THIS MEETING WILL BE WEBCAST ON THE CITY’S PUBLIC YOUTUBE SITE (CITYWATERLOO) AND MAY BE TELECAST ON PUBLIC TELEVISION

COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 2:00 PM

AGENDA

Councillor Henry in the Chair

1. TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None

5. DELEGATIONS

Council Workshop

Council Meeting Page 1 of 158 March 9, 2020 a) Title: 2020-2022 Budget Process Debrief Page 8 Report No.: CORP2020-008 Prepared By: Filipa Reynolds

Presentation: Filipa Reynolds; Director, Financial Planning and Deputy Chief Financial Officer Brad Witzel, Financial Analyst

Recommendation:

1. That staff report CORP2020-008 be received as information.

6. CONSENT MOTION

Recommendation:

That consent motion items (a) and (b) be approved.

a) Title: Annual Statement of Remuneration and Page 15 Expenses for Elected Officials Report No.: CORP2020-006 Prepared By: Rhonda Bell

Recommendation:

1. That Council receive report CORP2020-006 as information.

b) Title: Community Cash Grants 2020 Page 23 Report No.: COM2020-005 Prepared By: Beth Rajnovich

Recommendation:

1. That Council receive report COM2020-005.

7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT MOTION

Council Meeting Page 2 of 158 March 9, 2020 8. STAFF REPORTS

a) Title: Culture Plan Implementation Report Card Page 35 2019 Report No.: CAO2020-004 Prepared By: Erin Applebee

Presentation: Erin Applebee, Cultural Planning Specialist

Recommendations:

1. That Council approve report CAO2020-004.

2. That Council continue to champion local cultural development.

b) Title: Collaborative Municipal Funding for Key Page 46 Cultural Institutions 2019/2020 Summary Report No.: CAO2020-005 Prepared By: Astero Kalogeropoulos

Recommendations:

1. That report CAO2020-005 be received for information.

2. That staff be directed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Collaborative Municipal Funding process, in partnership with Municipal Cultural Partners and Key Cultural Institutions, to identify opportunities to continuously improve the process, with any recommended changes being presented to Council for consideration in advance of the 2021 annual report.

Council Meeting Page 3 of 158 March 9, 2020 c) Title: Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Page 72 Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing Report No.: IPPW2020-018 Prepared By: Mike Lupsa

Recommendations:

1. That IPPW2020-018 be approved.

2. That capital funding for the Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing in the amount of $8,208,000, funded $6,420,000 from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund - West Side Lands, $1,411,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Roads and $377,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Storm be approved as per the 2020-2022 approved capital budget ref #123.

3. That Council approves the award of tender RFT19-20 – Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing to iN4Structure Ltd. at the lowest submitted price of $8,065,335 plus non-recoverable HST in the amount of $141,950 for a total award value of $8,207,285.

4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of Waterloo and iN4Structure Ltd., and any other documents related to this project, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

d) Title: Request for Exemption Pursuant to Page 79 SS.45(1.4) of the Planning Act for 651 Colby Drive Report No.: IPPW2020-019 Prepared By: John Vos

Recommendations:

1. That IPPW2020-019 be approved.

2. That Council declare by resolution that subsection 45(1.3) of the Planning Act shall not apply to 651 Colby Drive pursuant to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act.

Council Meeting Page 4 of 158 March 9, 2020 e) Title: Award of Tender RFT19-19 Roosevelt Page 84 Avenue Reconstruction Report No.: IPPW2020-021 Prepared By: Caroline Amyot

Recommendations:

1. That IPPW2020-021 be approved.

2. That Council approves the award of RFT19-19 – Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction to Oxford Civil Group Incorporated for the lowest submitted price of $2,845,332.70 plus unrecoverable HST in the amount of $50,077.86, for a total award value of $2,895,410.56.

3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement between the Corporation of the City of Waterloo and Oxford Civil Group Incorporated, and any other documents related to this project, subject to the satisfaction of the City’s Solicitor.

f) Title: Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement Page 91 Report No.: CORP2020-007 Prepared By: Teresa Soulliere

Recommendations:

1. That Council approve Staff Report CORP2020-007.

2. That Council approve entering into a new three year agreement between CDW Canada and the City of Waterloo for the provision of the Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft.

3. That Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement and any related and future documents subject to the approval of the City Solicitor. COUNCIL MEETING WILL RECESS AND RECONVENE AT 6:30 PM

9. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

Council Meeting Page 5 of 158 March 9, 2020 10. PUBLIC MEETINGS

Formal Planning Meeting

a) Title: Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zone Page 96 Change Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited, for 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street Report No.: IPPW2020-015 Prepared By: Rita Szilock Ward No. Ward 7 – Uptown

Presentation: Rita Szilock, Development Planner

Delegations:

1. Trevor Hawkins, Senior Planner, MHBC Planning

Recommendations:

1. That Council approve Staff Report IPPW2020-015.

2. That Council adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 25 (OPA25) as set out in Section 8 of IPPW2020-015.

3. That Council request that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve Official Plan Amendment 25 (OPA25).

4. That Council approve Zone Change Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union, for 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street, in accordance with Section 8 of Staff Report IPPW2020-015.

11. CONSIDERATION OF NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN AT PREVIOUS MEETING

None

12. NOTICE OF MOTION

None

13. COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE

None

Council Meeting Page 6 of 158 March 9, 2020 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

15. QUESTIONS

16. NEW BUSINESS

17. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS

Recommendation:

That the By-laws listed below be read a first, second and third time and finally passed, numbered sequentially commencing with By-law Number 2020-013 and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign them accordingly.

a) By-law establishing (widening) a public highway in the City of Waterloo known as Albert Street. (SP-1905, April 23, 2019)

b) By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of Council, March 9, 2020 – Regular

18. ADJOURNMENT

Council Meeting Page 7 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Finance

Title: 2020-2022 Budget Process Debrief Report Number: CORP2020-008 Author: Filipa Reynolds Meeting Type: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: N/A Attachments: N/A Ward No.: City-wide

Recommendation:

1. That members of Council provide individual feedback on the 2020-2022 budget process as described within CORP2020-008 to influence future budget processes.

A. Executive Summary

Staff welcome feedback from Council on what further improvements can be made to enhance future budget process. Council members will be asked to answer questions posed in the body of this report (CORP2020-008) live and in person at the Council meeting on March 9, 2020.

B. Financial Implications None

C. Technology Implications None

D. Link to Strategic Plan Corporate Excellence

E. Previous Reports on this Topic

Previous Year’s report: CORP2019-018 2019 Budget Process Debrief

Council Meeting Page 8 of 158 March 9, 2020 2020-2022 Budget Related reports: Corporate reports CAO2019-031 Efficiencies and Continuous Improvement Efforts CAO2019-040 Strategic Plan Implementation Update CORP2019-025 Capital Budget and Capital Overhead Policy Updates CORP2019-060 Reserves and Reserve Funds Annual Update CORP2019-061 2020 to 2022 Budget Strategy Update CORP2019-070 Development Charge Background Study and Update CORP2019-075 Long Term Financial Plan - Update CORP2019-080 Early Approval of Capital Projects CORP2019-081 Development Charge Update - Formal Public Meeting CORP2019-085 2020 Annual Debt and Financial Obligation Limit Calculation CORP2019-088 2020 to 2022 Budget Summary CORP2020-001 Routine Capital Projects CORP2020-004 2020 to 2022 Draft Budget Survey Results

Department rate or fees and charges reports CAO2019-020 Office of CAO - Ec Dev and Legal Fees and Charges 2020 to 2022 CAO2019-022 Parking Rates 2020 COM2019-020 Cemetery Services 2020 Fee Adjustments COM2019-023 Community Services Fees and Charges 2020 to 2022 COM2019-024 Rental Housing and Business Licensing Fee and Charges Report CORP2019-040 Corporate Services 2020 to 2022 Fees and Charges IPPW2019-037 Building Standards Fees and Charges 2020 IPPW2019-038 IPPW 2020 to 2022 Fees and Charges IPPW2019-069 City Utilities 2020 Rates Release IPPW2020-001 City Utilities 2020 Rates

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Filipa Reynolds Director: Filipa Reynolds Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: Filipa Reynolds CAO

Council Meeting Page 9 of 158 March 9, 2020

2020-2022 Budget Process Debrief CORP2020-008

The City of Waterloo is committed to developing budgets that strike a balance between being fiscally responsible while also delivering services and programs that provide value to the community. The budget is developed in alignment with Council’s strategic plan, which is the guiding document that influences budget priorities. Through a carefully planned city budget, Waterloo delivers valuable services and programs to residents. Throughout the budget process, Council considers and balances many competing needs and evaluates a variety of services/programs and projects that are often complex, to ensure alignment to the strategic plan. To enable Council’s review and evaluation, staff publish reports and deliver presentations over an eight month period (see Section E/page 2 of this report). This eight month process includes eight public meetings where budget related information is shared with council and where council asks questions and provides direction to staff.

An important aspect of the budget is communicating the process and the various considerations to the community for awareness and understanding. The city sets out to communicate the budget in various ways by sharing information via:

• Published council reports • Presentations delivered at Council meetings and published for future reference • Various published budget documents • Public engagement Survey

All of the above information is housed on the budget page in the City’s website: (www.waterloo.ca/budget). In addition to the City’s website, budget related council meeting dates, and information about the budget survey was also included in:

• the Budget in Brief document itself (posted on the City’s website) • 13 advertisements between Oct. 2019 and Feb. 2020 in the Waterloo Chronicle (related to Budget, Development Charges, and City Utilities Rates) • Editions of the City’s newsletters: City News and Waterloo Stories • Social media channels (13 posts on Twitter, 10 on Facebook)

Council’s 2019 Budget Debrief/Feedback

Following the approval of the 2019 budget by Council, staff returned in March 2019 and conducted a session for Council to answer questions on what Council members thought about the budget process and how it could be improved. The goal was to understand

Council Meeting Page 10 of 158 March 9, 2020 council’s expectations and to integrate those enhancements/changes into the 2020- 2022 budget process.

Overall, Council as a whole felt that the Budget books were effective and that budget documents were easy to find online. Areas for improvements included: business plan template, promotional channels for public engagement, as well as some smaller improvements within documents. There were mixed reactions to the Budget in Brief, though most Councillors recognized that it served its purpose of being a quick snapshot for the average citizen who may not have time to review all the budget documents in more detail. Ongoing improvements will be made to the brief with each budget cycle as themes and Council priorities change.

Table 1 – Summary of Results from Survey Conducted by member of Council on the 2019 Budget Process:

As a result of Council’s feedback and staff feedback, adjustments made to the 2020- 2022 budget process include:

• Added Budget Request numbers and Capital Project Reference numbers to the financial tables in the Business Plans for greater alignment between Business Plans and budget documents • Business Plan template refined to more clearly show alignment of key initiatives to strategic plan and to enable a general audience to relate to each division (who we are, what we do, what factors guide service delivery, what impacts us, and key measures) • Reduced size of Budget in Brief by 50% and focused on key messages to residents • Alignment of menu items to strategic plan • Provided existing budget $ value context as needed within budget papers • Improved “Risk if denied” section of Budget Requests to provide more substantive information for decision making • Added operating impact of capital projects to the budget book broken down into three categories: committed, actionable, and forecast.

Council Meeting Page 11 of 158 March 9, 2020 • Summarized total funding by capital project to simplify the view in the capital budget book (Included funding source breakdown as an appendix) • Limited presentations on budget release day to an overview of the budget by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and the visual roadmap summary by the Director Financial Planning • Four main goals highlighted in a variety of forums o Support for existing programs and services o Operating funding to support new capital assets o Service deliver enhancements and additions as supported by the strategic plan o Increased investment in infrastructure renewal • Provided support as needed to help Council members to get the word out to their constituents in various ways (e.g. social media, in-person/informally, ward meetings/newsletters) • Moved Operating Book link on the website so that it was not easily overlooked

Feedback from Council on the 2020-2022 Budget Process

During the various public meetings conducted during the 2020-2022 Budget, staff made note of feedback from members of council. Feedback of a more operational nature will be reported back to Council by the respective division responsible for the work. Financial Planning staff noted feedback from councillors to improve future budget documents as follows:

• Incorporate measurement/outcome targets into business plans • Rebrand the traditional use of the label “roads” to more properly reflect investment in “active/multi-modal transportation” • More clearly identify green initiatives and illustrate alignment with infrastructure rehabilitation

Taking into account what council members have been hearing from constituents as well as what council members themselves experienced during the three year budget process, staff welcome feedback from council on what further improvements can be made to enhance future budget processes. During the budget debrief, staff will be using polling software for council members to answer ten questions (see below) about the three year budget process as well as an open forum for council to provide more detailed feedback about the experience and how it can be improved.

Council Meeting Page 12 of 158 March 9, 2020 2020-2022 Budget Process Questions for Council members to answer on March 9, 2020

Q1: The Visual Roadmap, a new publication, was it valuable? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q2: The Budget in Brief, still a relatively new publication, was it valuable? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q3: Was the Business Plan document useful? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q4: Was the Operating Book effective? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q5: Were operating documents easy to find online? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q6: Was the Capital Book effective? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q7: Were capital documents easy to find online? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q8: Council feedback regarding the various budget meeting dates.

• Very useful (continue to do) • Not very useful (stop doing)

Council Meeting Page 13 of 158 March 9, 2020 • Would like to see added or changed

Q9: Was there an effective variety of promotional channels used to reach the public in a timely way? • Yes • No • Somewhat

Q10: Any other Council feedback regarding the budget.

After each of the above ten questions are asked, staff will also ask members of council to provide individual additional feedback as follows:

Council: Please provide any additional verbal feedback as to what was:

• Very useful (continue to do) • Not very useful (stop doing) • Would like to see added or changed

Council Meeting Page 14 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Finance

Title: Annual Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected Officials Report Number: CORP2020-006 Author: Rhonda Bell Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: [File] Attachments: NA Ward No.: City Wide

Recommendation:

That Council receive report CORP2020-006 as information.

A. Executive Summary Section 284(1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 2001, requires the Treasurer of every municipality to prepare and submit to Council by March 31, each year, an itemized statement of the remuneration and expenses paid to each member of Council in respect of his or her services as a member of Council in the preceding year.

In compliance with this Legislation, the attached is the statement of remuneration and expenses for 2019. Remuneration amounts are based on the Employee Income of each Councillor as defined by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (T4’s). Expenses include all travel related expenses incurred by members of Council.

As the report is prepared based on when payments are made, expenses can include items prepaid for 2020 and settlements for items that occurred in 2018.

Please note that as of January 1, 2019 the 1/3 tax free portion of Council remuneration has been eliminated in compliance with federal legislation.

B. Financial Implications N/A

Council Meeting Page 15 of 158 March 9, 2020 C. Technology Implications N/A

D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

E. Previous Reports on this Topic CORP 2019-013 Annual Statement of Remuneration CORP 2017-028 Elected Official Remuneration Recommendation CORP 2017-070 Council Remuneration – Elimination of 1/3 Tax Free Portion

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Rhonda Bell Director: Paul Hettinga Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: CAO

Council Meeting Page 16 of 158 March 9, 2020

Annual Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected Officials CORP2020-006

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

Index for Schedule ‘A’

Page

Remuneration 4

Conferences/Seminars 5

Meetings/Events/Other Expenses 6

Technology 7

Waterloo North Hydro Corporation 7

Summary of All Remuneration and Expenses 8

Council Meeting Page 17 of 158 March 9, 2020 Schedule A STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION & EXPENSES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019

REMUNERATION EXPENSES

Mayor Dave Jaworsky Regular Earnings 102,692.47 Benefits 7,176.76 Car Allowance 7,999.92 117,869.15

Councillor Royce Bodaly Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Tenille Bonoguore Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Diane Freeman Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Sandra Hanmer Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Jeff Henry Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Jennifer Vasic Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10 Councillor Angela Vieth Regular Earnings 38,909.76 Benefits 6,846.34 45,756.10

Total Remuneration 438,161.85

Council Meeting Page 18 of 158 March 9, 2020

CONFERENCES EXPENSES

Mayor Dave Jaworsky Federation of Canadian Municipalities Conf. – Quebec, May 30-June 1 1,322.22 AMO Annual Conference – Ottawa, August 18-21 2,273.34

3,595.56

Councillor Royce Bodaly AMO Annual Conference - Ottawa, August 18-21 1,773.36 1,773.36

Councillor Tenille Bonoguore Federation of Canadian Municipalities Conf. – Quebec, May 30 253.49 253.49

Councillor Diane Freeman Velo-City 2019 - Dublin, Ireland - June 25-28 5,469.00 ACT Canada Unified Mobility Summit - Kitchener, ON – October 20-23 711.30 6,180.30 Councillor Sandra Hanmer AMO Annual Conference - Ottawa, August 18-21 819.17 819.17

Councillor Jennifer Vasic Federation of Canadian Municipalities Conf. – Quebec, May 30-June 1 2,503.54 2,503.54

Councillor Angela Vieth OGRA Annual Conference - Toronto, Ontario - February 24-26 1,186.33 AMO Annual Conference - Ottawa, August 18-21 2,221.65 3,407.98

Total Conference Expenses 18,533.40

Council Meeting Page 19 of 158 March 9, 2020 MEETING/EVENTS/OTHER EXPENSES

Mayor Dave Jaworsky Civic Promotion 4,109.40 Mayor Initiatives 20,540.84 Meeting Expense 495.11 25,145.35

Councillor Royce Bodaly Townhall Meetings 50.86 Civic Promotion 150.73 201.59 Councillor Tenille Bonoguore Civic Promotion 716.70 716.70 Councillor Diane Freeman Townhall Meetings 700.00 Civic Promotion 2614.20 Meeting Expense 10.12 3,324.32 Councillor Sandra Hanmer Townhall Meetings 41.44 Civic Promotion 1,736.47 Council Initiatives 38.81 1,816.72 Councillor Jeff Henry Civic Promotion 134.36 134.36 Councillor Jennifer Vasic Civic Promotion 604.64 Council Initiatives 50.00 Meeting Expense 23.44 678.08 Councillor Angela Vieth Civic Promotion 1,767.07 Council Initiatives 164.14 1,931.21

Total Meeting Expenses 33,948.33

Council Meeting Page 20 of 158 March 9, 2020 TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES

Mayor Dave Jaworsky 354.54 Councillor Royce Bodaly 260.88 Councillor Tenille Bonoguore 251.13 Councillor Diane Freeman 386.88 Councillor Sandra Hanmer 251.41 Councillor Jeff Henry 252.60 Councillor Jennifer Vasic 293.91 Councillor Angela Vieth 251.97

Total Technology Expenses 2,303.92

WATERLOO NORTH HYDRO CORPORATION

Mayor Dave Jaworsky Remuneration 12,400.00 12,400.00

Councillor Jeff Henry Remuneration 11,600.00 11,600.00

Total Waterloo North Hydro Corporation $ 24,000.00

Council Meeting Page 21 of 158 March 9, 2020 Summary of All Remuneration and Expenses

Elected Remuneration Conferences Meetings Technology Waterloo Grand Officials / Seminars / Events North Hydro Total

159,364.60 Jaworsky, Dave 117,869.15 3,595.56 25,145.35 354.54 12,400.00 Bodaly, Royce 45,756.10 1,773.36 201.59 260.88 47,991.93 Bonoguore, Tenille 45,756.10 253.49 716.70 251.13 46,977.42 Freeman, Diane 45,756.10 6,180.30 3,324.32 386.88 55,647.60 Hanmer, Sandra 45,756.10 819.17 1,816.72 251.41 48,643.40 Henry, Jeff 45,756.10 134.36 252.60 11,600.00 57,743.06 Vasic, Jennifer 45,756.10 2,503.54 678.08 293.91 49,231.63 Vieth, Angela 45,756.10 3,407.98 1,931.21 251.97 51,347.26 Totals 438,161.85 18,533.40 33,948.33 2,303.32 24,000.00 516,946.90

Council Meeting Page 22 of 158 March 9, 2020 1 Community Services

STAFF REPORT Community Programming & Outreach Services

Title: Community Cash Grants 2020 Report Number: COM2020-005 Author: Beth Rajnovich, Manager, Community & Neighbourhood Services Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: N/A Attachments: Appendix A – Cash Grant Allocations Appendix B - CTTEE2020-001 Committee Chair Report Ward No.: City Wide

Recommendation:

That Council receive report COM2020-005.

A. Executive Summary

The Community Services Department administers the Community Cash Grants Program which encourages grass root volunteer and not-for profit organizations to provide arts and culture, festival and event, sports and recreation, and neighbourhood community building activities to the residents of Waterloo and surrounding areas. The funding categories are based on the grant policy and funding distributions are based on Council approved operating budget.

Applications were reviewed and evaluated by staff and the Community Grants Committee based on the Community Cash Grant Policy (M-004) approved by Council on October 7, 2019. The Community Grants Committee’s funding decisions are attached as Appendix A.

Council Meeting Page 23 of 158 March 9, 2020 2 Community Services

B. Financial Implications

The budget for the Community Cash Grants Program in 2020 was $100,000.

The application requests for funding from community organizations totalled $266,149.

The committee’s grant funding distributions for 2020 are as follows:

2020 Cash Grant Funding Distribution Funding Category Cash Grants Number of Funding applications Allocated Arts & Culture $51,777 29

Festivals & Events $28,075 16

Sports & $18,350 14 Recreation Neighbourhoods $1,800 1

TOTAL $100,002 60

In 2020, there was only one (1) applicant for the neighbourhood category. Staff believe this may be in part because of the increased funding for affiliated neighbourhood associations approved as part of the Neighbourhood Strategy, as well as improvements to the Neighbourhood Matching Fund program.

C. Technology Implications

None

E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

The program supports the strategic objectives of Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging by supporting a broad range of community groups and activities that create opportunities for community connection.

The program also supports Health Community and Resilient Neighbourhoods by supporting volunteer organizations in activities that are focused on overall well being and community building.

Council Meeting Page 24 of 158 March 9, 2020 3 Community Services

F. Previous Reports on this Topic

Community Cash Grant reports come forward to Council annually.

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Beth Rajnovich Director: Jim Bowman Commissioner: Mark Dykstra Finance: N/A CAO

Council Meeting Page 25 of 158 March 9, 2020 4 Community Services

Community Cash Grants 2020 COM2020-005

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

The 2020 cash grant applications were reviewed by the Community Grants Committee January 21-28, 2020.

This year 60 applications were forwarded to the committee for review. The committee’s funding decisions were based on:

• Cash grant policy criteria • Eligibility of grant request • Financial need based on information provided in the application • Staff input from their working knowledge of the organizations • Committee Evaluation

The Community Grants Committee members for 2020 were:

Community Members – Voting Members

Jenni Bauer – Chair Sandra Hanmer (Council Rep.) Ibrahim Musa Wes Tennyson Paul Rostrup Beisan Zubi

Staff Members – Non Voting Members

Erin Applebee Beth Rajnovich (Arts & Culture, Festivals & Events) (Neighbourhoods)

Darren Carter Lynn Dicks-Egley (Sports & Recreation) (Recording Secretary)

The 2020 grant application packages were made available to organizations on October 16, 2019 through to the deadline of 2:00pm December 3, 2019. The cash grant program information was distributed through all social media, City of Waterloo website, Chronicle advertisements and emailed directly to last year’s successful applicants and our affiliated organizations. In addition, staff sent out email reminders of the deadline at the midway point to past grant recipients, affiliates and any group that had submitted an inquiry to apply along with offers to help groups with their application submissions.

Council Meeting Page 26 of 158 March 9, 2020 5 Community Services

The Community Grants Committee volunteers met with staff on January 7, 2020 to receive an orientation and instructions on the process. The grant deliberations took place on January 21, 23 and 28, 2020. Applicants receive letters on the committee’s funding decision.

