,720/u $4,250/u or $8,000/u $8,500/u $10,000/u 1ha/500u = Max 10%* (High & Med 10% of value (High Density (High Density (High & Med ($28k-32k/u) Site Area 1-5ha Density) of land* only) only) Density) = Max 15%* Site Area >5ha = Max 20%*

*of total site area *whichever is greater

• Under review by all Municipalities as part of the Bill 197 background study and upcoming Parkland By-Law update Page 53 of 65

New Methodology PROXIMITY RING APPROACH 1/3rd PARKLAND “INTENSIFICATION & ADJACENT AREAS” within a 500m radius of an intensification area

1/3rd PARKLAND

MAJOR “SURROUNDING AREAS” MACKENZIE 1 km radius from the periphery of intensification HIGHWAY 7 & adjacent areas

HWY 407 1/3rd PARKLAND “REST OF MARKHAM” STEELES AVE E different parts of the City, or where parkland is

Intensification Areas identified in the Official Plan needed most • 25% reduction in Cash-in-Lieu rates possible based on various test scenarios across the City • Even with the 25% reduction in CIL payment, the City is expected to meet the parkland provision target of 1.2 ha per 1,000 people Page 54 of 65

New Methodology LAND DEDICATION & CASH-IN-LIEU CURRENT METHODOLOGY NEW METHODOLOGY More economical to provide CIL compared to land conveyance Encourages land dedication & provides predictable value

Units accounted Total CIL required through Parkland for all units Dedication (@ 1.2 (@ 1.0 ha per 500 ha per 1,000 units or 1,000 people) people)

CIL owed for remaining units (@ 1.0 ha per 500 units or 1,000 people) Value of land dedicated

Parkland Dedication Cash-in-Lieu CIL owed = Total CIL required – Value of land dedicated Page 55 of 65

INTERIM CIL STRATEGY FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CURRENT METHODOLOGY 810 1.62 Ha TOTAL UNITS* PARKLAND IN CIL* = $ 28.9 million

$$ PROZIMITY RING APPROACH = $ 21.7 million

• Hypothetical, since many developments may choose not to proceed without a Cash-in-Lieu reduction • 25% reduction translates to $7.2 million less in Cash-in-Lieu collected by the City • Even with the 25% reduction in CIL payment, the City is expected to meet the parkland provision target • Proposed strategy could accelerate developments prior to the updated Parkland By-Law in Fall 2022

*approximately 810 units based on eight medium/ high density residential developments with CIL obligations anticipated to execute development agreements from now until Fall 2022 Page 56 of 65

INTERIM CIL STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report entitled, “City of Markham - Interim Parkland Cash-in-Lieu Strategy” be received; 2. AND THAT the City provide a reduction of up to 25% to the value of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication for medium and high density residential developments at the discretion of the Commissioner of Development Services; 3. AND THAT the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland for medium and high density residential apartments be effective immediately upon the approval of this strategy until a new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council; 4. AND THAT the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland only be applied to medium and high density developments where there is no other agreement with the City related to the conveyance of Parkland or payment of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland. 5. AND THAT in situations where land is to be dedicated to the City for parkland and a balance is to be paid through cash-in-lieu of parkland, the value of the land dedicated be deducted from the total Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland calculated for the entire development. 6. AND THAT the reduction be applied only to development agreements to be executed subsequent to the adoption of this recommendation; 7. AND THAT staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution. Page 57 of 65

Thank You Page 58 of 65

Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021

SUBJECT: City of Markham - Interim Parkland Cash-in-Lieu Strategy

PREPARED BY: Lawrence Yip, Senior Planner, Urban Design, ext. 3363

REVIEWED BY: Parvathi Nampoothiri, Manager, Urban Design, ext. 2437

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT the report entitled, “City of Markham - Interim Parkland Cash-in-Lieu Strategy” be received;

2. AND THAT the City provide a reduction of up to 25% of the value of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication for medium and high density residential apartments at the discretion of the Commissioner of Development Services;

3. AND THAT the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland for medium and high density residential apartments be effective immediately upon the approval of this strategy until a new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council;

4. AND THAT the Interim reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland only be applied to medium and high density developments where there is no other agreement with the City related to the conveyance of Parkland or payment of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland.

5. AND THAT in situations where land is to be dedicated to the City for parkland and a balance is to be paid through cash-in-lieu of parkland, the value of the land dedicated be deducted from the total Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland calculated for the entire development.

6. AND THAT the reduction be applied only through development agreements to be executed subsequent to the adoption of this recommendation.