There were 63 application submissions in total to the Community Cash Grant Program up from 55 application submissions in 2019.

In accordance with the Community Grants Policy, there were three (3) applications that where deemed ineligible by staff because they did not meet the basic eligibility criteria.

Of the remaining 60 applications, funding was not allocated to three (3) applicants for the following reasons:

 Groups did not meet the detailed eligibility criteria outlined in section 4.0 and/or 5.0 of the Community Cash Grants Policy  Groups did not demonstrate as significant a financial need as other grant applications

For 2020, the Community Grants Committee has allocated all of the Council approved funding ($100,000) with a minor overage of $2.00, which will be covered by other areas of the Community and Neighbourhood Services budget. Detailed information is attached in Appendix A.

Council Meeting Page 27 of 158 March 9, 2020 6 Community Services

Appendix A to COM2020-005 2020 Cash Grant Reports

2020 CASH GRANTS REQUEST/FUNDING SUMMARY

2020 2020 Decision Request

ARTS & CULTURE GROUPS Operating 21275 58446 Project 30502 61702 Total $51,777$120,148

FESTIVALS Operating 20000 46565 Project 8075 30900 Total $28,075 $77,465

SPORTS Operating 3050 16140 Project 4600 15200 Total $7,650 $31,340

NEIGHBOURHOODS/RECREATION Operating 0 5000 Project 1800 2400 Total $1,800 $7,400

RECREATION Operating 10,000.0020,596.00 Project 700.009,200.00 Total 10,700.0029,796.00

GRAND TOTALS $100,002$266,149

2020 GRANT BUDGET $100,000

Council Meeting Page 28 of 158 March 9, 2020 7 Community Services

2020 ARTS & CULTURE CASH GRANT REQUESTS & COMMITTEE DECISIONS

GROUP NAME 2020 2020 Decision Request ARTS & CULTURE REQUESTS 80 K-W SpitfireRoyal Canadian Air Cadets Squadron - Operating $1,500 $3,500 Art District Gallery - Note: Changed to Operating $1,100 $2,196 Button Factory Arts - Project $1,700 $4,000 Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery - Project $2,750 $5,000 Centre in the Square, The - Operating 0 $5,000 Coalition of Muslim Women of Kitchener-Waterloo (CMW) - Operating 0 Coalition of Muslim Women of Kitchener-Waterloo (CMW) - Project $3,000 $5,000 Community Music School of Waterloo Region (Lyrical Lines) - Operating $1,850 $4,000 Community Music School of Waterloo Region (Lyrical Lines) - Project $2,300 $3,250 Divest Waterloo/Faith and the Common Good -Project $2,850 $5,000 Grand Valley Wood Carvers - Operating $1,600 $5,000 Green Light Arts - Operating $1,500 $4,000 Green Light Arts - Project $1,500 $2,500 Guelph Contemporary Dance Festival - Project $1,950 $3,500 Gujarati Cultural Association of Golden Triangle - Operating $1,600 $4,750 KW Community Orchestra, Project $2,500 $5,000 K-W Musical Productions - Operating $1,700 $5,000 KW Taiwanese Canadian Association (KWTCA) - Operating $1,650 $2,000 Kwartzlab Society Lab - Operating $2,000 $5,000 Levant - Operating $0 $5,000 Levant - Project $2,500 $5,000 Neruda Arts (Formerly Neruda Productions)- Project $3,300 $5,000 New Quarterly Literary Society Inc., The - Project $2,500 $5,000 Numus - Project $1,100 $3,000 Pat the Dog - Project $2,100 $5,000 Radio Waterloo Inc. - Changed to Operating $1,000 $2,000 Red Maple Senior Club - Operating $1,500 $2,500 Schneider Male Chorus - Operating $1,000 $2,000 Spiritus Ensemble - Operating $975 $1,500 THEMUSEUM - Project 0 $5,000 Warspit Sea Cadets - Operating $1,500 $4,200 Waterloo Chamber Players - Operating $800 $800 Waterloo Concert Band - Project $452 $452 TOTAL $ 51,777.00 $120,148

Council Meeting Page 29 of 158 March 9, 2020 8 Community Services

2020 FESTIVALS CASH GRANT REQUESTS & COMMITTEE DECISIONS

GROUP NAME 2020 2020 Decision Request

FESTIVAL REQUESTS Association des francophones de Kitchener-Waterloo- Operating $2,000 $5,000 Belmont Village Bestival - Operating $2,000 $3,000 Community Coalition on Refugee & Immigrant Concerns - Operating $1,750 $2,500 Grand Porch Party, The - Operating $1,000 $1,200 Hamava Centre for Arts and Music - Project $2,625 $5,000 iHelp - Operating $0 $3,465 iHelp - Project $1,000 $3,400 Irish Real Life - IRL - Operating $2,400 $5,000 Irish Real Life - IRL - Project $0 $5,000 K-W Oktoberfest Inc - Project $0 $5,000 Link Network - Operating $2,500 $5,000 Maker Expo Events Organization Inc. - Operating $2,225 $5,000 Maker Expo Events Organization Inc. - Project $0 $5,000 Open Ears Festival of Music & Sound -Changed to Operating $1,500 $3,000 Page1 - Operating $0 $5,000 Page1 - Project $1,200 $1,500 Rainbow Reels Queer & Trans Film Festival - Operating $2,125 $3,400 Rainbow Reels Queer & Trans Film Festival - Project $0 Tri Pride Community Association Inc. - Operating $2,500 $5,000 Uptown Waterloo Jazz Festival - Project $1,000 $1,000 Waterloo Busker Carnival Inc. - Project $2,250 $5,000 TOTAL $28,075 $77,465

Council Meeting Page 30 of 158 March 9, 2020 9 Community Services

2020 SPORTS/NEIGHBOURHOODS/RECREATION CASH GRANT REQUESTS & COMMITTEE DECISIONS

GROUP NAME 2020 2020 Decision Request SPORTS REQUESTS For Hungarians in Canada Association - Operating $0 $4,940 For Hungarians in Canada Association - Project $1,100 $2,300 Grand River Karate Inc. - Operating $900 $5,000 KW Cycling Academy - Operating $1,100 $3,200 KW Cycling Academy - Project $0 $2,900 Tri City Roller Derby - Operating $1,050 $3,000 Tri City Roller Derby - Project $0 Waterloo Minor Hockey 2020 All Ontario Bantam Championship - Project $2,000 $5,000 Waterloo Minor Soccer - Changed to Project $1,500 $5,000 $7,650 $31,340

RECREATION REQUESTS Decision Request Big Brothers Big Sisters of Waterloo Region - Operating $1,800 $5,000 Brain Injury Association Waterloo-Wellington - Operating $2,100 $1,500 Brain Injury Association Waterloo-Wellington - Project $0 $5,000 Extend-A-Family - Operating $1,600 $2,000 Hepcats Community Dance Studio - Operating $0 $5,000 Hepcats Community Dance Studio - Project $700 $700 O.E.I. Onsite Education Inc. - Project $0 $3,500 Old Salts Seniors Canoe Club - Operating $1,000 $1,350 Scouting Waterloo Region - Operating $2,000 $3,746 Spectrum: Waterloo Region's Rainbow Community Space - Operating $1,500 $2,000 TOTAL $10,700 $29,796

GRAND TOTAL SPORTS & RECREATION $18,350 $61,136

NEIGHBOURHOOD APPLICANT REQUESTS Decision Request Community Kitchen Co-operative Kitchener-Waterloo - Operating $0 $5,000 Community Kitchen Co-operative Kitchener-Waterloo - Project $1,800 $2,400 GRAND TOTAL NEIGHBOURHOODS $1,800 $7,400

Council Meeting Page 31 of 158 March 9, 2020 10 Community Services

Appendix B to COM2020-005 Cash Grant 2020 Recommendations

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REPORT Community Grants Committee Chair Report Report #: CTTEE2020-001

Recommendations:

That Council accept the report of the Community Grants Committee decisions for 2020.

Executive Summary:

This is the second year of the new Community Grants Committee, which replaced the Cash Grants Advisory Committee. The committee is now responsible for allocation of funds from both the Cash Grants Program and the Neighbourhood Matching Fund. The committee reviewed 60 applications during the 2020 funding round and awarded $100,002 in grants. Only 3 applications reviewed by the committee were not granted funds due to granting criteria.

Applications for the Community Cash Grants Program are categorized under one of four funding categories: Arts & Culture, Festivals & Events, Sports & Recreation, and Neighbourhoods.

Prepared By: Jenni Bauer Date: February 5, 2020

Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 32 of 158 March 9, 2020 11 Community Services

The Committee & Decision Making Process

The 2020 Community Grants Committee was made up of 6 volunteers with eclectic backgrounds, offering varied perspectives on community grant applications. Staff reviewed applications in advance and provided the committee with all eligible applications to be reviewed. Based on feedback from last year, evaluation scores were no longer used to guide funding discussion. The committee relied on discussion among members instead. The evaluation process for each application started with the Chair calling a vote in favour of funding. If all committee members voted in favour of funding, the committee proceeded to provide funding recommendations. In the case of varying levels, the committee considered an average of the recommended funding amounts. The committee then held discussion to arrive at a final amount which was recorded by staff.

In all cases a democratic vote was carried out with majority vote to approve funding allocations. However, where voting revealed different perspectives, discussion was always encouraged to ensure all relevant facts were considered and if warranted, the Chair called a revote.

Paperless review

The paperless application review process was again carried out, with grant applications being reviewed on-line. Staff informed the committee they are further exploring reduction of paper use for grant applications in 2021 through online grant application submissions.

Considerations for 2021

At the end of the process, the committee and staff reviewed the process and provided feedback for future consideration. A sample of the feedback is as follows:

 Staff were very organized in sharing the materials via Google Drive.  Staff liaison members’ presence was helpful to provide background/insight on groups and in understanding policy.  Diversity of committee benefitted perspectives on breadth applications from community groups.  Removing scores from screening form allowed for democratic vote to take place and streamline committee discussions to make process smooth.  Committee meetings were held at City Hall. Committee members preferred this location for accessibility. Committee members found benefit in size, structure, and format of committee.

Conclusion

All members of this committee were thoroughly involved and came fully prepared to each meeting. Each application was reviewed individually upon its merits. Funding recommendations were not compared against the running total of available funds to

Council Meeting Page 33 of 158 March 9, 2020 12 Community Services ensure equality of all reviews. It was only after completion of all application reviews that we looked at our recommended allocations vs. available funds. At that point, we went back and reallocated to align with the Council approved grants budget.

Staff expertise assisted with the committee’s understanding of applicant groups’ operations and programming.

All Committee members celebrated and recognized the outstanding commitment and contribution that all applying organizations are making to grow and sustain the City of Waterloo as one of the best places to live in Canada and the World!

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications. The committee allocated existing program budget as per the Community Cash Grants Policy.

Technological Implications: None

Legal Considerations: None

Link to the Strategic Plan: The City’s strategic plan is supported by funding applicants through this process. The Community Grants Committee process aligns with the following aspects of the strategic plan:

 Equity, inclusion and a sense of belonging  Healthy Community  Resilient Neighbourhood

Council Meeting Page 34 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Economic Development

Title: Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2019 Report Number: CAO2020-004 Author: Erin Applebee Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: [File] Attachments: [Attachments] Ward No.: City-wide

Recommendation:

1. That Council approve report CAO2020-004. 2. That Council continue to champion local cultural development.

A. Executive Summary As part of the approval of Waterloo’s Culture Plan: A Catalyst for Culture, Final Report (CAO2013-012), staff committed to providing an annual update on the progress of Culture Plan Implementation.

This Report Card provides a summary of the events/cultural programs, initiatives and collaborations that took place in Waterloo’s cultural sector in 2019. The development of this report continues to assist with evaluating the impact of Culture Plan implementation by reviewing progress, successes, and challenges.

B. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications of this report.

C. Technology Implications There are no direct financial implications of this report.

D. Link to Strategic Plan Culture Plan Implementation has direct links to Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods by supporting the arts and culture community to enhance Waterloo’s quality of life, and to Economic Growth & Development by helping to foster a robust and diversified economy.

Council Meeting Page 35 of 158 March 9, 2020 E. Previous Reports on this Topic CAO2013-012 - Waterloo’s Culture Plan: A Catalyst for Culture, Final Report CAO2015-023 - Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2015 CAO2017-012 - Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2016 CAO2018-001- Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2017 CAO2019-012- Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2018

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Erin Applebee Director: Justin McFadden Commissioner: N/A Finance: N/A CAO

Council Meeting Page 36 of 158 March 9, 2020

Culture Plan Implementation Report Card 2019 CAO2020-004

The Culture Plan is a tool for city-building and represents the City’s ongoing commitment to view culture as a critical contributor to a vibrant, creative, and engaging community with a strong local economy. The Culture Plan was developed with community consultation and it was decided that reporting on the implementation of the Culture Plan was a significant part of the ongoing commitment to the community. The Arts & Culture section of Economic Development has been reporting and collecting this data since 2015, in the form of this report card, as a strategy to report to the community about the Culture Plan. The Report Card allows us to compare with other municipalities, who collect similar data, and create benchmarks for ourselves.

The six goals in the Culture Plan have a total of 37 recommendations. Recommendations are led by departments across the corporation. While the Arts & Culture unit guides the implementation and leads 22 recommendations, a significant number of the achievements are the direct result of collaboration and interdepartmental work.

Status of Culture Plan Recommendations: completed or ongoing underway not yet resourced or review needed 78% 8% 14%

2019 highlights from the Culture Plan’s six goals:

Goal Description Highlights Uncover and build Culture Plan emphasizes • New programming: 1 community capacity that investment in culture Author Afternoons for creativity, is important, but equally • Created new artist expression and so is nurturing capacity roster to offer more cultural engagement. for authentic cultural meaningful means of expression by creators of communication all kinds. Strengthen the City of Waterloo has • 27 places added to 2 community’s cultural affirmed its commitment the cities inventory of heritage identity by to heritage conservation significant Cultural

Council Meeting Page 37 of 158 March 9, 2020 Goal Description Highlights uniting Waterloo’s and sharing local Heritage Landscapes past with its present heritage identity through • 10th anniversary of and future through development of Museum operations management and strategies to guide at Conestoga Mall education. priorities. Enliven streets, Providing opportunities • Artist in Residence 3 neighbourhoods, for community building engaged a new public and green and cultural development audience in the spaces. in public spaces has Northdale been a focal point for Neighbourhood, people to gather together reaching students and and to participate in residents shared experiences • Use of the parkade rooted in cultural for temporary Public expression. Art

Enhance engagement A welcoming and diverse • New programming: 4 of community city helps to encourage Soap Opera (loosely diversity to build a skilled workers from based on Waterloo’s stronger, shared around the world choose history) sense of belonging. to work in Waterloo and • Created more to stay in Waterloo. temporary Public Art installations Expand community City of Waterloo is • Staff asked to share 5 awareness and improving community their expertise on appreciation of awareness of Public Art and Culture culture. opportunities for cultural Planning at Canadian engagement and Museum Association, participation. The Arts & WLU, UW and Perth Culture team webpages County and social media tools • Attendance at City provide current delivered events and information on the city’s programs has diverse cultural increased opportunities.

Council Meeting Page 38 of 158 March 9, 2020 Foster collaborations Collaborations are • Increased 6 in the culture sector. integral to the success collaboration with of the Culture Plan. other organizations The city is taking • Collaboration with strides to strengthen partners like Waterloo relationships with Public Library for other municipalities, all Lumen enabled levels of government, further community education, key cultural collaborations organizations, community associations, and business affiliates. The Arts & Culture team has also partnered with a number of key community organizations to successfully deliver specific cultural initiatives.

In the Council approved Waterloo’s Culture Plan: A Catalyst for Culture (2013), residents indicated that measuring the impact of Culture Plan implementation was important and that this information should be shared with the community. The list of indicators below demonstrates the City’s work supporting cultural development each year throughout implementation.

Indicators:

Item 2018 2019 Grant funding for Arts & Culture $480,948 $497,235 Arts & Culture Milestones Inaugural Lumen New Programming: Festival Author Afternoons, and Soap Opera Use of Parkade for Temporary Public Art Cultural spaces as identified by SpaceFinder 26 27 Number of registrants on artist/maker roster 352 164 Community organizations mentored 18 9

Council Meeting Page 39 of 158 March 9, 2020 Item 2018 2019 Capacity building opportunities 6 6 Capacity building attendance 638 206 Properties on the municipal heritage register - Heritage Conservation District (Part V) 128 128 Properties on the municipal heritage register - Individually designated (Part IV) 36 36 Properties on the municipal heritage register - (Part IV AND V) 9 9 Properties on the municipal heritage register - Listed, non- designated properties 142 153 Built Heritage Milestones Co-hosting the 21st 27 places added to annual Heritage Day the City’s inventory of workshop with the significant Cultural heritage working group Landscapes and creation of temporary “heritage house” signs for the Mary Allen neighbourhood Objects acquired for the museum collections 482 222 Museum & Collections Milestones Debuted historic 10th anniversary of cemetery tours of Museum operations at Mount Hope. Pop-up Conestoga Mall museum travelled to 100th anniversary of 11 events throughout the death of J.E. the city Seagram, prompting an exhibit highlighting his contributions to the growth of the City of Waterloo Seagram Cup Stakes –the City of Waterloo Museum partnered with Woodbine Racetrack to commemorate the 116th running of the Seagram Cup Reported Significant festival attendance 208,750 183,732 Cultural festivals on city property 94 92 Public art collection pieces 22 22

Council Meeting Page 40 of 158 March 9, 2020 Item 2018 2019 Designated significant festivals 26 27 Number of Visitor & Heritage Information Centre Program/ event Attendance 4339 6363 Number of Public Square bookings 46 52 Museum Attendance 7,730 6,354 Museum Outreach Participants 3650 2843 Museum Volunteer hours - operational support 429 722 City Delivered Cultural Event Volunteers Hours 635 539 City delivered or supported 23 28 temporary public art installation Attendance at city delivered events 26,392 47,438 & culture programs City delivered events (Programs or 91 106 Partnerships) Visitor & Heritage Information 1,623 1,827 Centre inquiries Museum research requests 23 23

Social Media engagement: Arts & 19,753 31,591 Culture Museum 5,155 5,010 Film permits issued 3 5

Media coverage stories 39 31 Button Factory number of exhibitions 30 24 Button Factory number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff 2.5 4 Button Factory community programs offered 355 229 Button Factory attendance at exhibitions 31,426 22,750 Clay and Glass number of exhibitions 8 15 Clay and Glass number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff 8.5 6.5 Clay and Glass community programs offered 134 55 Clay and Glass attendance at exhibitions 19,135 21,500 Arts & Culture key collaboration AKIMBO, Ace Ping Pong

Council Meeting Page 41 of 158 March 9, 2020 Item 2018 2019 initiatives (strategic partnership) Art$Pay, ActOUT! Arts Build Ontario, Art District Gallery Button Factory Arts, Art Shine Canadian Clay & Glass Art$Pay Gallery, Arts Build Ontario Centre for International Baden Story Tellers Governance and BRCH Innovation, Button Factory Arts City of Cambridge, Canadian Clay & City of Kitchener, Glass Gallery Climate Action Centre for Waterloo Region, International Communitech, Governance and Culture Days, Innovation Cycle Waterloo CheekSquad Region, Christie Flag Raiders City of Kitchener Paint Ball, City of Waterloo Fresh Air Films, Museum Friends of Waterloo Climate Action Park, Waterloo Region Goodbye Graffiti, Communitech Grand River Film, Culture Days Festival iHeart Radio Cycle Waterloo Kitchener, Region ION/KEOLIS, Fat Sparrow Catering Irish Real Life Festival, Four All Ice Cream Kazzo! Fest, Friends of Waterloo Kitchener Waterloo Art Park Gallery, Goodbye Graffiti Long & McQuade Institute for Quantum Waterloo, Computing Mary Allen Studio Kazzo! Fest Tour, King Street Cycles Mountain Equipment KWAG Co-op, LAUNCH Waterloo Open Ears Festival, Love Laugh Play Princess Cinemas, Mary Allen Studio Radio Waterloo – Tour CKMS 102.7 FM, MEC (Mountain Region of Waterloo, Equipment Co-op) Royal Medieval Faire, Modo Yoga Sherwood Music, Neruda Arts Shopify, Ontario Special Snap Happy, Olympics

Council Meeting Page 42 of 158 March 9, 2020 Item 2018 2019 StrummerFest, Open Ears Festival The Beat Goes On Open Sesame The Event Firm Pat the Dog THE MUSEUM Patent Social The New Quarterly Princess Cinemas University of Waterloo Radio Waterloo – UpTown Waterloo BIA CKMS 102.7 FM UW Breakers Rajenn Siberians UW Student Art Kennel Innovation Lab (SAIL) Region of Waterloo Waterloo Kung Fu Retro Rollers Academy Robert Langen Art Waterloo Public Library Gallery Waterloo Region Food Sherwood Bank Snap Happy Wilfred Laurier State of the Art University Supplies The Beat Goes On THEMUSEUM Tri-City Roller Derby Juniors University of Waterloo UpTown Waterloo BIA UW Breakers UW Student Art Innovation Lab (SAIL) Waterloo Public Library Waterloo Regional Police Service Wilfred Laurier University

Overall, the data collected shows positive growth over the past year in achieving many of the goals set out by the Culture Plan.

There were some notable changes between 2018 and 2019, and a few items to highlight. • A more robust artist roster was launched in 2019. The new roster allows artists to more easily update personal information and includes a comprehensive classification system to allow for better data analysis. The number of registrants decreased during the transition phase from one system to another, however, it is anticipated that this number will increase throughout 2020. The City uses the information from the artist roster as a benchmark for how many artists are

Council Meeting Page 43 of 158 March 9, 2020 living/working in Waterloo, which helps us to find better ways to support sustainable creative activities in Waterloo. • There was a decrease in attendance numbers reported by significant festivals in 2019. This is primarily a result of changes to the University of Waterloo’s 2019 Canada Day event which featured only fireworks rather than the traditional full day of programming. • In 2019 there was a decrease in earned media coverage, despite an increased number of media releases distributed. The introduction of Lumen in 2018, as a new festival, may have contributed to higher earned media that year. Other factors include a decline in internal resources at traditional media outlets and a shift to focusing efforts on breaking news stories. Through our Business Retention and Expansion surveys with arts and culture organizations we are aware that the decrease in media coverage for culture activities is a recent trend. Although there was a decrease in overall media coverage in 2019, there was an increase in the number of stories about Waterloo festivals and events in both traditional media and social media outside of the region. • Although the number of capacity building opportunities offered were the same in both years, attendance decreased in 2019. In 2018 we hosted one-time capacity building opportunities for Heritage Day and a Funders Forum. In response to community needs, the 2019 capacity building workshops focused on specialized topics and targeted specific audiences. • The number of community organizations mentored continues to decrease, which can be viewed as a positive change, since mentorship is intended to increase organizational capacity. It is expected that this number will fluctuate from year to year as community organizations grow or change. • Awareness through “engagement” on social media continues to increase. Increased awareness is also reflected in the increase in attendance at the Visitor and Heritage Information Centre, the increase in program and event attendance, and requests for staff to share their expertise with other organizations (i.e. University of Waterloo, Perth County, Ontario Museum Association). • Fostering community collaborations continues to be a priority. The total number of strategic collaborative partnerships is increasing.

The City will continue to act as a catalyst for culture in Waterloo in 2020.

Several recommendations that were unfunded in 2019 have now been funded through the 2020-2022 budget process. These recommendations include 2.1 digitize the City’s heritage collections to provide online access; 4.1 develop a diversity strategy; and, 4.5 investigate opportunities to expand the City’s fee assistance leisure access program for access to a broader range of cultural activities.

Priorities for Economic Development - Arts & Culture in 2020 include a focus on strategies for municipal funding and support (recommendation 1.3) to expand community capacity for creativity, expression, and cultural engagement; promotion of Waterloo’s local cultural assets (recommendation 5.2); and, continued development of relationships and partnerships between the culture sector and other sectors.

Council Meeting Page 44 of 158 March 9, 2020

Implementation of Waterloo’s Culture Plan to date has been very successful and many recommendations have been achieved in a shorter time-frame that initially anticipated. In addition, the City’s new Economic Development Strategy focuses heavily on arts and cultural industry development. As a result, staff will begin community consultation in 2020 to inform next steps for the City’s cultural planning process, ensuring that our vision for culture remains relevant and effectively supports on-going growth of Waterloo’s culture sector.

Council Meeting Page 45 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Economic Development

Title: Collaborative Municipal Funding for Key Cultural Institutions 2019/2020 Summary Report Number: CAO2020-005 Author: Astero Kalogeropoulos Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: N/A Attachments: THEMUSEUM Review—Final Report Summary Ward No.: City Wide

Recommendation:

1. That report CAO2020-005 be received for information.

2. That staff be directed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Collaborative Municipal Funding process, in partnership with Municipal Cultural Partners and Key Cultural Institutions, to identify opportunities to continuously improve the process, with any recommended changes being presented to Council for consideration in advance of the 2021 annual report.

A. Executive Summary In May 2016, staff initiated the collaborative funding and assessment process by the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo for the four Key Cultural Institutions (KCI). KCIs are large organizations that contribute to the social and economic prosperity of Waterloo Region, creating jobs and wealth, attracting visitors and stimulating creative thought and activity. There are currently four organizations in the region that fit the KCI criteria: Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery (CCGG), Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery (KWAG), Kitchener Waterloo Symphony (KWS), and THEMUSEUM.

As part of the collaborative funding process, municipal staff meets with members of the staff and Boards of the individual KCIs annually to discuss their goals, accomplishments, challenges, and to plan for specific actions and outcomes for the upcoming year. The purpose of this discussion is to identify opportunities for further cooperation, possible measure to mitigate challenges, and a deeper understanding of

Council Meeting Page 46 of 158 March 9, 2020 each KCI and their work. During the 2019 process, THEMUSEUM requested a substantial increase to their operating grant. In response to this request, the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener undertook a strategic review of the operations of THEMUSEUM.

This report summarizes the findings from the 2019 collaborative funding process for all of the KCIs and the findings from THEMUSEUM’s operational review.

B. Financial Implications There are no financial implications of this report.

C. Technology Implications There are no technology implications of this report.

D. Link to Strategic Plan Municipal financial investment in the Key Cultural Institutions links to the Strategic Pillar of Healthy Community and Resilient Neighbourhoods by supporting the arts and culture community to enhance Waterloo’s quality of place.

E. Previous Reports on this Topic COM2015-024 Review of Per Capita/Arts Sustainability Funding

CAO2017-005 Collaborative Municipal Funding and Assessment Process for Key Culture Institutions – Year 1 Summary

CAO2018-007 Collaborative Municipal Funding for Key Cultural Institutions: Year 2 Summary

Council Meeting Page 47 of 158 March 9, 2020 F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Astero Kalogeropoulos Director: Justin McFadden Commissioner: Tim Anderson Finance: N/A CAO

Council Meeting Page 48 of 158 March 9, 2020

Collaborative Municipal Funding for Key Cultural Institutions 2019/2020 Summary CAO2020-005

BACKGROUND

In May 2016, staff initiated the collaborative funding and assessment process by the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo for the four Key Cultural Institutions (KCI). KCIs are large organizations that contribute to the social and economic prosperity of Waterloo Region, creating jobs and wealth, attracting visitors and stimulating creative thought and activity. There are currently four organizations in the region that fit the KCI criteria: Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery (CCGG), Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery (KWAG), Kitchener Waterloo Symphony (KWS), and THEMUSEUM. While these institutions are each independent, with their own boards of directors, executive directors, staff teams, and facilities, together they represent a significant asset and exert considerable influence locally. Reliable municipal operational funding is necessary to sustain the impact of these organizations and to leverage funding from other levels of government and private sources.

The development of the collaborative funding process was a recommendation of the Review of Per Capita/Arts Sustainability Funding and Municipal Funding Models for Key Cultural Institutions (COM2015-024) approved by Council in the Fall of 2015. This initiative aims to consider the total funding for the KCIs and assess the equity of the fund allocation and ensure accountability of public funds. This collaborative approach recognizes that Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region are significant funders of the four organizations, and it is important for municipal staff to have an on-going understanding of their strengths and challenges. This collaborative approach has a number of benefits: • Improved transparency for decision-making • Improved accountability for public funds • Improved communication between municipalities, KCIs and Councils • Improved efficiency for KCIs and municipalities

Overview of Collaborative Funding Process As part of the collaborative process, municipal staff meets with members of the staff and Boards of the individual KCIs to discuss their goals, accomplishments, challenges, and to plan for specific actions and outcomes for the upcoming year. The purpose of this discussion is to identify opportunities for further cooperation, possible measure to mitigate challenges, and a deeper understanding of each KCI and their work.

Council Meeting Page 49 of 158 March 9, 2020 Allocations for 2020 have been made to the KCIs through the annual budget process. The table below summarizes municipal contributions for 2020:

Key Cultural Facility Facility Kitchener Waterloo Region Cambridge Total Institution (Kitchener) (Waterloo) CCGG $121,177 $50,000 $171,177 KWAG $103,020 $225,170 $76,500 $404,690 KWS $253,003 $98,000 $385,662 $736,665 THEMUSEUM $125,483 $148,839 $45,000 $385,662 $704,984 TOTAL $125,483 $121,177 $730,032 $269,500 $771,324 $0 $2,017,516

THEMUSEUM Funding Request and Operational Review While funding is a persistent challenge for all KCIs, during the 2019 collaborative funding process, THEMUSEUM requested a substantial increase to their operating grant. In response to this request, the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener undertook a strategic review of the operations of THEMUSEUM. The aim of the review was to provide a framework for THEMUSEUM and municipalities to understand the organization’s operations and whether municipal support should be adjusted to ensure THEMUSEUM's sustainability.

DISCUSSION

Findings from 2019/2020 Collaborative Funding Discussions In conversation with the Executive Directors and CEOs of the KCIs, a number of themes emerged:

• Maximizing space & facilities: KCIs explored how their physical spaces could be used differently to maximize the use of their facilities. The Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery re-considered their main entrance and lobby, establishing a new exhibition space there. An unused interior courtyard was reimagined as a location for site-specific installations and the library was re-established as a centre for academic research. The Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery completed a renovation of the lobby area that enhanced the visitor services experience, incorporated an education hub, and created accessible and gender-neutral washrooms within the facility’s existing footprint. The Kitchener Waterloo Symphony partnered with Green Light Arts to support increased use of the theatre. THEMUSEUM is developing an operating model that will increase the size of the facility and increase revenue. • Cultivating strong attendance: KCIs indicate that attendance, ticket sales and registration continue to be strong, indicating that their programming offers relevance to the community. • Balancing financial operational scarcity with high quality programming: In order to maintain current levels of provincial and federal funding, the KCIs receiving these funds must demonstrate a high level of performance in organizational effectiveness and artistic and community programming. It is a

Council Meeting Page 50 of 158 March 9, 2020 strategic endeavour to balance this commitment with financial scarcity, especially reducing accumulated deficits. While maintaining their high professional standing with the Ontario Arts Council peer jury by offering high quality exhibition programming, KWAG, CCGG, and KWS have accommodated budget restrictions, including the elimination of staff positions and/or the reduction of salaries, to reduce deficits. These reductions have made it challenging for all three organizations to offer competitive staff compensation, and have impacted their ability to retain top talent. • Developing strategies for effective communication with Councils: Many KCIs questioned the best way for them to share their work, impact, opportunities and challenges with municipal Councils. • Increasing stable funding: Reliable and sustainable operating funding is needed. For most KCIs changes to funding at both the Federal and Provincial levels have created significant challenges. For most KCIs the landscape of corporate sponsorship and philanthropic giving has changed, resulting in the loss of many long-term sponsorship investments. This has required KCIs to change their approach and develop new philanthropic relationship—both of which are time and resource intensive. All KCIs expressed the need for increased municipal funding and investment to maintain the quality of programming, address staff resourcing needs, improve physical space and assets, and diversify programming and exhibits.

Findings from THEMUSEUM Operational Review During the collaborative funding process, THEMUSEUM requested a substantial increase to their operating grant. THEMUSEUM anticipated that without this increase, they would have to make significant changes to the scale and scope of their operations. In response to this request, the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener undertook a strategic review of the operations of THEMUSEUM. After developing a terms of reference for the project and soliciting consultant proposals, the partners jointly appointed Angela Birdsell to conduct the review. The scope of worked included:

• A review of organization's purpose, mandate, programming and markets; • An analysis of the organization's financial model; and, • A review of THEMUSEUM’s capital expansion plan.

The review included interviews with a number of THEMUSEUM and community stakeholders, including staff, Board members, donors, partners, long-time supporters, and other community leaders. It relied on extensive review and analysis of documentation provided by THEMUSEUM and funders, such as financial documentation, annual reports, grant applications, statistical data, web content and Board documentation. THEMUSEUM Review—Final Report Summary can be found in Appendix A.

The final report offered several conclusions:

Council Meeting Page 51 of 158 March 9, 2020 • THEMUSEUM has a compelling Vision, Mission, and Mandate and a number of factors working in its favour such as established programming, member support, private foundation support, programming space in a building provided by the City of Kitchener, and a committed Board. • THEMUSEUM has consistently incurred large operating deficits since 2009. Despite financial control mechanisms, the Board has approved expenditures of unrestricted reserves in the absence of plan to address ongoing sustainability. • THEMUSEUM’s staffing in numbers and cost is close to double that of most comparative organizations. • THEMUSEUM’s contention that it is underfunded by municipal funders is not supported by research of comparative organizations. • Opportunities exist for THEMUSEUM to operate within its existing budgets.

The final report contained several recommendations for THEMUSEUM’s operations, including suggestions on reducing expenditures, assessing the cost-benefit of various operational areas, budgeting, and feasibility planning for the proposed capital expansion. THEMUSEUM has already implemented many of these recommendations.

In partnership, THEMUSEUM and municipal funders have developed a conditional 3- year funding agreement as recommended in the report. The conditional funding agreement supports THEMUSEUM to achieve sustainability, ensures responsible stewardship of public funds, and mirrors funding best practices in art funding jurisdictions (e.g. Ontario Arts Council and Canada Council for the Arts), while maintaining the current funding envelope. Municipal funders have offered in-kind services to further support THEMUSEUM’s operations.

During the annual collaborative funding process for 2021, THEMUSEUM will be assessed against these funding conditions.

Next Steps in Collaborative Funding Process Improvement In addition to following the established cycle of the collaborative funding and assessment process, the Municipal Cultural Initiatives Working Group will review and refine the process with a view to rationalizing the municipal funding allocations, building equity, and increasing transparency.

The planned cycle of the collaborative funding and assessment process is outlined in the table below:

Annual Planned activities Cycle Q1 Municipal staff process KCI grants within each independent budget process

Q2 Municipal staff submit joint summary report to the individual councils (this report) Municipal and KCI staff meet to assess process and results KCIs present annual overview to All Council Meeting

Council Meeting Page 52 of 158 March 9, 2020 Annual Planned activities Cycle Q3 KCIs submit individual reports on previous fiscal year KCIs request funding for upcoming year through Municipal Working Group Municipal staff meet with each KCI to review reports and discuss needs Q4 Municipal staff summarize discussion in form of strengths, challenges and planned actions for each KCI Municipal staff collaboratively identify potential budget issues Municipal staff recommend KCI funding allocation to council as part of each municipal budget process (issue paper if needed)

2020 marks the fifth year in which the collaborative funding approach has been utilized. As such, it represents an opportunity to assess the value and benefit of this process. Feedback on the collaborative municipal funding and assessment process has been mixed. In particular, this coordinated approach has given staff a clearer picture of the complete funding profile of each KCI. In doing so, this has provided staff with more insight into the opportunities and challenges unique to large cultural institutions. Likewise, the process has provided municipal funders with more performance data, coordinated advocacy for the greater benefit of the sector, and strengthened relationships between cultural organizations and municipal staff.

However, this process has not yet been able to address serious concerns about the sufficiency and equity of funding for KCIs. This question was at the centre of the 2019 operational review of THEMUSEUM. To this end, the Municipal Cultural Initiatives Working Group will consider options and opportunities to address these concerns, among others, and share any findings and recommendations with Council before the 2021 report.

CONCLUSION

The KCIs continue to provide a valued contribution to our community and economy. Given the changing landscape under which the KCIs operate, it is important for municipalities to continually explore opportunities to support each organization within their unique mandates and operating situations. As such, staff will consider opportunities to enhance the Collaborative Funding approach, to better meet the needs of our KCIs while ensuring community benefits shared across municipal boundaries are realized.

Council Meeting Page 53 of 158 March 9, 2020 Appendix A - THEMUSEUM Review—Final Report Summary

The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better for you, please contact Astero Kalogeropoulos, Manager of Arts and Culture at 519-747-6124 or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.

Council Meeting Page 54 of 158 March 9, 2020 THEMUSEUM Review – Final Report Summary Angela Birdsell, M.M., MBA, Arts Management Consulting, Dec 16, 2019

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1 Mission, Vision, Programming and Markets ...... 1 Finances ...... 3 Expansion Plans ...... 11 Conclusions and Recommendations...... 14

Introduction This organizational review of the THEMUSEUM includes a review of its vision, mandate, markets, operations, finances and expansion plans. The purpose is for the Region of Waterloo and City of Kitchener to consider options to maximize the organization’s potential for short- and long-term sustainability and success and, for funders to recommend an informed approach by Councils to address THEMUSEUM’s request for additional operating funding and consideration with regards to a potential expansion strategy. The review included interviews with a number of THEMUSEUM and community stakeholders, including staff, Board members, donors, partners, long time supporters, and other community leaders. It relied on extensive review and analysis of documentation provided by THEMUSEUM and funders, such as financial documentation, annual reports, grant applications, statistical data, web content and Board documentation. This report includes findings which should assist the funders and THEMUSEUM to engage constructively to ensure THEMUSEUM is a sustainable, dynamic cultural institution in the cities and Region.

Mission, Vision, Programming and Markets Beginning in 2003 as the Waterloo Region Children’s Museum, research conducted by the organization indicated that there were an insufficient number of children in the geographic catchment area to support a uniquely children’s museum and, that there was an excess of space to warrant programming exclusively for children. THEMUSEUM determined greater opportunity for revenue generation would be provided by a mixed program offering. Since 2007, THEMUSEUM has hosted exhibits with multi-faceted and intersecting themes, including art, technology, popular culture, science, health, wellness and the environment. Its programming is developed around four pillars which help to understand the organization’s focal points: • Exhibitions • Community State • Museum after Dark • Family Experiences

Council Meeting Page 55 of 158 March 9, 2020 Exhibits have entailed a mix of permanent, curated and sourced exhibitions including large-scale branded shows targeted at families and adults and at times includes programming targeted to specific groups, such as millennials. THEMUSEUM is placing growing emphasis on technology, digital arts and adult programming. Stakeholders speak very positively of the past program achievements of THEMUSEUM. The range of expectations and understanding of THEMUSEUM’s future programming and its target audiences is quite varied among respondents. Significant divergence in understanding of the vision of THEMUSEUM was reflected in interviews with donors, board members, community supporters, members, staff, and the public. It will be important for THEMUSEUM to articulate a clear and honed strategic direction if it is going to gain support for an expansion among donors and governments. Visitor Attendance THEMUSEUM has a loyal membership base for its multi- themed programming. A review of attendance statistics indicate that most of those who visit THEMUSEUM are families, children and members. This encompasses 80,000 – 90,000 visits per year. As of May 31, 2019: • 63% of visitors are children and families • THEMUSEUM had 1,067 members which generated 15,342 member visits including children • 45% of members say they visit monthly (Metroline)

Metroline Market Research In 2018, THEMUSEUM undertook a survey through Metroline Market Research to gain a clearer understanding of what a “critical mass of arts and culture activity” in downtown Kitchener meant for the community. The research objectives were to: • understand general awareness of THEMUSEUM • explore the current perceived strengths of the organization • explore what changes could or should be made to enhance or make THEMUSEUM more relevant and interesting • understand awareness of the potential change in the organization to take over more property and expand The research included 1027 survey responses and a focus groups. Key findings of the Metroline Research included: Awareness: generally, there is good awareness for THEMUSEUM’s programming. The highest areas of awareness was of the Dinosaurs exhibition, the lowest areas of awareness were of Dance Mix 90s, Studio 54 and Interaction. Areas for Improvement: Suggestions for improvement related to cost, variety, location and parking issues, and increasing general awareness of THEMUSEUM. Family Experience: 87% of respondents have a positive impression of THEMUSEUM stating that the space is welcoming for whole family. Collaboration: 74% of respondents said collaboration with other institutions like universities, museums, tech companies, and arts and cultural organizations was “very important”.

Council Meeting Page 56 of 158 March 9, 2020 Respondent interest: • 81% of respondents were interested in larger, well known exhibitions • 69% wanted to see more special events • 68% wanted more family programming • Non-members and those who attend less frequently are interested in live music, special events, adult programming. • Regular attenders are more likely to find family experiences or events for the whole family more important than those who are not regular attenders or members. Conclusions: Mission, Vision, Programming and Markets While there is wide support among stakeholders for THEMUSEUM’s past programming, its future plans are not necessarily well-socialized or understood by stakeholders, many of whom have divergent viewpoints or understandings of where the organization is heading or should be heading. Stakeholder descriptors of the forward vision varies including; ‘more ROM-like exhibitions’ to ‘less ROM-line exhibitions’, more curated digital arts, more STEAM programming, live music, more family programming / less family programming. Multiple users have multiple priorities as evidenced in the Metroline Research and stakeholder conversations. Internally, THEMUSEUM may have a clear idea of its vision, however, when its stakeholders have dramatically divergent expectations/priorities, an organization risks attempting to be all things to all people. This prevents strategic and effective use of its finite resources. A clear picture of the future is the only way an organization will be able to raise capital to achieve its vision.

Finances In 2018, THEMUSEUM requested that municipal and regional funders increase support by 58% to bridge the operating deficit and to set it up for a capital campaign. As a result, an analysis of THEMUSEUM’s finances is a key component of the operational review. Current Position At Year End 2018 THEMUSEUM held $2,037,883 in reserves, $1 million of which is donor-restricted. At Year End 2019, at the time of the report it was estimated that approximately $300,000 will remain in Board-restricted reserves. At the current rate of expenditure it is estimated1 that THEMUSEUM would draw down all reserves by December 31, 2019. A line of credit of $350,000 is available to THEMUSEUM. If the organization continues to operate at current spending levels, it would have $62,000 in available cash through its line of credit at its fiscal year-end of June 30, 2020. The Board has not articulated a plan for sustainability beyond December 2019, other than to request that municipal and regional governments cover the annual shortfall in an amount of approximately $400,000 in increased operating support. The review demonstrates that increased support in the past from municipalities has been followed by higher deficits, roughly in the same amount of the funding increase. There is no evidence that funders have provided assurance of an increase to THEMUSEUM since the Region’s Per Capita / Arts Sustainability Fund increase in 2011 (to $300,000 per year from $75,000). THEMUSEUM currently has no debt. If it draws on the line of credit, THEMUSEUM would be in a position of liability. It is the opinion of this review22 that expense reductions could be implemented, potentially avoiding the need to access credit in early 2020. Over 2019-20, cost reductions could potentially result in a balanced budget at year end.

1 As determined in Sep 2019. 2 As above.

Council Meeting Page 57 of 158 March 9, 2020 Revenues and Expenditures 2011-2018 The review examined the last eight years of financial performance presented by THEMUSEUM to identify trends and potential issues that fall outside of industry norms. THEMUSEUM Financial Performance from 2011-20183

Revenues • Earned revenues have seen little variance over the past six years (2013-2018). • Fundraising and sponsorship show a general decline since 2011-2013, with lowest years in 2015-16. • Municipal funding has remained relatively stable4. • Federal and Provincial grants are variable because they are project rather than operating grants. The highest year was in 2012, as are Foundation grants. Expenses • Salaries and Benefits were significantly increased in 2017 and 2018 • Exhibit & marketing costs are variable, year over year. • Program costs were increased by 50% in 2018. • Facilities costs are stable. The building is provided by the City of Kitchener. Revenue over Expenditure • Operating deficits have been consistently incurred in amounts ranging from $260,000 - $550,000 every year between 2011 and 2018. These have been offset by drawing down reserves

3 This information was provided by THEMUSEUM to the reviewer. 4 Funding from The Region increased in 2011 from $75,000 to $300,000.

Council Meeting Page 58 of 158 March 9, 2020 As a note: Deferred capital contribution/amortization should be netted as an expense for more accurate operating results. In doing so, it becomes clear that THEMUSEUM operated with slightly over $2million in revenues and $2.6 million in expenditures in 2018, a deficit of approximately 30% of actual revenues. Budgeting and Financial Stewardship Annually, management of THEMUSEUM undergoes a budget planning process. The budget is then presented to the Board for approval each year. Approved budgets include revenue assumptions that would provide break- even results if achieved. Annual financial audits are also approved by the Board each year. Since 2011, no financial audit has reported break-even results, rather, operating losses have ranged from 10% - 30% of revenues. THEMUSEUM’s Board Executive reports that it regularly reviews its financial performance through a number of means including bi-monthly monitoring of budget vs actuals, monitoring project costing and profit margin scenarios. Stop Light reports are generated for various program areas. Despite these standard financial practices, this operational review brings to light some issues: • While progress against targets appears to be carefully monitored, it is unclear what mitigation strategies are taken to address revenue shortfalls/expenses when they are incurred. • The rationale for the Board to annually approve balanced budgets in the face of consistent operating losses is not clear. • The rationale for submission of the approved balanced budgets to municipal funders – given historical precedence of THEMUSEUM’s financial results – is also not clear. Conclusions THEMUSEUM Board annually runs operating deficits without a plan for sustainability following depletion of reserves. In the case of budget submissions by THEMUSEUM which have no basis in historical achievement, funders may consider withholding grant disbursements pending the submission of achievable budgets. This is common practice in provincial and federal funding agencies and is discussed later in the review under the recommendation for a 3-year conditional funding agreement. Financial Performance in a Broader Context Comparative Organizations: To help contextualize operational choices and financial performance of THEMUSEUM, this review identified a number of organizations for comparison. This is intended to assist in learning about, and gaining a broad perspective of non-profit exhibition organizations such as museums, galleries, discovery centres and digital arts centres. The comparators were chosen based on a number of criteria: • Operating Model: THEMUSEUM follows a gallery/interpretation centre operating model with opening hours when people can choose to come or not, with changing exhibitions and supplemented by group visits, educational programs, special events and rentals. • Programming themes: founded on its roots as a Children’s Museum, THEMUSEUM’s programming also explores the intersection between science, technology and art. • Revenues: THEMUSEUM has average revenues of slightly over $2 million5 • Funding Model: THEMUSEUM is a registered not-for-profit organization and receives funding from municipalities. • Location: It is noted that community has a unique ecology for revenue generation.

5 with amortization netted as an expense.