7. AND THAT staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In recent years, the development industry has expressed concerns about the City’s current parkland dedication Cash-in-Lieu rates for medium and high-density residential developments comprised of apartments, which are currently higher when compared to other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that have capped the maximum Cash-in-Lieu rates for such developments. As a response to these concerns, and as an interim approach until a new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council before September 2022 in response to Bill 197 (COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020), staff have explored opportunities to provide a Cash-in-Lieu reduction on an interim basis for medium and high-density residential apartments. This report provides key considerations and implications of the new methodology called the “Proximity Ring” approach and explain Page 59 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 2

how it could provide an interim Cash-in-Lieu reduction while allowing the City to achieve its parkland provision target as per the City’s Official Plan.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide strategy for an interim parkland Cash-in-Lieu reduction for all medium and high-density residential apartments in the City, effective immediately until the new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council.

BACKGROUND:

Markham’s Parkland Provision Target and Dedication Rates

The City of Markham 2014 Official Plan (“Official Plan”) has a City-wide parkland provision target of a minimum 1.2 hectares per 1,000 persons. In order to meet this target, the City has mechanisms in place to acquire public parkland through the development approval process in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act, parkland dedication policies in Section 10.8.2 of the Official Plan and the Conveyance of Parkland By-law No. 195-90. For medium and high-density residential apartments, the City requires dedication of 1 hectare per 300 units for parkland capped at 1.214 hectare per 1,000 people and/or 1 hectare per 500 units in the form of Cash-in-Lieu payment for portions of required parkland that could not be dedicated as land. The 1 hectare per 300 units for land dedication and 1 hectare per 500 units for Cash-in-Lieu are referred to as the “alternative parkland rate” under the Planning Act.

Markham’s Parks and Open Space Study

The City of Markham’s Planning and Urban Design department retained The Planning Partnership (TPP) in 2016 to undertake a Parks and Open Space Study to establish a sound approach to parkland dedication, acquisition and delivery for the City. The Study aimed to ascertain the existing level of service (amount of parkland per 1,000 people) for parks and open space facilities, identify a strategy for the acquisition of parks and open space for underserved areas and future development areas, and inform a Parks and Open Space Master Plan that would provide the City with a blueprint for the implementation of the Study’s recommendations. It was intended that the Master Plan would guide the development of parks and open space to serve Markham’s communities to 2031. TPP completed the background analysis and was in the process of developing the acquisition strategy in consultation with City staff. The study was paused, pending the City’s review of The More Homes, More Choices Act (“Bill 108”).

Provincial Regulations and Up-coming Parkland By-law Update

Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 (“Bill 197”) which received Royal Assent on July 21, 2020, clarified the City’s parkland dedication requirements, particularly in relation to the alternative parkland rate that applies to higher density residential apartments. As a part of the changes enacted in Bill 197, municipalities are required to

Page 60 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 3

undertake a comprehensive parkland background study to determine their parkland provision target, the parkland dedication rate required and acquisition strategies to achieve such target. In order to justify the parkland dedication rate and acquisition strategies, Staff are in the process of retaining consultants along with the Planning Partnership to build on the Parks and Open Space Study that were initiated in 2016, and recommend an updated Parkland By-Law before September 2022.

Development Industry’s Concerns and Municipal Comparisons

In recent years, the development industry has expressed concerns about the City’s current parkland dedication Cash-in-Lieu rate for medium and high-density residential apartments. The current Cash-in-Lieu rate is calculated at 1 hectare per 500 units based on a land value determined on the day before a building permit is issued. Due to the increasing land values in Markham for medium and high density development land, this has amounted to rates up to $28,000 to $32,000 per unit to date. As land values continue to increase, it has been argued that high density residential developments such as those in intensification areas would no longer be financially viable due to the fact that Cash-in-Lieu rates can be approximately $60,000 per unit. In addition, the Cash-in-Lieu rates in Markham are currently higher when compared to other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that have capped the maximum Cash-in-Lieu rates for high-density developments. Those cash-in-lieu caps range from $4,250 to $10,720 per unit. It should be noted that these municipalities are currently reviewing their Cash-in-Lieu rate as part of their respective Bill 197 parkland studies, and some have indicated that the per unit cap will impede their ability to acquire sufficient parkland to achieve their municipality’s parkland provision targets. For example, the City of Richmond Hill considered this similar issue in 2019 in response to a Councillor’s motion to cap the Cash-in-Lieu of parkland rate of up to $10,000 per dwelling unit for all residential units. The staff report in response to the motion stated that “if Council were to enact a $10,000 per door rate for just two years, the Town would only be able to fund 26.4% of its parkland acquisition, park revitalization, park R&R, and new park projects needs”.

However, Markham staff recognize the concerns raised by the development industry and the need to support intensification while ensuring Markham’s growing communities continue to have adequate parkland. As a response to the concerns raised, and as an interim approach until the new Parkland By-law is adopted by Council, Markham staff have explored opportunities to provide a Cash-in-Lieu reduction on an interim basis for medium and high-density residential apartments, while allowing the City to meet its current Official Plan parkland provision target, as further discussed below.