Council Meeting Page 59 of 158 March 9, 2020 • Population size: THEMUSEUM primarily serves the Region of Waterloo, with a population of approximately 600,000. The population in a catchment area of a cultural organization will potentially impact revenues (gate, memberships, rentals, donations etc.) and programming choices. A detailed analysis of the programming, operating hours, school and education programs, ticketed and special events is not part of this review. Comparators are used primarily to understand THEMUSEUM’s revenues, staff levels and compensation within the broader context. THEMUSEUM has stated through feedback on this review, that it does not accept comparison with other non- profit cultural organizations. This report takes that view into consideration, but maintains that comparisons are useful in terms of understanding the cultural sector and industry norms. Selected Comparator Organizations 6

REVENUE STREAMS Comparison of Revenue Streams (public, private, earned) The review compares THEMUSEUM’s three funding streams (earned, government/public and contributed/private). Comparisons with the four Regional Key Cultural Institutions7 (KCIs) as a cohort are provided separately.

6 THEMUSEUM revenues include amortization. Y/E 2019 revenues are approximately $2 million before amortization of deferred capital contribution. The Discovery Centre revenues include capital campaign revenues and campaign-related staffing. The number above excludes capital funds. 7 KCIs include Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery, Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony and THEMUSEUM.

Council Meeting Page 60 of 158 March 9, 2020 Revenues of Comparison Organizations (2018)8

Government funding Government revenue is 3% points below average of comparative organizations

Earned revenue THEMUSEUM is relatively strong in earned revenue (57%). Earned revenue of THEMUSEUM is within the top half of comparators. The average is 43%.

8 *KWAG and The Power Plant do not charge admission. The Discovery Centre revenue includes @ $4.8 m in revenue related to capital campaign. This will logically result in higher than usual private and government revenues. Normal operating revenues sit at approximately $3.3 M. The Phi Centre in Montreal is not included in revenue analysis because it does not have government funding, but is rather solely supported by private contributions and earned revenue. The Ottawa Art Gallery is not included because it is a line item in the City of Ottawa budget; therefore its public revenue streams are not appropriate as a basis for comparison.

Council Meeting Page 61 of 158 March 9, 2020 Private funding (fundraising, sponsorships and non-government grants) THEMUSEUM is on par with children’s museums in this revenue category. At 16%, private revenue is below the average of 27% of comparison organizations.

2018 Revenue comparisons with the Region’s Key Cultural Institutions (KCI)s In comparing the three revenue streams of Region’s KCIs: • THEMUSEUM is supported by the area municipalities and the Region at strong levels comparable to other KCIs, including in- kind infrastructure support. • THEMUSEUM has the highest proportion of earned revenue of the KCIs. KWAG and CCGG do not charge admission. CCGG’s earned revenue is largely attributable to gift shop. • THEMUSEUM receives less than other KCIs from federal and provincial sources. • Fundraising and sponsorship is low relative to KCIs.

EXPENDITURES Staffing THEMUSEUM’s total staffing costs are 57% of revenues (or 74% if amortization is netted out as an expense bringing THEMUSEUM’s operating revenues in 2018 to $2,038,931)9. Staffing costs were significantly increased in the past two years (see p 4). THEMUSEUM has close to double, by number and/or %, the FT staff contingent as institutions with comparable or lower revenues. As staffing expenditures arguably account for THEMUSEUM’s operating deficits, this area is a key focus of the review.

9Based on 2018 revenues of $2,515,939 in the chart on p 4, and staffing costs of $1,513,223. With deferred capital contribution $477,008 and amortization $531,245 netted out as an expense, this provides a truer picture of operating revenues which are $2,038,931. As such, staffing costs are 74% of revenues in 2018. Of the comparator organizations indicated above, The Power Plant’s revenues do represent the net amortization amount, the remainder, drawn from CRA data, do not.

Council Meeting Page 62 of 158 March 9, 2020 Staff are well-regarded by those interviewed during this review for commitment and professionalism. In its employee manual, THEMUSEUM demonstrates robust staff policies including employer/employee responsibilities, workplace health and safety policies, code of conduct, human resources policies and job descriptions exist for each position. This review has not explored THEMUSEUM’s approach to performance evaluations. The table below compares staffing levels and compensation of comparator organizations relative to revenues. Data is from CRA Charities listing returns 2018.

Full Time (FT) and Part Time (PT) staff relative to revenues, 201810

Cultural Human Resources Council of Canada (CHRC) The review also draws on the 2017 CHRC report on compensation published on May 2, 201811. It surveyed over 400 cultural non-profit organizations across Canada on compensation, benefits, staffing contingents and other workforce trends. Results are grouped into five categories of organization by annual revenues from less than $100,000 to over $5,000,000. Ninety-nine (99) organizations reported in the $1 m - $5 m annual revenues category. The average number of Full Time staff in this reporting category is 10.

10 While Ottawa Art Gallery, a municipal gallery, has a relatively large F/T staff contingent, its staffing costs are 32% of revenues. 11 The Full CHRC Report can be found here: https://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/cross-sectoral

Council Meeting Page 63 of 158 March 9, 2020 Cultural Human Resources Council of Canada (CHRC). 2017 workforce data, p 9.

Percentage of Full Time and Part Time staff12 Most cultural organizations opt for a smaller core full-time staff supplemented by a larger number of part time staff. Part time and casual labour provides flexibility to be responsive to programming ebbs and flows typical of programming by small-to mid-sized not-for-profit cultural organizations.

12 While Ottawa Art Gallery has a similar proportion of F/T staff, total staffing costs relative to revenues of OAG (32%) are significantly lower than THEMUSEUM (57%).

Council Meeting Page 64 of 158 March 9, 2020 Finally, compensation as a percentage of revenues for the comparator organizations is provided below.

Expansion Plans Rationale THEMUSEUM has stated that its future viability is pinned to expansion, in order to mitigate current space limitations, accommodate expanded programming aspirations, and ensure financial sustainability. THEMUSEUM’s expanded programming over the past 9 years reflects its move away from being solely a Children’s Museum. However, for expanded programming, THEMUSEUM has determined that the current space configuration is problematic. Some key challenges include: • Children’s activities are front and centre on entry • Upper level galleries are not suitable for large groups of children • Noise presents a barrier to differentiated activity • Open space hinders bumping in exhibitions and concurrent rental activity • There is a lack of contiguous space for large exhibitions With the assistance of a consultant (approximately 10 years ago) THEMUSEUM articulated a need for: • Theatre Space • Swing Space • Loading Dock • 14,000 square feet of Contiguous Exhibition Space • Permanent Family Experience • Café /hospitality13

13 Café space has been achieved at street level.

Council Meeting Page 65 of 158 March 9, 2020 Expansion Campaign Study – Ketchum Canada Inc. (KCI) 2018 In October 2018 THEMUSEUM secured KCI, a reputable campaign feasibility research firm, to explore the feasibility of a capital campaign. The study found that: • There is strong support for cultural block in downtown Kitchener • THEMUSEUM has done groundwork to begin socializing the concept • Fundraising capacity was validated $10 million in potential funds, not the original target of $25 million • Few donors self-identified as transformative level donors • Major gift capacity is not evidenced • The organization lacks an established, ongoing donor base to draw on for a campaign Strategic considerations were identified by the Ketchum study. These included: • THEMUSEUM’s case needs to be more fully developed including well-constructed business and operational plans • THEMUSEUM must build trust and relationships with other organizations. • Major gift relationships need time to build (up to 5 years from initial engagement) • THEMUSEUM has a fledgling donor base, and must develop long-term ongoing supporters • THEMUSEUM will need fully developed business and operating plans before approaching prospective donors • THEMUSEUM must address the operating deficit, as qualified donors will see this as a concern.

Expansion Planning As part of this review, THEMUSEUM shared drawings of the potential expansion. Drawings of the Queen & King Street proposal include a number of exterior renderings such as the sample below.

Council Meeting Page 66 of 158 March 9, 2020 Exterior renderings lack the specificity that investors are likely to expect, including and especially government funders. A full feasibility study would include, but not be limited to: • business analysis that demonstrates the impact of current space deficiencies on operating revenue and an outline of increased revenue potential against operating costs in an expansion • business analysis outlining the impact expanded space or phased in added components (loading dock, theatre) would have on programs, operations and services to the community; • cost-benefit analysis of the expansion • a comprehensive plan, description and rendering of planned interior programming areas, service areas, back of house, public spaces, retail and hospitality, and allocation of community-based spaces • detailed operating costs during and following on the expansion • detailed programming types and offerings in an expanded facility and expected audiences • expansion budget: expected revenues and development expense, including a cash flow analysis over the life of a project that is green-lighted • timeline for the expansion and a focused strategic plan with specific goals, objectives and key performance indicators

THEMUSEUM has a number of challenges to address prior to embarking on an expansion. These include THEMUSEUM’s chronic operating deficit; the lack of a clear, the lack of the detailed expansion plan; and an underdeveloped donor base, including both high net worth individuals and especially broad-based and regular individual donors, the latter of whom will be critical for THEMUSEUM to develop prior to embarking on a campaign.

The impact of expansion on operations would need to a key part of the planning process, including • alignment with re-building of reserves • ring-fencing campaign revenues and expenses from operations • ensuring transparency and CRA compliance with all campaign revenues Conclusions - Expansion Following its consistent operating deficits, THEMUSEUM has expended its reserves and has made an appeal to funders for an operating increase. Capital expansion is not currently advisable, nor likely to be successful when an organization’s financial position is under this level of duress. • The operating deficit must be addressed by THEMUSEUM prior to embarking on a capital project. THEMUSEUM likely will need to make strategic decisions on programming and operations to function within its current revenues. • Large scale programming projects (e.g. major exhibitions) should not be committed going forward without confirmed sponsorship and realistic revenue projections. This will enhance the liability risk for THEMUSEUM. • Comprehensive work developing expansion plans including programming remains to be done. THEMUSEUM will need to be clear and specific on what an expansion will achieve in programming and results. This will be critical to demonstrate the potential for success to donors and governments. • THEMUSEUM still needs to develop and steward a consistent donor base that both pre-dates and would extend beyond the campaign. This will be critical for the success of any capital campaign going forward.

Council Meeting Page 67 of 158 March 9, 2020 • If developed, an expansion plan should be based on a $10 m goal at this time, potentially with phased- in developments (such as a loading dock)14. • A high degree of rigour must be applied to all levels of planning & operations.

o Trillium Foundation and Canadian Cultural Spaces offer feasibility study support (matching $75k) to successful applicants, which could be donor-matched. • Once an organization is campaign-ready, generally upfront investment is required, given that organizations must budget and pay for campaign and project expenses for up to 10 years as a campaign and construction project unfold. • A campaign is highly visible: Stakeholders are vigilant on key milestones, the delivery on campaign promises

Conclusions and Recommendations THEMUSEUM has a compelling Vision, Mission, and Mandate and a number of factors working in its favour such as: • Visibility • Established programming • Member support • Programming space in a building provided by City of Kitchener • Reliable municipal and Regional government funding, and project-based federal and provincial funding • Private foundation support • No debt (until early 2020 if status quo is maintained) • A committed Board THEMUSEUM has consistently incurred large operating deficits since 2009. Despite financial control mechanisms, the Board has approved expenditures of unrestricted reserves in the absence of plan to address ongoing sustainability. Under the status quo THEMUSEUM’s unrestricted reserves will be depleted as of 31 December 201915, and THEMUSEUM will likely have a $300,000 line of credit liability as of June 2020. THEMUSEUM’s staffing in numbers and cost is close to double that of most comparative organizations. Immediate action to address costs may enable THEMUSEUM to break even at Y/E 2020 and enable it to begin to stabilize over three years. THEMUSEUM’s contention that it is underfunded is not supported by research of comparative organizations.

Options for THEMUSEUM Like all organizations, THEMUSEUM can only act on areas within its control, such as: • Realistic budgeting • Expenditure management to balance the operating budget • Financial stewardship

14 THEMUSEUM could triage and prioritize identified needs. For example, what might options for a loading dock be on the existing premises and how would it benefit / hinder programs and services? All modeling should include a detailed cost-benefit analysis. 15 Based on data available in August 2019.

Council Meeting Page 68 of 158 March 9, 2020 • Strategic program decisions which are focussed, affordable, and efficiently delivered • Programming business cases that include staff resourcing implications. Areas not within THEMUSEUM’s control can be anticipated and strategically mitigated. • Unforeseen circumstances impacting costs • Public funding outcomes THEMUSEUM has a number of options to consider

Option 1: Maintain the status quo and pursue expansion The case for this is not strong. As of Jan 2020 THEMUSEUM will begin to incur liability. Campaign donors may view their potential contributions as at risk of plugging operational deficits representing a major liability for a capital campaign. Failure to address operating deficits may put public funding at risk. Option 2: Wind down operations THEMUSEUM has good support in the community, including consistent municipal and Regional support, is provided a building in which to operate by the City of Kitchener, and most importantly, currently has no debt. The public supports its programs, and THEMUSEUM has had significant levels of government and philanthropic investment since 2007. Re-starting an organization in the space currently occupied by THEMUSEUM would require re-building relationships and trust in the community, and starting at ground zero with government funders.

THEMUSEUM has stated that it may have no option but to close if municipal and regional funders do not increase funding support. This review has sought to demonstrate that THEMUSEUM is under no obligation to shut down operations. Rather, through any number of financial, operational or programming mitigation strategies, it may continue to operate, arguably without sizable loss of programming service. It is the opinion of this review that THEMUSEUM’s contention that it cannot address its deficit in order to continue operations is rather, indicative of its lack of willingness to do so.

Option 3: Transition to a balanced and sustainable operating model 3.1) Address Expenses • THEMUSEUM has five (5) months16 to reduce expenses to achieve a more favourable December 31, 2019 result. • THEMUSEUM could consider capturing self-generated streams in a format that would enable it to analyze revenues by program area. • THEMUSEUM should undertake cost-benefit analysis of revenues and expenditures17. This should include an analysis of revenue streams and return on investment in full-time staffing and an analysis of self-generated revenues by program area to assist it with strategic decisions to balance its budget. • THEMUSEUM should carefully consider any major financial commitments until business cases are fully developed and sponsorships are secured. • Any decision that risks the need to incur debt should be carefully considered. • Establish an independent finance committee of THEMUSEUM Board, which could draw on external expertise, to help with:

16 As at Aug 2019, time of the agreed review parameters. 17 It could be an interesting exercise for THEMUSEUM to examine Phi program outcomes as privately supported organization.

Council Meeting Page 69 of 158 March 9, 2020 o Realistic budget planning, cash flow planning, analytical review to identify revenue and expense trends.

o Monitoring against budget for all funders and monthly monitoring and mitigation strategies.

o Ensuring financial targets remain on track. o Board evaluation and senior leadership performance evaluation should include performance against financial objectives. 3.2) Develop operational (annual) fundraising capacity. • This will help set the stage for a capital campaign. 3.3) Undertake feasibility research and, pending outcomes, lay out a detailed business case for a phased expansion plan. • Detailed planning should include:

o Detailed program, including focus and markets o Prioritized list of requirements o Timeline o Operational Implications o Operating Program costs o Revenue Streams Options for Funders

In cases where an organization has put itself at financial risk, it is common for funders to implement a conditional funding agreement at current funding levels. This normally includes periodic funding disbursements conditional on regular reporting requirements that may include financial targets, and the provision to withhold disbursements if agreements are not met. In the majority of cases this is an effective tool in assisting a company to re-organize, stabilize and transition over a period of time.

To protect public investment, to ensure public transparency of funding and to mitigate negative precedent- setting in the wider community through funding decisions, government funders do not generally reward organizations which chronically spend more than they bring in.

The conclusion of this review is for the cities and the Region. In the experience of this reviewer, increasing support to an organization that does not undertake the difficult work of focussing on its own mitigation strategies, rarely provides the desired results of organizational health and sustainability. Municipal and Regional funders may wish to require that all Board members sign the approved budget submission of THEMUSEUM as a condition of funding as well as quarterly projections and actuals. Option 1: Status Quo (Not recommended) There is potential for THEMUSEUM to incur liability by mid-2020 in the event that it is not compelled to mitigate operating costs. It is problematic to continue to provide support to an organization which is not stewarding public funding responsibly, while this remains a requirement of other KCIs. Option 2: Increase Support to THEMUSEUM (Not recommended) While this may alleviate in THEMUSEUM’s revenue gap in the short term, the lack of an operational plan does not provide confidence that additional support will address THEMUSEUM’s issues. It is the opinion of this review that THEMUSEUM’s cost structure should be addressed by THEMUSEUM. Increasing support could result in negative fallout within the broader arts community;

Council Meeting Page 70 of 158 March 9, 2020 • given the expressed funding needs of KCIs and other arts organizations; • rewarding deficit operations may set a concerning precedent; • THEMUSEUM has a record of deficit spending that increased in tandem with regional funding increases18. Option 3: Find alternative use for THEMUSEUM venue (Modelling has not been undertaken) Option 4: A Conditional 3-year Funding Agreement (Recommended) This would be predicated on achievement of operational surpluses by THEMUSEUM within the current funding envelope. This approach: • prompts THEMUSEUM to continue to operate and achieve sustainability; • ensures responsible stewardship of public funds; • mirrors funding best practice in developed arts funding jurisdictions, especially at federal and provincial levels, and also in many municipalities; • includes potential funding reductions if funding conditions are not met. Municipal and Regional Funders may also consider appointing a staff controller or controllers to sit on THEMUSEUM Finance committee. Option 5: Decrease or suspend funding to THEMUSEUM • Should THEMUSEUM fail to address the operating deficit through a conditional program of support, or should it suspend, or largely scale back operations, funders may wish to consider immediate or phased withdrawal of support.

18 In 2010 THEMUSEUM received an increase in support from The Region to $300,000 from $75,000. In 2011, the first full year of reporting the $300,000, THEMUSEUM incurred a deficit of $274,000.

Council Meeting Page 71 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Engineering Services

Title: Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing Report Number: IPPW2020-018 Author: Mike Lupsa Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: 120107 Attachments: Appendix A – West Side Employment Lands – Area Map Ward No.: 2 - Northwest

Recommendations:

1. That IPPW2020-018 be approved.

2. That capital funding for the Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing in the amount of $8,208,000, funded $6,420,000 from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund - West Side Lands, $1,411,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Roads and $377,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Storm be approved as per the 2020-2022 approved capital budget ref #123.

3. That Council approves the award of tender RFT19-20 – Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing to iN4Structure Ltd. at the lowest submitted price of $8,065,335 plus non- recoverable HST in the amount of $141,950 for a total award value of $8,207,285.

4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of Waterloo and iN4Structure Ltd., and any other documents related to this project, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

A. Executive Summary

In accordance with the City’s Purchasing By-Law 2015-071, tenders were solicited via RFT19-20 for the Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing project. Tender bids were received from 4 qualified contractors. After reviewing the bids, it is recommended that the low bidder,

Council Meeting Page 72 of 158 March 9, 2020 iN4Structure Ltd. be awarded the project. Considering the importance of developing the west side business employment park, and upon award of RFT19-20, it is anticipated that construction of the road works and municipal servicing will commence in early spring, with priority given to completing the extension of Platinum Drive from Copper Street to Columbia Street West by the end of 2020. Other works to be undertaken in 2020/2021 include constructing Street B and associated servicing, completing the permanent Storm Water Management (SWM) facility, and decommissioning the temporary SWM facility.

B. Financial Implications

This report is seeking the partial release of the 2020 approved capital funding in the amount of $8,208,000, funded $6,420,000 from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund - West Side Lands, $1,411,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Roads and $377,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Storm. These funds will be used to complete the Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing RFT19-20 works as awarded to iN4Structure Ltd.

The approved 2016-2018 and 2019 capital budgets also included $13,074,000 in funding for the Development of the West Side Employment Lands. These funds are being used to complete the planning and engineering studies, approvals, permits, land acquisition, demolition, area grading, and erosion control works.

The award of RFT19-20 to iN4Structure Ltd. for $8,065,335 (plus applicable taxes) is within the approved capital budget.

C. Technology Implications

There are no technological implications with respect to this report.

D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

Economic Growth & Development – Keep, grow, start and attract labour talent, entrepreneurs and businesses

Economic Growth & Development – Develop west side and east side employment lands

Infrastructure Renewal – Plan, build and upgrade infrastructure to support growth and urban intensification

Council Meeting Page 73 of 158 March 9, 2020 E. Previous Reports on this Topic

• IPPW2019-016 – Award of Tender RFT18-24 West Side Employment Lands - Stage 1 – Area Grading and Erosion Control Works • CAO2019-021 – West Side Employment Lands – 2019 Funding Release and Project Update • CAO2017-004 – Development of West Side Employment Lands Funding Release

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Mike Lupsa Director: Francis Reyes Commissioner: Cameron Rapp Finance: Filipa Reynolds CAO

Council Meeting Page 74 of 158 March 9, 2020

Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing IPPW2020-018 Section 1 – Background

The City of Waterloo owns approximately 45 hectares (approximately 112 acres) of land designated as Business Employment on the west side of the City. These lands are located within an area bounded by Columbia Street West, the Wilmot Line, Erb Street West and the Hydro One corridor. Over the last several years, the City has been acquiring land to develop a business employment park that will include a collector road between Columbia Street West and Erb Street West (i.e. Platinum Drive).

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has been conducting land use planning and engineering design services for the City on this project. Throughout 2017 and 2018, Stantec completed all of the required planning approval studies and reports as part of the plan of subdivision, official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment applications to the City and the Region. In 2019, the City proceeded with area grading of the lands and engineering design in preparation for the 2020/2021 road works and municipal servicing. Council recommended approval of the applications on February 24, 2020 with final approval of the plan of subdivision and official plan amendment applications to be granted by the Region.

Upon award of RFT19-20, it is anticipated that construction of the road works and municipal servicing will commence in early spring, with priority given to completing the extension of Platinum Drive from Copper Street to Columbia Street West by the end of 2020. Other works to be undertaken in 2020/2021 include constructing Street B and associated servicing, completing the permanent SWM facility, and decommissioning of the temporary SWM facility.

The project area and limits are shown in Section 4.

Section 2 – Procurement Process

RFT19-20 was advertised on Biddingo on January 15, 2020. The bid closing date was February 19, 2020 and four (4) compliant submissions were received. Bids were opened in the presence of:

• Michelle Guy, Senior Procurement Specialist • Mike Lupsa, Senior Project Engineer • Rob Nolan, Field Services Operator

Council Meeting Page 75 of 158 March 9, 2020 Table 1 below summarizes the Bid Results.

Table 1: Contractor Bid Evaluation Summary RFT19-20 (Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing)

Bidder Bid Price Non- Total including recoverable non-recoverable HST (1.76%) HST in4Structure Ltd. $8,065,335 $141,950 $8,207,285 Kieswetter Excavating Inc. $8,651,224 $152,262 $8,803,486 Regional Sewer and $9,765,335 $171,870 $9,937,205 Watermain Ltd. Seawaves Development $14,035,569 $247,026 $14,282,595 Services Inc.

Section 3 – Financial Implications

This report is seeking the partial release of the 2020 approved capital funding in the amount of $8,208,000, funded $6,420,000 from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund - West Side Lands, $1,411,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Roads and $377,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Storm. These funds will be used to complete the Platinum Drive Extension and West Side Employment Lands - Phase 1 & 2 Municipal Servicing RFT19-20 works as awarded to iN4Structure Ltd.

The approved 2016-2018 capital budget included $7,598,000 in funding for the Development of the West Side Employment Lands, funded from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund - West Side Lands. This funding was previously approved and released by Council via report CAO2017-004. The approved 2019 capital budget included $5,476,000 in funding, funded $3,481,000 from the Industrial Land Reserve Fund – West Side Lands and $1,995,000 from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Roads. These funds are being used to complete the planning and engineering studies, approvals, permits, land acquisition, demolition, area grading, and erosion control works.

The award of RFT19-20 to iN4Structure Ltd. for $8,065,335 (plus applicable taxes) is within the approved capital budget.

Council Meeting Page 76 of 158 March 9, 2020 Table 2: Funding Approvals to Date and Estimated Costs:

Description Report Number Approval Date Funding Source $ Amount* FUNDING: Funding - 2017 CAO2017-004 Feb 6, 2017 ILA ($397,000) Funding - 2018 CAO2017-004 Jan 1, 2018 ILA ($7,201,000) Funding - 2019 CAO2019-021 Jun 17, 2019 ILA ($3,481,000) Funding - 2019 CAO2019-021 Jun 17, 2019 DC ($1,995,000) Funding - 2020 IPPW2020-018 Mar 9, 2020 ILA ($6,420,000) Funding - 2020 IPPW2020-018 Mar 9, 2020 DC ($1,788,000) Total Funding $(21,282,000) . Expenditures incurred to date: $6,272,405 . Projected Expenditures: RFT19-20 (Platinum Extension, IPPW2020-018 Mar 9, 2020 $8,207,285 Municipal Servicing Phase 1&2) Award RFT18-24 Area Grading and Erosion Control – IPPW2019-016 Mar 4, 2019 $1,760,253 Outstanding Balance Other WSEL Development Cost (includes but not limited to; $5,042,057 Consulting, Misc. and Contingency) Total Projected Expenditures: $15,009,595 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,282,000

TOTAL $0 *Note: non-recoverable portion of HST included

Council Meeting Page 77 of 158 March 9, 2020 Appendix A – West Side Employment Lands – Area Map

Council Meeting Page 78 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Planning

Title: Request for Exemption Pursuant to SS.45(1.4) of the Planning Act for 651 Colby Drive Report Number: IPPW2020-019 Author: John Vos Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: None Attachments: Map 1, Appendix ‘A’ (New Concept Plan) Ward No.: 4 – Northeast Ward

Recommendations: 1. That IPPW2020-019 be approved. 2. That Council declare by resolution that subsection 45(1.3) of the Planning Act shall not apply to 651 Colby Drive pursuant to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act.

A. Report

RISE Commercial Developments (the “Applicant”) intends to submit a minor variance application to facilitate a redesign of the initial development concept for the lands at 651 Colby Drive. The initial design had progressed through detailed design and secured in- principle support from the Site Plan Review Committee. However, the developer has concluded that the initial development is not financially viable and a revised design with additional retail and hotel space is being pursued. The hotel use is permitted as a primary use in the Corridor Commercial (C5-81) zone. While the concept is still being refined, it is clear that a minor variance will be required to facilitate a minor parking reduction and potentially a minor reduction to the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to approximately 5 metres to accommodate additional retail oriented to King Street. Subsection 45(1.3) of the Planning Act prohibits minor variance applications within two years of the passing of a site-specific zoning by-law, which prevents minor variance

Council Meeting Page 79 of 158 March 9, 2020 applications on the site until November 12, 2020 (re: when Z-18-08 was approved by Council). Subsection 45(1.4) of the Act authorizes Council to grant an exemption, allowing the Applicant to submit a minor variance application for consideration by the City’s Committee of Adjustment Council has previously approved general exemptions for certain scenarios including response to unforeseen engineering constraints, changes in the Ontario Building Code, or enhancements to the urban design and/or architecture of a development as determined through the site plan process. While this request does not conform to any of the previously approved scenarios, Council has authority to permit specific exemptions on a site-by-site basis. To date, staff has provided initial comments on the most recent site plan submission as shown in Appendix ‘A’. The site plan process will include a review of all standard site planning considerations including urban design, engineering, landscaping, and building design. Staff will also consider land use compatibility between the hotel and the industrial uses permitted nearby based on the Province’s guidelines for mitigation of noise nuisance (NPC-300) and separation of sensitive land uses from industrial uses (D-6 Guidelines). If Council supports the Applicant’s request, it should be made clear that: • Council’s decision for exemption pursuant to subsection 45(1.4) shall not be construed or implied to mean that the City or the Committee of Adjustment will support the minor variance application, in whole or in part. • The Committee of Adjustment will duly consider the application on its merits and will hear and consider all submissions thereto, and will make an appropriate determination in respect to such application after holding a fair hearing and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act and the City’s planning instruments in effect, without regard to the exemption under subsection 45(1.4). • Council’s authorization in this instance shall not be construed or interpreted as a precedent, and Council shall not be obligated to support a similar request in the future.

B. Financial Implications Staff is not aware of any municipal financial implications with respect to this application.

C. Technology Implications Staff is not aware of any municipal technology implications.

Council Meeting Page 80 of 158 March 9, 2020 D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

The recommendations of this report support the ‘Economic Growth & Development’ objective of the Strategic Plan through the redevelopment of an underutilized property.

E. Previous Reports on this Topic • IPPW2018-051 (Zone Change Application Z-18-08) • IPPW2019-018 (Exemption Pursuant to 34(10.0.0.2) and 45(1.4) of the Planning Act)

F. Approvals

Name: Signature: Date:

Author: John Vos

Director: Joel Cotter

Commissioner: Cameron Rapp

Finance: N/A CAO

Council Meeting Page 81 of 158 March 9, 2020 MAP 1 – SUBJECT LANDS

Council Meeting Page 82 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘A’

New Concept Plan

Council Meeting Page 83 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Engineering Services

Title: Award of Tender RFT19-19 Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction Report Number: IPPW2020-021 Author: Caroline Amyot Meeting Type: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: 190040 Attachments: Attachment A – Location Map Ward No.: Ward 6

Recommendations:

1. That IPPW2020-021 be approved.

2. That Council approves the award of RFT19-19 – Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction to Oxford Civil Group Incorporated for the lowest submitted price of $2,845,332.70 plus unrecoverable HST in the amount of $50,077.86, for a total award value of $2,895,410.56.

3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement between the Corporation of the City of Waterloo and Oxford Civil Group Incorporated, and any other documents related to this project, subject to the satisfaction of the City’s Solicitor.

A. Executive Summary

In accordance with the City’s Purchasing By-Law 2019-026, tenders were solicited via RFT19-19 for the Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction. Bids were received from six qualified contractors. After reviewing the bids it is recommended that Oxford Civil Group Incorporated be awarded the above contract as the lowest bidder. This project demonstrates the City’s commitment to long term capital reinvestment in its public infrastructure. This work is underpinned by the City’s Asset Management Plan that is being used to track the condition, costs and life cycle of Waterloo’s 397 km road network.

B. Financial Implications

Council Meeting Page 84 of 158 March 9, 2020 The approved 2019 capital budget included $212,000 to initiate the design process for this project. Further funding of $3,724,000 in 2020 and $154,000 in 2021 is provided in the approved 2020-2022 capital budget (Ref. #682) for construction.

The lowest submitted tender price (from Oxford Civil Group Incorporated) of $2,845,332.70 plus unrecoverable HST in the amount of $50,077.86, for a total award value of $2,895,410.56, is within the approved budget.

C. Technology Implications

There are no technological implications with respect to this report.

D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

The reconstruction of Roosevelt Avenue will include replacement of all aging underground infrastructure, surface asphalt and curbs, as well as a reduction in the asphalt road width and installation of a sidewalk and boulevard. These proposed works link to the City’s Strategic Plan in the following areas:

Safe, Sustainable Transportation – Sustainability: • Adopt Vision Zero practices and tactics to enable safe travel by all modes of transportation • Facilitates a modal shift, enabling increased use of active transportation and public transit

Healthy Community and Resilient Neighbourhood – Equity and Inclusion: • Create and maintain safe, accessible and vibrant public spaces that promote opportunities for diverse use.

Infrastructure Renewal: • Address the infrastructure deficit

E. Previous Reports on this Topic

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date

Council Meeting Page 85 of 158 March 9, 2020 Author: Caroline Amyot Director: Francis Reyes Commissioner: Cameron Rapp Finance: Filipa Reynolds CAO

Council Meeting Page 86 of 158 March 9, 2020

Award of Tender RFT19-19 Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction IPPW2020-021

Section 1 – Background

Roosevelt Avenue from Warrington Drive to Erb Street West (approximately 750 m) is included in the City’s Asset Management 2020 road rehabilitation program. Roosevelt Avenue was identified by the City's Pavement Management System as being in poor to failing condition. The underground infrastructure is approximately 50 years old and shows signs of deterioration and reduced operational performance. Thus, the proposed reconstruction will include replacement of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain, curb and gutter, asphalt and related infrastructure. There is currently no sidewalk along Roosevelt Avenue and as part of this project a new 1.5 m sidewalk and 1.0 m boulevard will be installed on the west side of the right-of-way per the City’s sidewalk policy. The project area and limits are shown on the map in Attachment A.

Upon award of RFT19-19, it is anticipated that construction will commence in early spring and be completed to base course asphalt by October 2020. Surface course asphalt will be completed in 2021.

These urban renewal projects demonstrate the City’s commitment to long term capital reinvestment in its public infrastructure. This work is underpinned by the City’s Asset Management Plan that is being used to track the condition, costs and life cycle of Waterloo’s 397 km road network.

Section 2 – Procurement Process

RFT19-19 was advertised on Biddingo on January 24, 2020 and closed on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm local time. A total of six compliant submissions were received by the City from a total of 35 registered plan takers, which included possible General Contractors, subcontractors, other consultants and suppliers. Bids were opened publicly and in the presence of:

• Jason Wilhelm, Manager, Procurement • Caroline Amyot, Senior Project Engineer, Design and Construction • Luke Martin, Construction Inspector, Design and Construction

Table 1 below summarizes the Bid Results.

Council Meeting Page 87 of 158 March 9, 2020 Table 1: Contractor Bid Evaluation Summary RFT19-19 (Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction)

Total Including Unrecoverable Contractor’s Name Bid Price Unrecoverable HST (1.76%) HST Oxford Civil Group Incorporated $2,845,332.70 $ 50,077.86 $ 2,895,410.56

Steed and Evans Limited $3,029,000.00 $ 53,310.40 $ 3,082,310.40 Sierra Infrastructure $3,484,173.60 $ 61,321.46 $ 3,545,495.06 Incorporated 410754 Ontario Ltd. o/a Sousa $4,231,962.00 $ 74,482.53 $ 4,306,444.53 Concrete Regional Sewer & Watermain $4,301,662.25 $ 75,709.26 $ 4,377,371.51 Limited New Alliance Limited $4,862,326.60 $ 85,576.95 $ 4,947,903.55

Section 3 – Financial Implications

The approved 2019 capital budget included $212,000 to initiate the design process for this project. Further funding of $3,724,000 in 2020 and $154,000 in 2021 is provided in the approved 2020-2022 capital budget (Ref. #682) for construction.

The lowest submitted tender price (from Oxford Civil Group Incorporated) of $2,845,332.70 plus unrecoverable HST in the amount of $50,077.86, for a total award value of $2,895,410.56, is within the approved budget.

Table 2 provides funding details to date and projected expenditures for the project.

Council Meeting Page 88 of 158 March 9, 2020 Table 2: Funding Approvals to Date and Estimated Costs

Report Approval Description $ Amount* Number Date FUNDING:

Funding – 2019 n/a-routine 29-Mar-19 ($212,000) Funding – 2020 n/a-routine 24-Feb-20 ($3,724,000) Funding – 2021 n/a-routine tbd ($154,000) Total Funding ($4,090,000)

EXPENDITURES:

Expenses Incurred to Date (Geotechnical, $157,718 Consulting, Overhead) Projected: Overhead $87,720 Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction (RFT19-19) IPPW2020-021 9-Mar-20 $2,895,411 Other Projected Costs (includes but not limited to): QC, materials testing, surface works, $949,151 contract admin, inspection, contingency, misc. Total Projected Expenditures $3,932,282 Total Expenditures $4,090,000 BALANCE: $0 * Note: Non-recoverable portion of HST included.

Council Meeting Page 89 of 158 March 9, 2020 Attachment A – Roosevelt Avenue Reconstruction Project Limits

Council Meeting Page 90 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Information Management & Technology Services

Title: Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement Report Number: CORP2020-007 Author: Teresa Soulliere, Information Management & Technology Services Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: N/A Attachments: N/A Ward No.: City-wide

Recommendations:

1. That Council approve Staff Report CORP2020-007. 2. That Council approve entering into a new three year agreement between CDW Canada and the City of Waterloo for the provision of the Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft. 3. That Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement and any related and future documents subject to the approval of the City Solicitor

A. Executive Summary

Microsoft products are used by the City of Waterloo, supporting users across the corporation in their daily business requirements of creating and storing documents, accessing email and the internet on desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and on backend servers and server applications.

The current Enterprise Agreement expires March 31, 2020, with a new three year Enterprise Agreement required for the term April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2023. The agreement provides for the maintenance of existing licenses which includes upgrades and migration when required, the seamless deployment of security patches and updates, and an annual “True Up” process for any additional licenses required and installed during each year. Pricing is provided and held for True Up license requirements across the term of the agreement, providing additional benefits for budgetary purposes.

Council Meeting Page 91 of 158 March 9, 2020 B. Financial Implications

The City of Waterloo will piggyback on the existing agreement with the Peel Regional Police in meeting the requirements of section 19 of the City of Waterloo Purchasing By-law 2011-043, providing for agreements and contracts in partnership with other government organizations and broader public sector members where it is in the best interests of the City to do so.

Annually, the committed fee for maintenance on the existing licenses at the beginning of the term, is paid for from the approved annual operating budget of Information Management and Technology Services. The estimated total value of the three year agreement is $728,006 (annual purchase orders in the amount of $242,669).

Any licenses added over the course of each year are accounted for and purchased in a lump sum each January. This process is known as True Up and it allows for staff efficiencies and deployment of licenses as needed. These new licenses are paid for from the approved annual operating budget of each requesting department and are, at the end of the agreement counted and included as licenses for future maintenance enterprise licensing agreements.

C. Technology Implications

There are no new or additional technology resources required.

D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Objectives: Infrastructure Renewal)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Effective Engagement; Service Excellence)

E. Previous Reports on this Topic

CORP2014-021, approved by Council March 24, 2014

CS-IMTS 2011-015, approved by Council March 3, 2011

CORP/IS 2008-006, approved by Council June 23, 2008

Council Meeting Page 92 of 158 March 9, 2020 F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Teresa Soulliere Director: Max Min Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: Filipa Reynolds CAO

Council Meeting Page 93 of 158 March 9, 2020

Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement CORP2020-007

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

The Microsoft Enterprise Agreement is a licensing program for organizations with more than 250 machines and users accessing Microsoft products. The program provides a simple, flexible and more affordable way to maintain and upgrade existing licenses and to purchase additional licenses as the organization continues to grow.

There are several tiers to the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. The upper tiers of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement are negotiated by the Ontario Ministry of Government Services, I & IT Procurement Branch with Microsoft. The Province negotiates on behalf of all Broader Public Sector (BPS) entities within the province, which allows all Ontario municipalities, regardless of size, to acquire the software licenses at the lowest cost possible. Municipalities then negotiate the remaining tier of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with participating vendors to obtain the best pricing, support and service for the agreement.

The City of Waterloo Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement will expire on March 31, 2020. A new three year agreement is required to support existing products and the future purchase of licenses and support of Microsoft products.

Information Management and Technology Services staff have worked closely with the Purchasing Division and with Microsoft to better understand the procurement process and options and in gaining clarity about any changes to and new requirements of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. IMTS have conducted an internal audit and understand that our requirements include 705 licenses of Windows, Microsoft Office, and email for users plus a variety of Microsoft specialized server licenses and products supporting the corporate infrastructure and specialized projects and initiatives.

Two options emerged:

Option 1: Issue a Request for Proposal for the provisioning of the Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Agreement

Option 2: Work closely with Purchasing, Microsoft and other Ontario municipalities to identify those with the inclusion of partnering / piggy back language, then identify those most closely resembling the City of Waterloo requirements and line up the agreements for the next three year term.

Council Meeting Page 94 of 158 March 9, 2020

Option 2 was identified as the preferred option.

Piggybacking is a form of inter-governmental cooperative purchasing in which a public purchaser requests competitive sealed bids, enters into a contract, and arranges, as part of the contract, for other public purchasing units to purchase from the selected vendor under the same terms and conditions as itself.

Typically small purchasers (e.g. counties, small cities) piggyback on contracts entered into by a larger purchaser (e.g. larger cities, regions) in order to take advantage of the better pricing that large purchasers are able to obtain, because they are purchasing in greater quantities. Small purchasers generally have smaller staffs, and piggybacking with a large purchaser reduces administrative time and costs involved in the procurement process (i.e. the cost of preparing bid specifications, advertising, etc.).

The Purchasing Division obtained copies of agreements with piggyback language, identifying that the Peel Regional Police agreement: • Closely matched the City of Waterloo requirements for products; • Allowed for a three year term matching the City of Waterloo timing; and • Renewed with a vendor that has consistently met City of Waterloo requirements for lowest pricing and excellent service.

It was agreed by all parties that the City of Waterloo could easily use the Peel Regional Police renewal as the basis of the new 3 year agreement between the City of Waterloo and Microsoft through the provisioning by CDW Canada.

Financial Implications

Enterprise Agreement Pricing for the maintenance of existing licenses: Year One: $ 242,668.80 Year Two: $ 242,668.80 Year Three: $ 242,668.80 Total: $ 728,006.40

Annually the payment of this maintenance has been funded from the approved operating Software Maintenance Contracts budget of $1.15M in Information Management and Technology Services. The True Up allows for Information Management and Technology Services to report all new licenses installed for the previous year, with payment from the approved operating budget of each requesting department.

New licenses acquired in 2020, 2021, and 2022 will be audited, counted and added to the request for a new Enterprise Licensing in March 2023.

Council Meeting Page 95 of 158 March 9, 2020 NOTICE OF A FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING

Official Plan Amendment No. 25 & Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18-18 Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited 164, 168 King St S & 8 George St, Uptown Ward - Ward 7

Take notice that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Waterloo will hold a Formal Public Meeting on Monday, March 9, 2020, beginning no earlier than 6:30pm, in the Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, Waterloo City Centre, 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, to consider the above noted application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law pursuant to Sections 22 and 34 of the Planning Act.

The City of Waterloo has received an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application for 164, 168 King St S and 8 George St (see attached Location Map). This application is being advanced to permit the redevelopment of the lands with a new 8 storey mixed-use building containing 581 square metres of commercial space located on the ground floor and 2nd floor and 34 dwelling units (44 bedrooms) located in the storeys above.

The applicant is proposing to amend the City's Official Plan to redesignate 8 George Street from Low Density Residential and Low Density-10 metres, to Commercial, Uptown Mixed Use, Primary Node, Medium High Density-40 metres, and Uptown Complementary Transition Area, with a site specific provision to limit the maximum height permission on 8 George Street to 6 storeys and 20 metres.

The applicant is also proposing to amend Zoning By-law No. 2018-050 by rezoning the lands at 8 George St from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use – 20’ (U2-20) and the lands at 164 and 168 King Street South from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use – 30’ with site specific provisions.

The requested site specific zoning provisions would include reduced street line setbacks, reduced landscape buffer, reduced commercial parking rate, reduced podium height, reduced tower stepback above the podium and an alternative parking configuration.

NOTE: This application was submitted and deemed complete in accordance with the Planning Act, prior to the passing of By-law 2018-050 on September 10, 2018 being the new Zoning By-law for the City of Waterloo. The subject lands are currently zoned Zone Change Application (ZC) on Schedule 'A' to By- law 2018-050, which carries forward the zoning provisions applied to the lands in By-law 1108, being Commercial Two-12 (C2-12), and General Residence Two A (GR2A).

This meeting shall constitute the formal public meeting required under Sections 22 and 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended. It is expected that Council will decide whether the application should be approved, denied or amended. A copy of the staff report will be available prior to the Public Meeting.

Council Meeting Page 96 of 158 March 9, 2020 If Council approves the application, a by-law to adopt the Official Plan Amendment and to amend the Zoning By-law will be passed.

For further information regarding the above matter, please contact the City of Waterloo Integrated Planning and Public Works, 2nd Floor, Waterloo City Centre, Waterloo, Ontario, by calling Rita Szilock at 519.747.8650 or email [email protected].

Any person may attend the Public Meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. If you wish to make a presentation to Council or would like more information about the meeting, please contact Kevin Gerlach at 519.747.8549 or by email at [email protected]

A written summary of the presentation should be filed with the City Clerk prior to the public meeting.

We encourage the public to provide input into these important Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Individuals may submit written/electronic comments. The public is informed and notified that names, addresses and comments may be made public.

If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Corporation of the City of Waterloo before the by-laws are passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In addition, if a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Corporation of the City of Waterloo before the by-laws are passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Olga Smith, City Clerk, City of Waterloo

Council Meeting Page 97 of 158 March 9, 2020 Council Meeting Page 98 of 158 March 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT Planning

Title: Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zone Change Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited, for 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street Report Number: IPPW2020-015 Author: Rita Szilock Meeting Type: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Council/Committee Date: March 9, 2020 File: OPA No. 25 and Z-18-18 Attachments: Appendix A – Schedule ‘A’ to Official Plan Amendment No. 25 Appendix B – Minutes of Informal Public Meeting Appendix C – Agency and Staff Comments Appendix D – Site Plan Appendix E – Building Perspective Appendix F – Conceptual Building Cross-Sections Map 1 – Subject Site Map 2 - Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18-18

Ward No.: 7-Uptown Ward

Recommendations: 1. That Council approve Staff Report IPPW2020-015. 2. That Council adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 25 (OPA25) as set out in Section 8 of IPPW2020-015. 3. That Council request that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve Official Plan Amendment 25 (OPA25). 4. That Council approve Zone Change Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union, for 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street, in accordance with Section 8 of Staff Report IPPW2020-015.

A. Executive Summary

Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited (the “Applicant”) has submitted Official Plan Amendment No. 25 (OPA25) and Zone Change Application Z-18-18 for the lands municipally known as 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street (the “Site”). The Site is currently developed with a three (3) storey mixed-use building and a single

Council Meeting Page 99 of 158 March 9, 2020 detached dwelling. The Applicant is proposing to develop the Site with a new eight (8) storey mixed-use building containing 581 square metres of commercial space located on the ground floor and 2nd floor and 34 dwelling units (44 bedrooms) located in the storeys above. The development will consist of a mix of one and two bedroom units, with 32 parking spaces and 41 bike parking spaces.

To facilitate the development of the Site, the Applicant is proposing the following policy and zoning amendments:

• Amend the City’s Official Plan to redesignate the lands at 8 George Street from Low Density Residential and Low Density-10 Metres, to Commercial, Uptown Mixed-Use, Primary Node, Medium High Density-40 Metres, and Uptown Complementary Transition Area, with a specific provision area policy to limit the maximum building height on 8 George Street to 6 storeys and 20 metres.

• Rezoning the lands at 8 George Street from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use - 20’ (U2-20) and the lands at 164 and 168 King Street South from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use - 30’ (U2-30) with site specific provisions.

• Site specific zoning provisions include reduced flankage yard setbacks, reduced landscape buffer, reduced commercial parking rate, reduced podium height, reduced tower stepback above the podium, permitting parking ahead of the building line and permitting a parking structure within 15 metres of King Street.