INTERIM CASH-IN-LIEU APPROACH/ DISCUSSION:

Intensification and Parkland Provision Challenges

An increasing number of medium to high-density developments in Markham cannot fulfil their parkland dedication requirement solely through on-site park land conveyance, as

Page 61 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 4

high-density developments are typically located on small parcels of land within the existing urban fabric. Once building location, circulation, private amenity areas and servicing are considered, there is very limited ability to provide functional park spaces and fulfil the parkland dedication requirements. As a result, a significant portion of parkland dedication obligation will need to be satisfied in the form of Cash-in-Lieu payments.

Meanwhile, the City often faces challenges utilizing Cash-in-Lieu funds to acquire parkland to meet the Official Plan parkland provision target near high density developments. These developments are generally located in intensification areas with existing adjacent uses, making it challenging to purchase and consolidate land parcels that are large enough to support recreational programming. Additionally, property values within intensification areas continue to increase, accelerated by market demand for housing, making land much more expensive and the Cash-in-Lieu funds inadequate to purchase lands within high density communities as time progresses.

New Methodology – “Proximity Ring” approach

In order for high-density developments to fulfil their parkland dedication obligation and to meet the current Official Plan parkland target of 1.2 hectare per 1,000 people, staff are proposing a new methodology called the “Proximity Ring” approach that would equally distribute parkland provisions in the following manner:

“Intensification & Adjacent Areas” - 1/3 of the required parkland dedication generated by medium and high density developments will be provided on site or within a 500 metres radius of the intensification area. o Parks should be accessible by walking and cycling, and serve the immediate development and surrounding neighbourhoods

“Surrounding Areas” – 1/3 of the required parkland dedication will be provided within a 1 kilometre radius (500m-1.5km) from the periphery of the intensification and adjacent areas. o Parks should be accessibly by some form of active transportation, transit or a short drive, and serve some of the recreational needs for residents within intensification areas and surrounding communities.

“Rest of Markham” – 1/3 of the required parkland dedication will be provided in different parts of the City, or where parkland is needed most. o Parks would be accessible to intensification area residents by car or public transit. o These parks would provide destination recreation such as a group of soccer fields or baseball diamonds for play-in tournaments.

The “Proximity Ring” approach allows the City to achieve the prescribed Official Plan parkland provision target, and it also provides a reduction in the overall cost of parkland acquisitions since the value of land decreases as you move further away from the intensification areas.

Page 62 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 5

The following table illustrates how 1.2 hectares of parkland would be equally distributed between the three “Proximity Ring” areas, each with 0.4 hectare of parkland. The cost of acquiring 1.2 hectares of parkland under the new “Proximity Ring” approach would result in an overall reduction in land value compared to the land value for the Intensification & Adjacent areas, thereby providing a discounted rate for Cash-in-Lieu obligations. The new discounted land value would become the basis for reduction in the value of the required Cash-in-Lieu of parkland.

Average Land Hectares Weighted Land Location Value/Ha % (Ha) Value Cost (Approximate) Intensification & Adjacent Areas (500m radius) $30,000,000 0.4ha 1/3 $12,000,000 Surrounding Areas 1km radius (500m – 1.5km) $15,000,000 0.4ha 1/3 $6,000,000 Rest of Markham $7,500,000 0.4ha 1/3 $3,000,000 1.20ha 100% $21,000,000

The sum of the weighted land value cost at $21,000,000 is approximately 30% less than the average land value of $30,000,000 per hectare in “Intensification & Adjacent Areas”, as shown in the table above. This is just one example of a site in Markham. Staff looked at a number of different intensification areas throughout the City and the calculated discount varies depending on land value. Based on preliminary review, it is anticipated that a 25% reduction in existing Cash-in-Lieu rates would still allow the City to meet its parkland service levels.

New Methodology – Cash-in-Lieu Calculation

As mentioned in the background section of this report, the City currently collects parkland dedication at a rate of 1.214 hectare per 1,000 people for land conveyance, and at the rate of 1.0 hectare per 500 units for Cash-in-Lieu dedication. The City’s current practice is to first determine how much parkland the development could provide in the form of land conveyance with remaining obligation to be fulfilled through Cash-in-Lieu payment based on the assessed property value. This approach can be problematic because it is more beneficial to provide Cash-in-Lieu rather than land under the current methodology. For instance, cash-in-lieu is calculated at a reduced rate of 1 hectare per 500 units as per the Planning Act, which is the equivalent of 1 hectare per 1,000 people based on 2.0 persons per unit (ppu). When this cash-in-lieu rate is compared to Markham’s land conveyance requirement of 1.214 hectares per 1,000 people, it is more economical to provide cash-in- lieu, rather than land.