Based on Integrated Planning & Public Works’ review of the application, staff support Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zone Change Application Z-18-18 in accordance with Section 8 of Staff Report IPPW2020-015, for reasons including:

• The application is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. • The application conforms to the 2019 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. • The application conforms to the policies of the Regional Official Plan. • The application, as recommended by staff, conforms to the City of Waterloo Official Plan (2012). • The proposed development will provide for an efficient use of land, services and infrastructure. • The proposed development is transit-supportive, in an area that is walkable and well served by public transit. • The proposed mixed-use development contributes to a complete community by integrating commercial uses and residential uses within the Uptown Core.

Council Meeting Page 100 of 158 March 9, 2020 B. Financial Implications

Staff are not aware of any municipal financial implications with respect to the requested application. Should the application be appealed, potential costs related to a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) hearing may be incurred.

C. Technology Implications

Staff are not aware of any technology implications.

D. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Pillars: Equity, Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging; Sustainability and the Environment; Safe, Sustainable Transportation; Healthy Community & Resilient Neighbourhoods; Infrastructure Renewal; Economic Growth & Development)

(Guiding Principles: Equity and Inclusion; Sustainability; Fiscal Responsibility; Healthy and Safe Workplace; Effective Engagement; Personal Leadership; Service Excellence)

The recommendations in this report supports the ‘Economic Growth & Development’ pillar of the Strategic Plan through the redevelopment of underutilized properties.

E. Previous Reports on this Topic

N/A

F. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Rita Szilock Director: Joel Cotter Commissioner: Cameron Rapp Finance:

CAO

Council Meeting Page 101 of 158 March 9, 2020 REPORT DASHBOARD

CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PERSPECTIVE

(view from corner of King St S and George St looking north)

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 25 (8 George St)

APPLICANT’S RECOMMENDED BY POLICY EXISTING PROPOSAL STAFF Schedule ‘A’ Low Density Commercial Commercial (Land Use Plan) Residential Schedule ‘A1’ N/A Uptown Mixed-Use Uptown Mixed-Use (Commercial Land Uses) Schedule ‘B’ N/A Primary Node Primary Node Land Use (City Structure) Schedule ‘B1 Low Density – Medium High Medium High Density – (Height and Density) 10 metres Density – 40 metres 40 metres Schedule ‘B2’ Uptown Uptown Complementary (Uptown Waterloo Urban N/A Complementary Transition Area Growth Centre) Transition Area

Building Height 10 metres 20 metres 10 metres

Council Meeting Page 102 of 158 March 9, 2020

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Z-18-18

ZONING APPLICABLE ZONING APPLICANT’S APPLICANT’S Performance AT TIME OF BY-LAW RECOMMENDED ORIGINAL REVISED Standard APPLICATION 2018-050 BY STAFF PROPOSAL PROPOSAL By-law 1108 (U2-30) (C2-12)

Street Line 4 metres 4 metres Setback and and 5 metres 5 metres N/A 2.8 metres to 2.8 metres to (George St) supporting column supporting column

Street Line 2.5 metres 2.5 metres Setback and and 5 metres 4 metres 2.5 metres 1.0 metres to 1.0 metres to (internal King St supporting column supporting column S)

1.3 m 5 m 4 m (King St and internal (King St) (King St) King St) Daylight N/A N/A Triangle 5 m 5 m 0.7 m (George St) (George St) (King St and George St)

Easterly Property Easterly Property Line – Line – 1.1 m average 3 m 1.1 m average 3 m average depth and no less average depth and no less Landscape depth than 0.9 m depth 1.5 m average than 0.9 m Buffer depth (minimum) no less than Southerly Property no less Southerly 1.5 m Line – than 1.5 m Property Line – 2.0 m average 2.0 m average depth and no less depth and no less than 1.5 m than 1.5 m

Height of Plant Easterly Property Material within Line – minimum Landscape N/A 1.5 m N/A Shall Not Apply height for plant Buffer material shall not (minimum) apply

Council Meeting Page 103 of 158 March 9, 2020 ZONING APPLICABLE ZONING APPLICANT’S APPLICANT’S Performance AT TIME OF BY-LAW RECOMMENDED ORIGINAL REVISED Standard APPLICATION 2018-050 BY STAFF PROPOSAL PROPOSAL By-law 1108 (U2-30) (C2-12) Permit 1st parking space to project Parking ahead No parking 0.8 m ahead of of Building Permit one parking No parking is is permitted building line. Line space to project 0.8 permitted ahead ahead of N/A (internal King St m ahead of the of building line. building Permit 2nd parking S) building line. line. space to project

2.5 m ahead of building line. Structured parking Permit structured Permit structured above Structured parking to be parking to be grade is Parking Within N/A N/A located within located within 15 m prohibited 15 m of King St 15 m of King St S of King St S within 15 m (internal) (internal) of King St

1.0 space/ 100 sq. m. for limited non- residential uses Non-residential 3 spaces/ 1.5 spaces/ 1.5 spaces/ 1.16 spaces/ 100 (6 spaces) Parking 100 sq. m. 100 sq. m. 100 sq. m. sq. m. 1.5 spaces/100 sq. m. for all other non- residential uses (9 spaces)

Podium Height N/A 10.7 m N/A 8.75 m 8.75 m (minimum)

George St: 2.0 m to face of George St: balconies 2.0 m to face of and 2.7 m to balconies and 2.7 building façade m to building façade King Street: Tower 1.4 m to face of Stepback N/A 3 m N/A King St: balconies and Above Podium 1.4 m to face of 2.0 m to building balconies and façade 2.0 m to building façade King Street South: (internal) 0.5 m to building façade

Council Meeting Page 104 of 158 March 9, 2020 ZONING APPLICABLE ZONING APPLICANT’S APPLICANT’S Performance AT TIME OF BY-LAW RECOMMENDED ORIGINAL REVISED Standard APPLICATION 2018-050 BY STAFF PROPOSAL PROPOSAL By-law 1108 (U2-30) (C2-12)

8 George St Building 10 m 30 m 20 m 20 m 10 m Height (GR2A zone) (Maximum) 164, 168 King St Building 36 m 30 m 36 m 30 m 30 m Height (Maximum)

Council Meeting Page 105 of 158 March 9, 2020 Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zone Change Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited, for 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street IPPW2020-015

SECTION 1 – SUBJECT LANDS

Location 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street

Ward Uptown (Ward 7)

Total Lot Area 0.1987 ha (1,987 sq. m.)

Land Owner / Applicant Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited

Agent MHBC Planning

Existing Land Use 3 storey mixed-use building and single detached dwelling

Proposed Development An eight (8) storey mixed-use building with 581 sq. m. of commercial space located on the ground floor and second floor, and 34 dwelling units (44 bedrooms)

Council Meeting Page 106 of 158 March 9, 2020 Public Input The mechanisms used to gathering input in regards to OPA25 and Z-18-18 are as follows:

Mechanism Date Results Agency and Staff Circulation October 1, 2018; Agency and staff comments attached as May 2, 2019; Appendix C December 13, 2019 Informal Public Meeting January 15, 2019 Informal Public Meeting minutes attached as Appendix B Advertise Formal Public February 20, 2020 Advertised in Waterloo Chronicle and Meeting notice sent to property owners within 120 metres of the subject property, and those who requested notice at the Informal Public Meeting. Formal Public Meeting March 9, 2020 Council consideration of application

1.1 Site Description and Neighbourhood Context

The Site is located at the northeast corner of King Street South and George Street. The Site straddles the “Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre” boundary with 164 and 168 King Street South located inside the “Uptown Node” and 8 George Street located just outside the “Uptown Waterloo Urban Grown Centre” boundary. The Site is uniquely situated with frontage on three streets: George Street, King Street South and King Street South (internal). The Site is well served by transit with a number of bus routes running within proximity of the Site and the LRT running in front of the Site along King Street. In addition, Uptown Waterloo commercial uses, employment uses and institutional uses are located within a short walking distance of the Site.

The subject site is surrounded by:

• West - The Erb Good Funeral Home and Brewmeister Green. • North - Heritage Green and small scale office buildings. • Northeast - Regional pumping station. • East - Single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, a low-rise apartment building and a church. • South - Office buildings and residential developments, such as Circa 1877 at 181 King Street South.

Council Meeting Page 107 of 158 March 9, 2020 Figure 1: Subject Site and Surrounding Area

SECTION 2 – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (see Appendix ‘C’ and ‘D’)

The Applicant is proposing to develop the Site with a new eight (8) storey mixed-use building containing 581 square metres (6,253 square feet) of commercial space located on the ground floor and 2nd floor, and 34 dwelling units (44 bedrooms) located in the storeys above. The development will consist of a mix of one and two bedroom units, 32 parking spaces, 41 bike parking spaces, and a 96 square metre (1040 square foot) indoor amenity area.

SECTION 3 – APPLICATION DETAILS

At the time of the Informal Public Meeting in January 2019, the Applicant’s development proposal consisted of a 9 storey mixed-use building with 810 square metres of commercial space and 36 units (48 bedrooms). After considering staff comments, the

Council Meeting Page 108 of 158 March 9, 2020 Applicant revised the development proposal to an 8 storey mixed-use building with 581 square metres of commercial space and 34 units (44 bedrooms).

Table 1: Revisions to Proposed Development

Initial Proposal Revised Proposal

Building Height 9 storey 8 Storey Density 36 units (48 beds) 34 units (44 beds) Non-residential 810 m² 581 m² space Parking 36 spaces 32 spaces

Design

To facilitate the redevelopment of the Site, the Applicant is proposing to amend the City’s Official Plan to redesignate the lands at 8 George Street from Low Density Residential and Low Density-10 Metres, to Commercial, Uptown Mixed-Use, Primary Node, Medium High Density-40 Metres, and Uptown Complementary Transition Area, with the following specific provision area policy:

• to limit the maximum building height on 8 George Street to 6 storeys and 20 metres.

The Applicant is also proposing to amend Zoning By-law No. 2018-050 by rezoning the lands at 8 George Street from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use’ (U2-20) and the lands at 164 and 168 King Street South from ‘Zone Change Application’ (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-Use’ (U2-30). The Applicant has requested that the following site specific provisions apply to the Site:

• to permit a front yard setback of 1.3 metres from the daylight triangle at King St/ internal King St S and a setback of 0.7 metres from the daylight triangle at King

Council Meeting Page 109 of 158 March 9, 2020 St/George St, whereas Zoning By-law 2018-050 requires a 4 metre front yard setback; • to permit a flankage yard setback of 4 metres along George St and a 2.8 metre setback to the supporting column along George St, whereas a 5 metre flankage yard setback is required along George St; • to permit a flankage yard setback of 2.5 metres along King St S (internal) and a setback of 1.0 metres to the supporting column, whereas 4 metres is required along King St S (internal); • to permit a landscape buffer with an average depth of 1.1 metres and no less than 0.9 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law 2018-050 requires a landscape buffer with an average depth of 3.0 metres and no less than 1.5 metres; • to permit a commercial parking rate of 1.16 spaces/100 square metres (7 parking spaces), whereas Zoning By-law 2018-050 requires 1.5 spaces/100 square metres (9 parking spaces); • to permit a Podium Height of 8.75 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum Podium Height of 10.7 metres. • to permit a tower stepback above the podium of 1.4 metres, along King St S, to face of balconies (2 metres to building façade), whereas By-law requires a 3 metre stepback to balconies. • to permit a tower stepback above the podium of 2.0 metres to balconies (2.7 metres to building façade) along George St, whereas the By-law requires a 3 metre stepback to balconies. • to permit parking in front of the internal King Street South building line. • to permit structured parking to be located with 15 metres of the internal King Street South.

SECTION 4 – POLICY EVALUATION

4.1 Provincial Policy Statement

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (the “PPS”) establishes the vision and policy framework for matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development in Ontario. Collectively, the policies aim to focus growth within existing settlement areas; promote efficient development and land use patterns to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; support densities that provide for a more compact urban form and building strong and safe communities.

In staff’s opinion, the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as recommended by staff, is consistent with the PPS:

• The proposed development will contribute to a healthy, livable and safe community by contributing an appropriate mix of land uses in the Urban Growth Centre.

Council Meeting Page 110 of 158 March 9, 2020 • The proposed development will result in the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. • The proposed development will be transit-supportive, accommodating additional density in an area that is walkable and well served by public transit.

4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

The 2019 Growth Plan for the Greater Holden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”) provides a framework for managing growth, protecting resources, and promoting economic investments within the Greater Golden Horseshoe to the year 2041. Building on the policy foundation of the PPS, the Growth Plan provides more specific land use planning policies for managing growth. Some of the key guiding principles in section 1.2.1 include:

• Support the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support healthy and active living and meet people’s needs for daily living. • Prioritize intensification and higher densities to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability.

Section 2.2.1.4 of the Growth Plan stipulates that the policies of the Growth Plan will support the achievement of complete communities that:

• feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services and public service facilities; • provide a diverse range and mix of housing options; • provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces.

Policy 2.2.3 requires development within the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre to achieve a minimum density target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare.

In Section 2.1, the Growth Plan states that “to protect public safety and prevent future flood risks, growth should generally be directed away from hazardous areas, including those that have been identified as Special Policy Area in accordance with the PPS”. The Growth Plan further stipulates through policy 5.2.5 (7a) that “the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan do not require or permit: a) in a Special Policy Area that has been approved by the Province in accordance with policy 3.1.4 of the PPS, 2014, development that is beyond what has been permitted.” The northeastern edge of 8 George Street is located within the regulatory floodplain within the Laurel/Clair Creek Special Policy Area, and currently the property is located outside of the Uptown Waterloo Primary Node and is designated Low Density Residential with a 10 metre height limit. To ensure that the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan, staff recommend that the height permissions on 8 George Street be limited to the parcel’s current permissions of 10 metres irrespective of the Applicant’s requested to

Council Meeting Page 111 of 158 March 9, 2020 bring 8 George Street into the Primary Node with a 20 metre height permission. The recommended 10 metre height limit will not hinder the Applicant’s development concept, which proposes surface parking on 8 George Street and will ensure that the proposed amendments will conform to the Growth Plan.

In staff’s opinion, the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as recommended by staff, conforms to, or does not conflict with, the Growth Plan for the following reasons:

• the proposed development directs growth to the Built-Up Area, and more specifically, to the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre, which is planned to accommodate significant population and employment growth through intensification; • the proposed development is located within a short walking distance (180 metres) of the Allen St LRT Station and is within a short walking distance of a number of bus routes, therefore reducing reliance on the automobile; • the proposed development includes a mix of land uses, including residential and commercial uses, which contribute to a complete community; • the proposed development will efficiently use the Site and will relying on exiting municipal services and infrastructure; • the proposed development protects public safety and prevents future flood risks by directing growth away from hazardous areas.

4.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan

The Regional Official Plan (ROP) provides a land use policy framework that implements the PPS and Growth Plan in the regional context. The lands are located within the Urban Area Boundary and designated Urban Growth Centre (as shown on ROP Map 3a, Urban Area). In staff’s opinion, the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as recommended by staff, conforms to the ROP for the following reasons:

• the proposed development proposes intensification within Waterloo’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC), an area intended to accommodate significant growth as part of its planned function; • the proposed development will help to achieve the reurbanization target of 200 residents and jobs combined for the Urban Growth Centre (UGC); • the proposed development will contribute to the creation of a complete community by increasing the supply of non-residential floor area in the core and increasing the number of dwelling units within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC); • it proposes intensification in a compact urban form that has regard for the planned physical character of the area; • it is transit-supportive by proposing intensification that is located within a short walking distance of an LRT Station and a number of public transit stops;

Council Meeting Page 112 of 158 March 9, 2020 • it fosters walkability by creating a pedestrian-friendly development that addresses King Street South.

4.4 City of Waterloo Official Plan

The City of Waterloo Official Plan designates the lands as follows:

Low Density Residential (8 George St) Schedule ‘A’ Commercial (164, 168 King St S) Schedule ‘A’ Uptown Mixed-Use and Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre (164, 168 King St S) Schedule ‘A1’ Primary Node (164, 168 King St S) Schedule ‘B’ Low Density, 10 metres (8 George St) Schedule ‘B1 Medium High Density, 40 metres (164, 168 King St S) Schedule ‘B1’ Uptown Complementary Transition Area (164, 168 King St S) Schedule ‘B2’ Built Up Area Schedule ‘B3’ Wellhead Protection Area 1 and Wellhead Protection Area 4 Schedule ‘B4’ Central District Schedule ‘C’ Regional Arterial (King Street South) Schedule ‘E’ Local Road (George Street) Schedule ‘E’ King Street Corridor (King Street South) Schedule ‘F’

4.4.1 Land Use

The proposed mixed-use building with its residential and non-residential components is contemplated on 164 and 168 King Street South (the “King Street properties”), which are designated Commercial, Uptown Mixed-Use, Primary Node, Medium-High Density and Uptown Complementary Transition Area. The designation of the King Street properties allows for mixed-use development, a maximum building height of 40 metres, and a maximum density of 600 bedrooms per hectare, which may be restricted (height and or density) based on considerations that are unique to the site or area (e.g., context sensitive design considerations, transitioning of built form, etc.).

The Low Density Residential designation applied to 8 George Street allows for low density residential building types and built forms (e.g., single detached homes and semi-detached homes), a maximum building height of 10 metres, and a maximum density of 150 bedrooms per hectare. In order for the proposed development to proceed, 8 George Street must be redesignated and consolidated with the King Street properties, to form part of the Primary Node and allow for medium density redevelopment.

Council Meeting Page 113 of 158 March 9, 2020

4.4.2 Expansion of Primary Node

The main purpose of the Applicant’s Official Plan Amendment application is to expand the Primary Node to include 8 George Street and to have the designations currently applicable to 164 and 168 King Street South be applied to 8 George Street.

In considering the expansion of an existing Node, Policy 3.6.3 of the Official Plan states that the City must satisfy itself “that there is a demonstrated community benefit associated with additional medium, medium-high or high-density uses” subject to the 6 criteria listed below:

Table 2: Criterial for Expanding the Primary Node Criteria Staff Evaluation (1) Whether the area is a The Primary Node (Uptown Waterloo) is a destination point, or is planned designation point within the City of Waterloo to be a destination point, with a with an existing concentration of employment concentration of employment and commercial uses. The inclusion of 8 and commercial uses; George Street represents a reasonable expansion of the Primary Node based on the alignment of the existing boundary.

(2) There is potential for 164 and 168 King Street South, currently intensification due to the located within the Primary Node cannot be location, size, and configuration developed without 8 George Street, as 8 of the properties; George Street serves as a link between the King Street properties. With the inclusion of 8 George Street, the Site can be consolidated to enable intensification while maintaining an appropriate transition to the Low Density Residential neighbourhood to the east.

(3) The scale of the present use The inclusion of 8 George Street in the Primary would allow for greater density; Node enables the intensification of the King Street properties and would efficiently use existing municipal services and infrastructure.

(4) The area serves, or is planned Represents a minor expansion to the Urban to serve, as a service centre for Growth Centre (Uptown Waterloo), to the day to day needs of people accommodate mixed use development with living or working in nearby commercial on the lower floors to serve the residential or employment area. day to day needs of nearby residents and those visiting Uptown. (5) The area is, or is planned to The Site is located within a short walking be: distance of the Allen Street LRT Station, an

Council Meeting Page 114 of 158 March 9, 2020 Criteria Staff Evaluation (a) In the case of Minor existing higher frequency transit route. In Nodes, an intersection addition, the Site is located within a short of multiple transit routes; walking distance of GRT Bus Routes 5, 7 and (b) In the case of Major 16. Nodes, an intersection of higher frequency transit routes; (6) The expansion to an existing Planning staff are of the opinion the expansion designated Node or of the Primary Node to include 8 George Street designation of a new Node is is compatible with the surrounding compatible with the neighbourhood as long as the proposed surrounding neighbourhood. building is oriented toward King Street and there is an appropriate transition of density and height to the Low Density Residential (LDR) neighbourhood to the east.

In staff’s experience, 6 storey buildings are compatible in this area next to Low Density Residential (LDR) uses. The context along the east side of King Street, south of William Street, is buildings ranging from 2 storeys to 7 storeys (Allen Square). With respect to the subject lands, staff do not object to the proposed 8 storey building subject to specific design criteria being met, including that the 8 storey building has an appropriate tower stepback above the podium, and the 8th floor is terraced in a way that it is not visible from the adjacent pedestrian realm or the easterly LDR property line.

To ensure that the proposed building is context sensitive and to minimize impact on the LDR to the east, staff recommends that building height be capped at 30 metres and 8 storeys at 164 and 168 King Street North while building height on 8 George Street be capped at 10 metres. Staff also recommend that the 8th storey be stepped back a minimum 1.8 metres from the 7th storey façade. Stepping back the 8th floor facilitates a more context sensitive building design and transition to the LDR neighbourhood.

Council Meeting Page 115 of 158 March 9, 2020 Therefore, planning staff are of the opinion that with appropriate transitions in height coupled with building setbacks/stepbacks, the expansion of the Primary Node to include 8 George Street can be supported. Based on the submitted Conceptual Site Plan, the proposed building will be located on the portion of the Site that is currently part of the Primary Node, located away from the LDR, with the surface parking area located on 8 George Street buffering the proposed development from the residential dwellings to the east.

4.4.3 Urban Design

Given the Site’s prominent location on King Street South, adjacent to a historic public open space, and at the doorstep of the Uptown Commercial Core, the Site is considered to be part of the gateway to the commercial core. The proposed development will be highly visible from King Street South, King Street South (internal), George Street, Heritage Green, Brewmeister’s Green and William Street West. Consequently, the proposed building should be designed to a high standard of urban design.

Policy 3.11 of the Official Plan establishes the urban design policy framework for the City, to ensure that a high standard of urban design is achieved. New development is evaluated against the urban design policies established by the Official Plan and the implementing Urban Design Manual.

Building Height and Massing

In considering the design and massing of the proposed building, it has to be evaluated against the applicable urban design policies of the Official Plan including Policy 3.11.1(18), which state that new developments should be compatible by complementing and enhancing the “surrounding neighbourhood character and context through a variety of design strategies including building massing, façade design and landscape coordination”. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development should take cues from the massing of the existing buildings along the east side of King Street South and the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the east. The massing of the proposed development should fit in with the existing character of the area and should appropriately transition to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the east.

Policy 3.11.3. contains urban design objectives that are specific to lands located within the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre. Policy 3.11.3 (3) states that buildings should be designed, “including the height and massing, to respect the traditional street line and historical built form”. And that “specific design and massing strategies may be required to achieve a compatible form of development, as well as, to provide sympathetic transition to the surrounding stable neighbourhoods.” Further, Policy 3.11.3 (4) states that buildings should incorporate “design strategies that result in an appropriate balance between intensification and stable neighbourhoods”.

Council Meeting Page 116 of 158 March 9, 2020 In terms of transitioning building height, 6 storey buildings such as The Red (re: King / Allen) are considered to be compatible in terms of scale, massing and built form adjacent to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the east. In reviewing and evaluating the proposed building height and massing in the context of the surrounding area, staff recognize that the established building height along the east side of King Street (south of William Street) ranges from 2 storeys to 7 storeys (Allen Square). Staff do not object to the proposed 8 storey building subject to specific design criteria being met, including that the 8th floor of the building be sufficiently recessed to ensure that the 8th floor is not visible from the adjacent pedestrian realm or the easterly Low Rise Residential property line. In addition, given that the proposed building is taller than 6 storeys, having regard for human scale and urban design, staff recommend that an appropriate tower stepback be established above the podium to ensure that the proposed building will have a building façade that pedestrians can relate to and to ensure that the proposed development will fit in with the existing built form along the east side of King Street – the specific stepbacks are outlined in Section 8 of IPPW2020- 015.

Notwithstanding the 12 storey zoning permissions that existed on 164 and 168 King Street at the time of application, it is doubtful that a 12 storey building could be built given the zoning provisions in effect, including the minimum Low Rise Residential Area Yard setback of ½ the height of the building from the common lot line with 8 George Street.

4.4.4 Uptown Public Realm Strategy

In 2019, Council approved the Uptown Public Realm Strategy. One of the priority initiatives of the Strategy is the Civic Common, which is described as an active, vibrant and inviting park space that integrates and connects three existing spaces (Heritage Green, Brewmeister’s Green and the Regional Pumping Station Site). The Civic Common initiative includes an action to explore opportunities to establish a publicly accessible connection between Heritage Green and the Regional Pumping Station Site (see Figure 2).

The Applicant is willing to accommodate a walkway connection on 164 King Street South to address the Civic Common initiative. Originally, the Applicant proposed a 2 metre wide walkway connection adjacent to a substantial retaining wall (at its highest point 1.84 m tall) on the north side of 164 King Street South. Given that the 2 metre wide walkway connection does not meet the City’s standard of 3 metres and due to the substantial retaining wall abutting the walkway, planning staff recommended an alternative solution that the proposed driveway on 164 King Street South function as both a drive aisle and a walkway connection, similar to a Woonerf Street. The Applicant is agreeable to a potential easement over the parking area drive aisle, and to further explore the use and design of the drive aisle as a multifunctional space through the Site Plan process.

Council Meeting Page 117 of 158 March 9, 2020

Planning staff are of the opinion that having a wider shared walkway connection, with a distinct surface treatment, to the Regional Pumping Station (Waterworks) Site will help facilitate a visual connection between the Heritage Green and the Waterworks Site.

Figure 2: Civic Common

Site

4.4.5 Heritage

A portion of the Site, 168 King Street South, is ‘listed’ (non-designated) on the City of Waterloo Municipal Heritage Register and a portion of the Site, 164 King Street South, is located adjacent to an identified cultural heritage resource (the Regional Pumping Station Site). The Municipal Heritage Committee reviewed the revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on November 15, 2018, and moved the following motion:

“The Municipal Heritage Committee supports the demolition of the existing structures on the property at 168 King Street South on the condition that building materials be salvaged where possible. One use of the materials may be the creation of a commemorative installation to be located on the property. A draft of the commemorative element shall be brought to the Municipal Heritage Committee for review.”

Council Meeting Page 118 of 158 March 9, 2020 Heritage Planning staff also support the demolition of the existing structures on the property at 168 King Street South on the condition that historic building materials be salvaged where possible.

In addition, staff supports, in principle, efforts by the Applicant to improve access to and visibility of the adjacent Regional Pumping Station Site. The Pumping Station Site is a designated heritage property, a candidate Cultural Heritage Landscape, and a priority location in the City of Waterloo Uptown Public Realm Strategy. Staff is supportive of the proposed walkway connection, which is anticipated to improve access to the designated heritage property and, in addition to the proposed surface parking area at the northeast portion of the site, should enhance existing views of the William Street Pumping Station from King Street South (in accordance with Section 2.2.2.1 of the Urban Design Manual). While supportive in-principle of the walkway, heritage planning staff acknowledge that the detailed design and location of the walkway may change to accommodate other City objectives.

4.4.6 Floodplain – Laurel/Clair Special Policy Area

A portion of the Site is located within the Laurel/Clair Creek Special Policy Area (SPA) of the City’s Official Plan. Risk of flooding in the SPA is higher than in other areas of the City. Staff notes that floodplain mapping for the Laurel/Clair Creek Special Policy Area is currently being updated. The review of this application is based on the current floodplain mapping and any changes to the mapping in the future would need to be addressed through subsequent stages of the development process.

GRCA has determined that the Regulatory Flood Elevation (RFE) is currently at 324.52 metres above sea level. The plans summited by the Applicant illustrate that 164 King Street South and a portion of 8 George Street are within the floodplain of Laurel Creek. The proposed building is located outside of the current floodplain and the Applicant is proposing to raise the grades on 164 King Street South and 8 George Street, which will allow for safe access to the parking area.

Although the Applicant’s concept plan shows no buildings within the floodplain and shows the parking lot being raised to above the RFE elevation, there are no guarantees that the proposed development will proceed as planned. Therefore, staff recommend that the “Floodplain” (F) zoning category be applied onto the Site to signify that the RFE elevation encroaches onto the Site.

Height Limit – 8 George Street

With respect to 8 George Street, the Applicant is proposing to redesignate it from Low Density Residential (maximum height 10 metres) to Commercial, Uptown Mixed-Use, Primary Node, Uptown Complementary Transition Area and Medium High Density with a Specific Provision Area Policy to limit height on the parcel to 6 storeys and 20 metres. Staff notes that the Growth Plan states that “to protect public safety and prevent future

Council Meeting Page 119 of 158 March 9, 2020 flood risks, growth should generally be directed away from hazardous areas, including those that have been identified as Special Policy Area in accordance with the PPS”. It further stipulates through Policy 5.2.5(7a) that “the minimum intensification and density targets in the Growth Plan do not require or permit: a) in a Special Policy Area that has been approved by the Province in accordance with Policy 3.1.4 of the PPS, 2014, development that is beyond what has been permitted”.

Although the Applicant’s concept plan currently shows surface parking on 8 George Street, a future development scenario may seek to utilize the Site differently and could lead to development beyond what is currently permitted.

Therefore, to conform to Provincial policies and plans, being to ensure that 8 George Street is not be developed beyond its current development potential, staff recommends that a Specific Provision Area Policy be applied to the site that limits building height on 8 George Street to 10 metres. The proposed policy does not impact the Applicant’s development concept.

SECTION 5 – PLANNING EVALUATION OF ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Staff has reviewed Official Plan Amendment 25 (OPA25) and Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18-18 and provides the following summary comments:

5.1 City of Waterloo Zoning By-law 1108

At the time that the application was submitted, 164 and 168 King Street South were zoned Commercial Two-12 (C2-12) and 8 George Street was zoned General Residence Two A (GR2A) in Zoning By-law 1108. The C2-12 zoning permits a 12 storey, 36 metre mixed-use building, while the GR2A permits low rise residential forms such as single detached homes, duplex dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.

5.2 City of Waterloo Zoning By-law 2018-050

The entire Site is identified as Zone Change Application “ZC” in By-law 2018-050. The new comprehensive Zoning By-law was passed by Council on September 10, 2018, and has been enacted by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Properties that had a zone change application submitted prior to September 10, 2018 were zoned “ZC” in By- law 2018-050. The ZC zone carries forward the same zoning framework that applied to the lands on the day before By-law 2018-050 was passed, pending the completion of the active zone change process.

5.3 Street Line Setback (George Street and internal King Street)

The Applicant has requested a reduced street line setback of 4 metres along George Street for the building façade and a 2.8 metre setback for a 0.6 metre wide supporting

Council Meeting Page 120 of 158 March 9, 2020 column (see Figure 3). Similarly, the Applicant has requested a reduced street line setback of 2.5 metres from King Street (internal) for the building façade and 1.0 metre setback for a 0.6 metre wide supporting column (see Figure 3). The By-law requires a street line setback of 5 metres along George Street and a street line setback of 4 metres along King Street (internal).

Staff do not object to the Applicant’s request to reduce the street line setback along George Street. Based on staff’s review, existing buildings on the north side of George Street, between King Street and Herbert Street, have an average street line setback of approximately 4 metres. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the proposed 4 metre street line setback would be appropriate given the established building line on the street. Similarly, staff support the proposed 2.8 metre street line setback to the 0.6 metre wide supporting column along George Street, provided that the projection is limited in width. Staff are of the opinion that limiting the supportive column projection in width would allow sufficient space for landscaping along George Street and would not have an adverse impact on the George Street streetscape.

Staff do not object to the Applicant’s request to reduce the street line setback along King Street (internal). The existing average street line setback along King Street (internal) is approximately 1.5 metres. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the proposed 2.5 metre building line setback and 1.0 metre setback for the 0.6 metre wide supporting column is appropriate given the established street line along internal King Street.

Figure 3: Zoning Amendments for Street Line Setbacks and Landscape Buffer

1 m to 2.5 m street supporting line column (Flankage lot line)

2.0 m average buffer, no less

than 1.5 m

1.1 m average buffer, no less (Front lot line) lot (Front than 0.9 m

(Flankage lot line)

4.0 m street 2.8 m to line supporting column

Council Meeting Page 121 of 158 March 9, 2020

5.4 Daylight Triangle Street Line Setback

The Applicant has requested that a 1.3 metre building setback be permitted from the daylight triangle at the corner of King Street South and King Street South (internal) and a 0.7 metre setback be permitted from the daylight triangle at the intersection of King Street South and George Street. Upon further review of the City’s Zoning By-law it has been determined that Section 3.C.13 exempts the building from setback requirements from lands conveyed for the purposes of a daylight corner triangle. Therefore, the requested zoning amendment is not required.

5.5 Landscape Buffer

Initially, the Applicant requested to reduce the overall average landscape buffer to 1.0 metre but no less than 0.9 metres along the Low Rise Residential Lot Line, whereas the by-law requires an average landscape buffer of 3.0 metres and no less than 1.5 metres adjacent to a Low Rise Residential Lot Line.

Upon further discussion with the Applicant, staff has received further clarification regarding the requested landscape buffer along the easterly and southerly property lines abutting the Low Rise Residential Lot Line:

1. Southerly Property Line – The minimum average depth of the Landscape Buffer shall be 2.0 metres and no less that 1.5 metres (see Figure 3).

2. Eastern Property Line - The minimum average depth of the Landscape Buffer shall be 1.1 metres and no less that 0.9 metres (see Figure 3).

In evaluating the requested landscape buffer reduction along the southerly and easterly property line, staff has evaluated the request based on the Site’s unique context and configuration.

Given the Site’s context within the Uptown Waterloo, and given the unique configuration of the Site, staff do not object to the reduction of the landscape buffer along the southerly property line adjacent to the Low Rise Residential Lot Line. Staff do not object to the proposed average landscape buffer of 2.0 metres, which should provide sufficient depth to permit a fence to screen out headlights as well as adequate landscaping to soften up the edge of the parking lot. Staff recommend that an enhanced screen (fence and enhanced soft landscaping) be incorporated along the Low Rise Residential Lot Line.

With respect to the Applicant’s request to reduce the average landscape buffer along the easterly property line to 1.1 metres and no less than 0.9 metres, generally staff are not supportive of substantive reductions to the landscape buffer. However, given the Site’s constraints, configuration and location in the most densified area of the City, staff

Council Meeting Page 122 of 158 March 9, 2020 do not object to the requested reduction provided an enhanced screen is constructed along the Low Rise Residential Lot Line (e.g., an upgraded screen fence to eliminate any nuisance from car lights and upgraded landscaping). The impact of the reduced landscape buffer on the adjacent low rise residential property should be limited given that the main views from the adjacent semi-detached property as well as its private backyard amenity area will be directed to the north where a more generous landscape buffer will be able to accommodate trees in addition to an enhanced screen fence.

Finally, the Applicant has requested that the landscape buffer along the easterly property line exclude a minimum landscape height requirement. Given the reduced landscape buffer, staff do not object, recognizing that the landscaping details (e.g., plant materials, heights, quantities, etc.) can be secured through site plan control. Therefore, staff does not object to removing the minimum 1.5 metre height requirement for plant material along the easterly property line.

5.6 Parking Location

Based on a detailed review of the proposed conceptual site plan, staff have determined that two of the parking spaces are located partially in front of the King Street South (internal) building line (see Figure 4), which is not permitted in Zoning By-law 2018-050.

Firstly, a portion of the access aisle for the accessible parking space projects approximately 0.8 metres in front of the building line leaving approximately 1.7 metres of space between the parking space and the property line for landscaping and screening. Staff do not object to permitting 0.8 metres of the access aisle associated with the accessible parking space to be located ahead of the building line for the following reasons:

• The access aisle is generally not utilized for parking but rather for entering and exiting the vehicle. • The 1.7 metres of space between the access aisle and the flankage yard property line is of sufficient in size to provide opportunities for some landscaping and screening, having regard to the Site’s location in the Urban Growth Centre.

Council Meeting Page 123 of 158 March 9, 2020 Figure 4: Parking Space Abutting Flankage Yard Property Line

1. Parking space projecting 0.8 metres ahead of building line 2. Parking space abutting flankage yard property line and projecting 2.5 metres ahead of building line (Flankage lot line)

(Front lot line) lot (Front

(Flankage lot line)

Secondly, a standard parking space is located 2.5 metres ahead of the building line abutting the flankage yard property line. Staff are of the opinion that this parking space is not appropriate for the following reasons:

• Due to its location abutting the flankange yard property line, well ahead of the building line, there is no space left for landscaping or screening. • Staff are of the opinion that it is not good planning or appropriate site planning / design to have new parking spaces located so close to the flankage lot line, with no opportunities to buffer the parking area with landscaping or provide separation to the public realm. • A key connectivity for the Civic Common, as described by the Public Realm Strategy, will be to connect pedestrians along King Street from the Allen LRT Station to the Regional Pumping Station Site and from Heritage Green to the Regional Pumping Station Site. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that it is important to make this connection as inviting as possible to members of the public. Having no space available between parked cars and the flankage lot line along King Street South (internal) does not achieve this planning objective.

Council Meeting Page 124 of 158 March 9, 2020

Therefore, staff recommend that this parking space be removed to allow for additional landscaping opportunities to help soften the street edge of the proposed parking lot, being adjacent to a key pedestrian connection within the Civic Common.

5.7 Structured Parking

The proposed conceptual site plan shows parking located under the cantilevered portion of the building, which constitutes structured parking. By-law 2018-050 does not permit above grade structured parking within 15 metres of King Street South, therefore an amendment is required to have structured parking with 15 metres of King Street South (internal).

Planning staff do not object to a zoning amendment to permit the proposed structured parking on the Site, as shown on the conceptual Site Plan, within 15 metres of King Street South (internal) for the following reasons:

• The Site in uniquely situated with King Street South located adjacent to the front yard and flankage yard of the property. Therefore, with King Street South wrapping around 2 of the 3 frontages of such a small site, an amendment is necessary to permit structured (cantilevered) parking within 15 metres of King Street South (internal) to facilitate the redevelopment of the Site as proposed. • The proposed development would not have any structured parking fronting onto or within 15 metres of the “main” section of King Street South, which is arguably the more visible and more travelled portion of King Street South. • The proposed structured parking would be screened from view from the “main” section of King Street South in accordance with the intent of the By-law.

5.8 Parking Reduction

The Applicant has requested to reduce the non-residential parking rate from the required 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres of building floor area (9 parking spaces) to 1.16 spaces per 100 square metres of building floor area (7 parking spaces). The Applicant has only requested the reduced parking rate for the following uses:

• Financial Service • Office

According to the Applicant, the parking deficiency is due to the displacement of 2 parking spaces to accommodate a transformer required by Waterloo North Hydro. Hydro’s preferred location is in the surface parking lot on 168 King Street South. The Applicant will continue discussions with Waterloo North Hydro (WNH) through the Site Plan process to explore other options that would not result in the loss of parking spaces.

Council Meeting Page 125 of 158 March 9, 2020

Staff Recommended Parking Reduction

Staff are supportive of the requested reduced non-residential parking rate provided that the reduced parking rate is limited to those uses that typically generate a lower parking demand and that the non-residential floor area within the proposed building is limited to 600 square metres or less.

In addition, as discussed above, upon a detailed review of the proposed conceptual site plan, staff have determined that one of the proposed parking spaces is not appropriate and should be removed as it is located in front of the building line abutting the flankage lot line. Therefore, staff recommend that the proposed non-residential parking rate be reduced from 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres of building floor area (9 spaces) to 1 space per 100 square metres of building floor area (6 spaces).

Staff do not object to the reduction of the non-residential parking rate for the following reasons:

• The site is well served by transit, with the nearest LRT Station at Allen Street and King Street located within 180 metres of the Site. In addition, the Site is within a short walking distance of Bus routes 5, 7 and 16. • There are a number of additional parking opportunities within a short walking distance of the Site, such as the Uptown Parkade (which permits overnight parking) located within 350 metres or a 4-minute walk of the Site and various municipal parking lots that offer short-term parking for the proposed non- residential use. • Existing, dedicated cycling infrastructure is located within a short walking distance of the Site, providing alternative transportation opportunities to employees or visitors of the proposed non-residential use. • The non-residential uses will be limited to a maximum floor area of 600 square metres or less. • The permitted non-residential uses at the reduced parking rate will be limited to those uses that typically generate a lower parking demand, as set out in Section 8 of IPPW2020-015.

Staff note that all other non-residential uses permitted by the U2 zone with a higher parking demand shall require a parking rate of 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres as per the Zoning By-law.

Council Meeting Page 126 of 158 March 9, 2020

5.9 Podium Height

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-18-18 predates By-law 2018-050. At the time of application, the proposed development was not required to have a minimum podium height. The new U2-30 zone requires a minimum podium height of 10.7 metres. Overall, staff are of the opinion that a podium is essential for an 8 storey building in this location to ensure that the development is built with human scale in mind, creating a comfortable pedestrian interface.

Planning staff do not object to the requested minimum podium height of 8.75 metres. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed 2 storey podium is appropriate and proportional given that the height of the proposed building.

5.10 Tower Stepback

King Street South Façade

The Applicant has requested a tower stepback of 1.4 metres to the nearest balcony, along King Street South, and a 2 metre stepback to the building façade, whereas the By-law requires a 3 metre tower stepback to the balconies (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Conceptual East-West Building Cross-Section

1.8 m 1.8 m

2 m

Council Meeting Page 127 of 158 March 9, 2020

Figure 6: Conceptual North-South Building Cross-Section

0.7 m 1.8 m KING STREET SOUTH (INTERNAL)

0.5 m 2.7 m

George Street Façade

The Applicant has requested a tower stepback of 2.0 metres to the nearest balcony, along George Street, and a 2.7 metre stepback to the building façade, whereas the By- law requires a 3 metre tower stepback to the balconies (see Figure 6).

King Street South (internal) Façade

King Street South (internal) has been interpreted by staff as a flankage yard and therefore would require a 3 metre tower stepback. The cross-sections submitted by the Applicant show a 0.5 metre stepback. Although the Applicant has not proposed a tower stepback along this façade, staff recommend that the 0.5 metre stepback shown on the submitted cross-sections be secured through the Site Specific Zoning By-law to help break up the northerly building façade.

Council Meeting Page 128 of 158 March 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation

Planning staff do not object to the requested reduction in tower stepbacks for the following reasons:

1. The proposed and recommended stepbacks will break-up the northerly, westerly and southerly building façades and will help to visually establish the base of the building. 2. This is a legacy application, submitted prior to the approval of By-law 2018-050 under a zoning framework that did not require a tower stepback. 3. The site is constrained in terms of its size and configuration.

SECTION 6 - OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Terraced 8th Floor

As previously discussed, staff do not object to the proposed 8 storey building provided that the 8th floor is sufficiently recessed so that the building appears to be 7 storeys tall from the adjacent pedestrian realm and the easterly low rise residential property line. As discussed in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, the established building height along the east side of King Street South (between William Street and Allen Street) ranges between 2 storeys and 7 storeys.

The cross-sections submitted by the Applicant demonstrate that the 8th floor is recessed by 1.8 metres along the King Street South, King Street South (internal) and easterly building facades (see Figure 5 and 6). The Applicant had recessed the 8th floor pursuant to comments received from staff indicating that the 8th floor should consist of a recessed floor area that is not visible from the adjacent public realm. To ensure compatibility with the existing and planned streetscape along the south side (George Street), staff recommend that the 8th floor be terraced a minimum 1.8 metres whereas 0.7 metres is shown, meaning all four sides of the building will be treated the same (re: 1.8 metre stepback requirement for the 8th floor).

6.2 Hydrogeology and Source Water Protection

The Site is located adjacent to the Regional Pumping Station Site and is designated Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area (WPSA) 1 and 4, as per Schedule 'B4' of the Official Plan. Due to the Site's proximity to a drinking water supply well, Regional staff have requested that the Zoning By-law Amendment include a provision that prohibits the use of geothermal wells or geothermal energy systems on the Site. Staff concur with Regional staff's position and recommend that the requested prohibitions be included in the site specific zoning regulations.

Council Meeting Page 129 of 158 March 9, 2020

Holding Provision – Scoped Hydrogeological Assessment

Due to the Site's proximity to the Regional Pumping Station Site and in light of a known high water table in the general vicinity of the Site, Regional staff have requested that a Holding Provision be placed on the Site and not lifted until the Applicant submits a scoped Hydrogeological Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. The Applicant has requested the following special consideration in lieu of the Holding Provision:

1. That the Scoped Hydrogeological Assessment be required prior to Site Plan Approval and prior to the passing of the implementing By-law. 2. If Council approval is received, then the Applicant would proceed to undertake the Scoped Hydrogeological Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3. Once Regional clearance is received the Site Specific By-law is passed.

According to the Applicant, this sequence of events will allow the owner to have some assurance that Council supports the development before undertaking the required scoped Hydrogeological Assessment.

Staff can understand and sympathize with the uncertainties associated with the approval of any given development proposal. However, staff are of the opinion that delaying the passing of the Site Specific By-law indefinitely creates uncertainty in terms of the Site's zoning and staff are of the opinion that it is not appropriate. For this reason, staff recommend that the Applicant be provided 100 days from the date of the Formal Public Meeting to submit a scoped Hydrogeological Assessment and obtain Regional clearance of the scoped Hydrogeological Assessment. If Regional clearance is received within the 100 day window, planning staff will table the Site Specific Zoning By-law on June 22, 2020 without a Holding Provision. In the event that Regional clearance is not received within the specified time, staff will table the Site Specific Zoning By-law and a separate Holding Provision by-law at the June 22, 2020 Council Meeting. Regional staff are in support of this recommendation.

6.3 Driveway off of George Street

Staff are not supportive of the Applicant’s proposal to have 3 driveway accesses into the Site for the following reasons:

• Staff are concerned about cut-through traffic from George Street to King Street South. • Having 3 driveway accesses on such a small site limits the amount of landscaping opportunities along the street edge to help soften the building façade and screen the structured parking.

Council Meeting Page 130 of 158 March 9, 2020 • The driveway access off of George Street is not necessary for the functionality of the Site.

Therefore, staff recommend that the driveway entrance off of George Street be removed and the structured and surface parking area facing George Street be appropriately screened from view.

6.4 Hydro Transformer

Staff acknowledges the Applicant’s desire to continue dialog with WNH to relocate the hydro transformer to a location that has lesser impacts to the proposed parking area. Staff notes, that from an urban design perspective, it would be staff’s preference to have the transformer located internal to the proposed building to ensure that the transformer is completely screened from public view and does not diminish the aesthetic design of the Site.

6.5 Concerns from the Public

Summary of Public Staff Response Concerns 1 Parking Rate Planning staff are of the opinion that reducing the Concern related to reduction non-residential parking rate from 9 parking space of the parking rate. to 6 parking spaces for those uses that typically generate a lower parking demand will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties. Alternative modes of transportation, such as the LRT and bike trails, are located within a short walking distance of the Site along with the availability of on-street parking and parking within nearby municipal parking lots to off-set the requested reduction in parking if needed.

2 Shadow Impacts The Applicant submitted shadow study indicates Concern related to shadow that the proposed building will not have any impacts on adjacent significant shadow impacts on surrounding residential properties. residential properties. 10 George Street (east of the Site) appears to be the most impacted by shadows, however the impact is limited to about a 2 hour period in the Spring (March 31) when about 50% to 70% of the property is in the shadow of the proposed building between 2pm and 4pm. A similar impact can be observed in the Fall (September 21) when about 50% to 70% of

Council Meeting Page 131 of 158 March 9, 2020 Summary of Public Staff Response Concerns the property is in the shadow of the proposed building between 2pm and 4pm.