Under the new methodology, the City will first assume the total parkland required based on the Cash-in-Lieu rate of 1 hectare per 500 units and calculated using the 25% reduced property value. Based on preliminary work, this is still expected to provide the City with

Page 63 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 6

sufficient funds to acquire parkland to meet the target of 1.2 hectare per 1,000 people as demonstrated in “Proximity Ring” approach section of this report. The value of any land conveyance will then be deducted from the total Cash-in-Lieu value. The new methodology provides a predictable parkland obligation number for any high-density development, as well as encourages land dedication by the developer as it fully acknowledges the value of land provided and eliminates the inherent advantage of Cash-in-Lieu versus land dedication in the current methodology. Staff have prepared a test scenario below to demonstrate this methodology.

New Methodology Test Scenario – Intensification Area

This hypothetical high-density development is located within an Intensification Area and applies the proposed interim Cash-in-Lieu methodology.

Development Summary

Approximate Land Value: $30,000,000 per hectare Total Site Area: 1.0 hectare Total Number of Units: 200 Total population: 400 (based on 2.0 ppu)

Based on the above development statistics, the parkland dedication requirement at 1.2 hectare per 1,000 people is:

400 x (1.2 ha /1000 people) = 0.48 hectares

If Parkland obligation is provided entirely through Cash-in-Lieu, the requirement based on 1 hectare per 500 units is:

(200 x 1) / 500 = 0.40 hectares

Current Methodology

As described above, the current methodology does not encourage developers to provide land dedication as it is cheaper to fulfil parkland obligation through Cash-in-Lieu payment.

If 100% of parkland obligation is fulfilled through Cash-in-Lieu, the total amount owed is:

0.40 hectares x $30,000,000 = $12,000,000

Under the current methodology the per-unit Cash-in-Lieu rate based on 200 units is:

$12,000,000 /200units = $60,000 per unit

Page 64 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 7

New Methodology

Based on the “Proximity Ring” approach and staff recommendation of the 25% reduction, the per hectare land value to be used for the Cash-in-Lieu calculation is:

$30,000,000 x (1-0.25) = $22,500,000

The total value of Cash-in-Lieu required to fulfil the parkland obligation is:

0.40 x $22,500,000 = $9,000,000

Under the new methodology the per-unit Cash-in-Lieu rate based on 200 units is:

$9,000,000 /200units = $45,000 per unit

The following table illustrates that regardless of the percentage of parkland being conveyed as lands, the development would result in the same total value of dedication.

Parkland Value of Cash-in-Lieu Total Value of Conveyed Conveyance Dedication 0.0ha $0 $9,000,000 $9,000,000

0.1ha $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $9,000,000

0.2ha $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,000,000

In the end, even with a 25% reduction in Cash-in-Lieu payment, the City is still able to meet the parkland requirement of 0.48 hectare (ie. the City’s Parkland Dedication requirement for 400 units) by using the “Proximity Ring” approach. The City is also able to provide full credit for land dedication while meeting the parkland provision target of 1.2ha per 1,000 people, based on the preliminary analysis.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

From now until Fall, 2022, the City anticipates approximately eight medium to high density residential developments comprising of apartment with CIL obligations to execute their development agreements. As a result, 810 units or 1.62 hectare of parkland obligations will be fulfilled by Cash-in-Lieu payment. Under the current methodology, the total Cash-in- Lieu to be collected will be approximately $28.9 million. Based on the “Proximity Ring” approach and staff recommendation of the 25% reduction, the total Cash-in-Lieu to be collected will be approximately $21.7 million.

Although the 25% reduction translates to approximately $7.2 million less in Cash-in-Lieu collected by the City, it is still expected to allow the City to meet our parkland provision target and service levels. The above financial impact is hypothetical since it is difficult to

Page 65 of 65 Report to: Development Services Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 Page 8

determine how many agreements would be executed if no Cash-in-Lieu reduction is provided. Additionally, the 25% reduction in Cash-in-Lieu payment could accelerate development to proceed in the interim period. Otherwise, developers may wait until an updated Parkland By-Law is in place before executing their agreement and proceed with development.

HUMAN RESOURCES CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: The comments in this report on the proposed interim Parkland Cash-in-Lieu strategy, support the City’s efforts to enable a strong economy, manage growth and, ensure growth- related services are fully funded, which are some of the key elements of Markham’s strategic priorities related to Engaged, Diverse and Thriving City; Safe and Sustainable Community; and Stewardship of Money and Resources.

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: Urban Design, Park Development, Finance, Real Property, and Legal departments were consulted in the evaluation of the interim Cash-in-Lieu of parkland strategy and the preparation of this report.

RECOMMENDED BY:

______Biju Karumanchery Trinela Cane Acting Commissioner of Commissioner of Corporate Services Development Services