Staff are of the opinion the proposed development should not have any significant shadow impacts on any of the surrounding properties as the proposed building meets the City’s shadow criteria, which states that:

• at least 50% or more of any property should not be shaded for more than two interval times (a four hour equivalency); or, • at least 50% of any property should be in full sun for at least two interval times (a four hour equivalency).

3 Building Height The Applicant has reduced the build’s height to 8 Concern that the proposed 9 storeys with design measures, and with the staff storey building is too tall recommended recessed 8th floor the building will given the context of the Site. appear to be 7 storeys tall from the adjacent sidewalks and from the easterly low rise residential property line.

SECTION 7 – CONCLUSION

Based on Integrated Planning & Public Works review of the application, we support Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Zone Change Application Z-18-18 in accordance with Section 8 of Staff Report IPPW2020-015, for reasons including:

• The application is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. • The application conforms to the 2019 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. • The application conforms to the policies of the Regional Official Plan. • The application, as recommended by staff, conforms to the City of Waterloo Official Plan (2012). • The proposed development will provide for an efficient use of land, services and infrastructure. • The proposed development is transit-supportive, walkable, and in an area that is well served by public transit.

Council Meeting Page 132 of 158 March 9, 2020 • The proposed mixed-use development contributes to a complete community, offering a mix of commercial uses and residential uses within the Uptown Core.

SECTION 8 – RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That Staff Report IPPW2020-015 be approved.

B. That Official Plan Amendment No. 25 be adopted as follows:

1. Schedule A (Land Use Plan) be amended by changing the designation applied to the lands identified on Map 1 attached hereto as “8 George Street” from ‘Low Density Residential’ to ‘Commercial’;

2. That Schedule A1 (Commercial Land Uses) be amended by changing the designation applied to the lands identified on Map 1 attached hereto as “8 George Street” to ‘Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre’ and ‘Uptown Mixed-Use’;

3. That Schedule B (City Structure) be amended by changing the designation applied to the lands identified on Map 1 attached hereto as “8 George Street” to ‘Primary Node’ and ‘Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre’;

4. That Schedule B1 (Height and Density) be amended by changing the designation applied to the lands identified on Map 1 attached hereto as “8 George Street” from ‘Low Density, 10 metres’ to ‘Medium High Density, 40 metres’;

5. That Schedule B2 (Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre) be amended by changing the designation applied to the lands identified on Map 1 attached hereto as “8 George Street” to ‘Uptown Complementary Transition Area’ and ‘Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre/Primary Node’;

6. Schedule ‘A6’ of the Official Plan of the City of Waterloo Planning Area is hereby amended by designating 8 George Street as “Specific Provision Area 72”, as shown on Map 1 attached hereto.

7. That Section 11.1 of the Official Plan, Specific Provision Areas, amended by adding the following Specific Provision Area:

11.1.72 Specific Provision Area 72 (8 George Street)

(1) The policies of this Specific Provision Area 72 (SPA 72) apply to lands known municipally as 8 George Street, shown as SPA 72 on Schedule ‘A6’ – Site Specific Provision Area.

Council Meeting Page 133 of 158 March 9, 2020 (2) It shall be the policy of Council that notwithstanding the maximum height within the ‘Medium High Density, 40 metres’ designation, the maximum building height on 8 George Street shall be limited to 10 metres.

C. That Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z-18-18, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited, 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street, as follows:

1. That By-law 2018-050 is hereby amended by changing the zoning on the zoning map attached to Zoning By-law 2018-050 as Schedule ‘A’ for the lands, known municipally as “164, 168 King Street South”, as shown on Map 2 attached hereto from Zone Change Application (ZC) to Uptown Mixed-use - 30 (U2-30);

2. That By-law 2018-050 is hereby amended by changing the zoning on the zoning map attached to Zoning By-law 2018-050 as Schedule ‘A’ for the lands, know municipally as “8 George Street” as shown on Map 2 attached hereto from Zone Change Application (ZC) to ‘Uptown Mixed-use -10’(U2-10);

3. That By-law 2018-050 is hereby amended by changing the zoning on the zoning map attached to Zoning By-law 2018-050 as Schedule ‘A3’ for the lands, know municipally as “8 George Street” and “164 King Street South” as shown on Map 2 attached hereto to “Floodplain” (F).

4. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the following site specific provisions shall apply to the lands shown on Map 2 attached hereto as “164, 168 King Street South” and “8 George Street”:

a. Height (maximum): i. 164 and 168 King Street South (lands identified on Map 2 attached hereto as “Area ‘A’”) – 8 Storeys

ii. 8 George Street (lands identified on Map 2 attached hereto as “Area ‘B’”) – 3 storeys or 10 metres;

b. LANDSCAPED BUFFER: i. Adjacent to the LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE the following regulations are applicable: a.) Southerly Property Line (164 King Street South) – The minimum average depth of the LANDSCAPED BUFFER shall be 2.0 metres and no less that 1.5 metres is permitted.

Council Meeting Page 134 of 158 March 9, 2020 b.) Easterly Property Line (8 George Street) - The minimum average depth of the LANDSCAPED BUFFER shall be 1.1 metres and no less that 0.9 metres is permitted.

c.) Easterly Property Line (8 George Street) – The LANDSCAPED BUFFER shall contain plant material with no minimum height requirements.

c. STREET LINE setback (minimum): i. George Street – 4.0 metres to BUILDING and 2.8 metres to supporting column that is up to 1.0 metres in width.

ii. King Street South (internal) – 2.5 metres to BUILDING and 1.0 metre to supporting column that is up to 1.0 metres in width.

d. Parking in front of BUILDING LINE: i. King Street South (internal) – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, 1 parking space shall be permitted to project 0.8 metres ahead of the BUILDING LINE.

e. STRUCTURED PARKING: i. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, STRUCTURED PARKING shall be permitted within 15 metres of King Street South (internal).

f. Non-Residential Parking Rate (minimum): i. 1 spaces/100 m² of building floor area shall apply to the following uses: a.) BUSINESS INCUBATOR b.) FINANCIAL SERVICES c.) GOVERNMENT USES d.) OFFICE e.) PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP f.) TECH OFFICE g.) ARTIST STUDIO (CLASS 1) h.) COMMERCIAL WELLNESS i.) COMMUNITY CENTRE j.) INSTITUTION k.) MAKERSPACE (CLASS A) l.) BAKE SHOP m.) CAFÉ n.) COMMERCIAL SERVICE o.) COMMUNICATION PRODUCTION p.) DATA CENTRE

Council Meeting Page 135 of 158 March 9, 2020 q.) OLD GOLD SHOP r.) PET SERVICE (CLASS A) s.) Post Office t.) RETAIL STORE

ii. 1.5 spaces/100m² of building floor area shall apply to all other permitted uses permitted by the U2 zone and not list in 4, f), i.

g. Non-residential building floor area (maximum): i. 600 m²

h. PODIUM Height (minimum): i. 8.75 metres

i. TOWER STEPBACK above PODIUM (King Street South) (minimum): i. 1.4 meres to face of nearest balcony and 2.0 metres to building façade.

j. TOWER STEPBACK above PODIUM (King Street South Internal) (minimum): i. 0.5 metres to building façade.

k. TOWER STEPBACK above PODIUM (George Street) (minimum): i. 2 metres to face of nearest balcony and 2.7 metres to building façade.

l. Terraced 8th floor: i. The 8th floor shall be stepped back a minimum 1.8 metres from the 7th floor building façade.

ii. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the minimum 1.8 metre stepback from the 7th floor building façade is not applicable to the stairwells and common hallway on the 8th floor.

m. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the use of geothermal wells and geothermal energy systems are prohibited.

D. That Council approve the placement of a Holding Provision on the Site for the purposes of a scoped Hydrogeological Study in the event that the Applicant does not obtain Regional clearance of the required scoped Hydrogeological Assessment within 100 days of the Formal Public Meeting.

E. That Council support the following site plan and urban design objectives for the proposed development, as part of a future site plan application:

Council Meeting Page 136 of 158 March 9, 2020

a. That the building be designed with enhanced architecture, urban design, building materials and landscape design having regard for its gateway location.

b. That the driveway entrance off of George Street be removed and the structured parking along George Street be appropriately screened from view.

c. That the screening of the covered parking area along George Street and King Street South (internal) should be enhanced to positively contribute to the street edge, public realm, and the appearance of the building, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

d. That, through the Site Plan process, a publically accessible walkway connection between Heritage Green and the Regional Pumping Station Site be incorporated into 164 King Street South. The publically accessible walkway connection should be enhanced, include a distinct surface treatment and should facilitate a visual connection between Heritage Green and the Regional Pumping Station Site.

e. That enhanced screening, which fully screens car headlights, and enhanced landscaping be incorporated within the reduced landscape buffers along the easterly and southerly property lines adjacent to the low rise residential neighbourhood.

f. That a Wind Study be prepared to ensure pedestrian comfort levels within the public realm adjacent to the site and along the rooftop terrace. It must be demonstrated that the site, including building and landscaping, has been designed to address all recommendations of the Wind Study.

Council Meeting Page 137 of 158 March 9, 2020 MAP 1 – SUBJECT SITE

Council Meeting Page 138 of 158 March 9, 2020 MAP 2 - ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Z-18-18

This is Schedule ‘A’ to By-law No. 2016-____ passed this____day of ____, 2016

Council Meeting Page 139 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘A’ – SCHEDULE ‘A’ TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25

Council Meeting Page 140 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘A’ – Minutes of Informal Public Meeting

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Monday, January 14, 2019

Informal Public Meeting Title: Official Plan Amendment No. 25 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z-18-18, 164 &168 King Street South & 8 George Street, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union. Prepared By: Rita Szilock

The Chair advised that the Informal Public Meeting was the first opportunity to inform Council and the public of the application and emphasized that no decision would be made by Council at this meeting.

Rita Szilock, Development Planner advised that the applicant is proposing to amend the City's Official Plan to re-designate 8 George Street from Low Density Residential and Low Density-10 Metres, to Commercial, Uptown Mixed Use, Primary Node, Medium High Density-40 Metres, and Uptown Complementary Transition Area, with the following site specific provisions: • To limit the maximum height permission on 8 George Street to 6 storeys and 20 metres.

The applicant is also proposing to amend Zoning By-law No. 1108 by:

(a) Rezoning 8 George Street from 'General Residence Two A' (GR2A) to 'Commercial Two-12' (C2-12) and rezoning 164 and 168 King Street South from 'Commercial Two-12' (C2-12) to 'Commercial Two-12' (C2-12), with the following site specific provisions: • To permit a front yard (King Street) setback of 4 metres, to align with the City's New Zoning By-law, whereas Zoning By-law 1108 requires a 5 metres front yard setback; • To permit a landscape buffer with an average depth of 1.5 metres, whereas Zoning By-law 1108 requires a landscape buffer with an average depth of 3.0 metres; • To permit a minimum amenity area of 3 square metres per bedroom, to align with the City's New Zoning By-law, whereas Zoning By-law 1108 requires an amenity area of 25 square metres per dwelling unit; • To change the measure of density from units/hectare to bedrooms/hectare to conform to the Official Plan; • To permit a commercial parking rate of 1.5 space/100 square metres, to align with the City's New Zoning By-law, whereas Zoning By-law 1108 requires 3.0 spaces/100 square metres; • To permit a residential parking rate of 0.6 spaces per unit (0.5 spaces/unit for residents + 0.1 spaces/unit for visitors), whereas Zoning By-law 1108 requires a residential parking rate of 1 space per unit.

(b) In addition to the above site specific provisions, the following site specific provision will also be applicable to 8 George Street:

Council Meeting Page 141 of 158 March 9, 2020

• To limit the maximum building height (on 8 George Street) to 6 storeys and 20 metres;

Trevor Hawkins, MHBC Planning reviewed the application and explained in more detail the uses on the main floor Your Neighbourhood Credit Union banking location, second floor Your Neighbourhood Credit Union office space, and the rooftop amenities. Mr. Hawkins also described the technical and supporting studies such as heritage impact assessment, functional servicing report, shadow impact study and environmental noise feasibility study. Mr. Hawkins responded to questions from Council.

Dan Currie, MHBC Planning responded to questions regarding the Heritage Impact Assessment.

As no one else was present to speak to the application, the Chair concluded the Informal Public Meeting and indicated that staff will review the issues and report back to Council at a later date.

Council Meeting Page 142 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘B’ - Agency and Staff Comments

NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS:

City of Waterloo – Building Standards City of Waterloo Fire Department – Fire Prevention Division Waterloo Region District School Board Waterloo Catholic District School Board

AGENCY COMMENTS:

Region of Waterloo (December 4, 2018)

Regional staff has reviewed the applications for OPA-2018-25 and ZBA-18-18 and provide the following comments for the Township’s consideration.

Water Services:

Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report dated August 24, 2018 as prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. and generally agrees with its conclusions. Staff provide the following comments:

• Regional Staff acknowledge the intent to decommission all existing services as part of the redevelopment of the Site and that the hydraulic gradeline is 381.0 mASL and serviced from pressure zone Wat 4. • Water Services Staff is requesting to be circulated at Site Plan and must approve the site grading, servicing and stormwater management design. • There is no objection to Fireflow analysis being completed at the detailed design stage. However, staff advise that the results from hydrant tests taken now could be different in the future. The William St Reservoir and Pumping Station facility will see changes in its operations as it will not be supplying water directly from our site starting in Spring 2020 but will be supplied from changes made to the distribution system. This may alter the results of any previous hydrant tests.

Regional Staff have no objections to these subject applications and agree with the conclusions of being circulated for review and comments on the Site Plan Application submission given that this proposed development is on a Regional Road and is adjacent to the Regionally-owned William Street Reservoir and Wells Site.

Council Meeting Page 143 of 158 March 9, 2020 Corridor Planning:

Regional Road Dedication:

Regional Road 15 (King Street South) has a designated road allowance of 26.12 metres. The ROP designation appears to be met at this location however the property line and aerial imagery indicate that there may potentially be a portion of the municipal sidewalk on the applicant’s property. Regional Staff request that an Ontario Land Surveyor investigate and provide confirmation either way.

A daylight triangle of 7.62 metres is required at the corner of King Street and George Street in addition to the corner of King Street and Kuntz Lane. The daylight triangles are to be shown on all plans.

The daylight triangles may be deferred to Site Plan. Staff recommends that the owner/applicant start the road dedication process now.

Stormwater Management & Site Grading:

Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Site Grading and Servicing Plan C2.1, dated August 24, 2018 and authored by MTE and generally have no concerns. Regional Staff will require detailed plans and a Stormwater Management Report at Site Plan.

Environmental Noise:

Regional Staff have reviewed the report entitled “Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, proposed 164, 168 King Street, Waterloo, ON” authored by Novus Environmental and dated August 24, 2018 as it pertains to road traffic noise on King Street North.

Based on excess road noise levels, the following mitigation will be required:

1. All units, except those on the northwest façade, are to have provision for an air conditioning system.

2. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for all units, except those on the northwest façade:

“This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that

Council Meeting Page 144 of 158 March 9, 2020 the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.”

Stationary Noise:

Regional Staff have reviewed the Stationary Noise component of the report entitled, “Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed 164, 168 King Street, Waterloo, ON” authored by Novus Environmental and dated August 24, 2018. Staff generally agree with the report’s recommendations and conclusions.

Impact of Off Site Sources:

Off-site surrounding noise sources include a funeral home, retirement residence, and a number of commercial buildings all with potential noise sources such as rooftop packaged HVAC units. Based on the modelling of these noise sources, the predicted noise levels caused by surrounding stationary noise sources are predicted to be less than the applicable guideline limits at the building façade points of reception on the subject site.

Similarly, predicted noise levels on the rooftop outdoor amenity area are expected to be approximately 42 dBA, and are expected to meet the noise guideline objective of 50 dBA.

On-Site Sources:

The report notes the development’s mechanical systems are not yet known, but that on- site and off-site noise impacts from all mechanical equipment should comply with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ NPC-300 noise guidelines. The report notes on p. 11 that based on Novus’ experience, the type and size of the units and their probable locations are not anticipated to result in adverse noise impacts. The study recommends that all mechanical systems be assessed for potential impacts to sensitive receptors as part of final building design (and site plan approval). Implementation:

Staff understands that the implementation of noise study recommendations may be limited in the case of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Further implementation of the recommendations may be secured through future Planning Act applications, e.g., Consent or Plan of Condominium.

Record of Site Condition:

Regional Staff do not require the completion of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) as it is not prompted in the Region’s Implementation Guideline ‘For the Review of Development Applications On or Adjacent to Know and Potentially Contaminated Sites.’

Council Meeting Page 145 of 158 March 9, 2020

Hydrogeology and Source Water Protection:

Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report dated August 24, 2018 as prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. and request that the FSR be re-submitted to the satisfaction of the Region for the following reasons:

• That the FSR must acknowledge and discuss that all stormwater infrastructure be constructed to enhanced standards to minimize stormwater leakages into the subsurface.

• That the FSR must acknowledge and discuss that all sanitary connections be constructed in accordance with the Region’s Source Protection Guidance Document (May 2018) ‘Enhanced Construction Standards for Sewers in Wellhead Protection Areas.’

Regional Staff will require the re-submission of the FSR prior to final approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment application.

Regional Staff will require a Construction Spill Prevention Plan and Salt Management Plan prior to Site Plan Approval for the subject development.

The Pre-Submission Consultation identified the need for a Source Protection Potential Contamination Study. Based on discussions with Hydrogeology and Source Water Protection Staff, the Region withdraws the need for this study.

Hydrogeological Study:

Regional Staff will require the submission of a Hydrogeological Study for the subject development. This will be secured through a Holding Provision in the Zoning By-Law, which will not be lifted until the study has been received and deemed satisfactory to the Region of Waterloo.

A Dewatering Plan may be required based on the findings of the Hydrogeological Study, if any of the proposed buried utility installations require temporary construction dewatering.

Heritage:

Regional Cultural Heritage staff have reviewed the above note applications and supporting documents and provide the following comments: • The proposed development is adjacent to the William Street Pumping Station (17- 23 William Street East). This property, designated under Part IV of the Ontario

Council Meeting Page 146 of 158 March 9, 2020 Heritage Act, has been identified as a preliminary candidate in the Draft City of Waterloo Inventory of Cultural Heritage Landscapes, and meets the criteria for identification as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. The William Street Pumping station property has also recently been identified in the Draft City of Waterloo Uptown Public Realm Strategy as an opportunity to increase public open space and form a connected green space area with the Heritage Green and the Brewmeister’s Green.

• The surface parking lot at 164 King Street South provides an opportunity to make a green space connection between the Heritage Green and Brewmeister’s Green and a possible future public open space at the William Street Pumping Station.

• Staff acknowledges that the proposed development will not result in any anticipated impacts to the heritage William Street Pumping Station (such as isolation, shadows or obstruction), however, the development has also not proposed to decrease isolation or obstruction or improve the current conditions of the existing surface parking lot on 164 King Street South.

• Enhancement of the views to the built heritage Pumping Station resource at 17- 23 William Street, and/or the consideration of providing street level amenity green space on/over the parcel at 164 King Street South could offer many benefits to the community including: highlighting the heritage significance of the William Street Pumping Station, providing increased amenity space for the future residents and tenants of the development, providing a future green space linkage to the William Street Pumping Station, providing a landscaped buffer to the other heritage structures along Kuntz Lane, and reducing impermeable surfaces given the subsequent reduction of the amount of road salt applied within a Wellhead Protection Area of a municipal drinking-water supply well.

• Cultural Heritage staff respectfully request that the owner/applicant consider the possibility of providing ground level amenity green space abutting the Pumping Station on the parcel at 164 King Street South.

Summary:

Official Plan Amendment (OPA-2018-25)

Regional staff has no objection to Official Plan Amendment application OPA-2018-25.

Council Meeting Page 147 of 158 March 9, 2020 Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA-18-18)

Regional staff has no objection to the approval of the proposed Zone Change Application subject to the following:

1) The inclusion of a Holding Provision in the site specific zoning by-law requiring a Hydrogeological Study. The holding provision shall not be released until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of and has approved the Hydrogeology Study.

Region of Waterloo (June 25, 2019)

Thank you for circulating the revised proposal associated with Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Z-18-18 applications for the lands located at 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street. The purpose of the requested revised amendments is to permit the construction of a new 9 storey mixed-used building containing 600 sq. m. of commercial space located on the ground floor and 2nd floor and 36 dwelling units (48 bedrooms) in the storeys above. Regional staff have reviewed the revised applications and offer the following comments for the City’s consideration.

Water Services staff reviewed the updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (MTE, revised March 29, 2019) and have no further comments or concerns. Hydrogeology and Source Water Protection Staff requests that the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report include a statement acknowledging that all stormwater infrastructure for this development will be constructed to enhanced standards in accordance with the Region’s Enhanced Construction Standards for Sewers in Wellhead Protection Areas document.

The subject lands are within Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area (WPSA) 1 and 4 as designated in the ROP. The ROP prohibits geothermal wells or geothermal energy systems in WPSA 1 and 4. As such, Regional staff requests that the Zoning By-law Amendment include a provision that prohibits the use of geothermal wells or geothermal energy systems on the subject property.

Cultural Heritage staff have no additional comments with respect to the proposed development.

All other comments provided in the Region’s previous letter, as attached, continue to apply to the revised applications.

In conclusion, Regional staff has no objection to Official Plan Amendment No. 25 application. Further, Regional staff has no objection to the approval of the proposed Zone Change Application Z-18-18 subject to the following:

Council Meeting Page 148 of 158 March 9, 2020 1) The inclusion of a Holding Provision in the site specific zoning by-law requiring a Hydrogeological Study. The holding provision shall not be released until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of and has approved the Hydrogeological Study. 2) The inclusion of a provision that prohibits the installation of any geothermal wells or geothermal energy systems on the subject property.

Region of Waterloo (October 24, 2019)

Thank you for addressing the attached Regional comments in regards to the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report.

As per our discussion today, a question was recently raised as to whether a Hydrogeological Study would be required if the proposed development at the subject property does not include a basement. If below grade building footings or pilings are proposed, including any below grade excavation, then a Hydrogeological Study will be required. The proposed development is next to the Region’s very important water supply wells and Regional staff need to ensure there will be no impact to these wells. As discussed and noted in the attached comments, this study requirement can be delayed to a Holding Provision.

However, since you are going to be making a re-submission of the proposed development, which will include a reduction of building height from 9 storeys to 8 storeys, there may be an opportunity for the applicant to complete the study prior to final approval of the zone change application. I have copied on this email the Region’s Hydrogeologist, Geoff Moroz. You are welcome to email Geoff to obtain more information on the scope of the study. The study could potentially be limited in scope and would satisfy Regional concerns (i.e. install a well at the property to determine groundwater elevations beneath the property, and confirm that the excavation will not intercept the water table). Geoff can provide you with more direction on what information needs to be provided in this study.

Region of Waterloo (December 16, 2019)

Thank you for circulating the revised proposal associated with Official Plan Amendment No. 25 and Z-18-18 applications for the lands located at 164, 168 King Street South and 8 George Street. The purpose of the requested revised amendments is to permit the construction of a new 8 storey mixed-used building containing 581 sq. m. of commercial space located on the ground floor and 2nd floor and 34 dwelling units (44 bedrooms) in the storeys above, with site specific provisions.

Regional staff has reviewed the re-submission material for the proposed development. In

Council Meeting Page 149 of 158 March 9, 2020 the attached email correspondence of October 24, 2019 to the applicant, staff confirmed that a scoped Hydrogeological Assessment must be submitted either with this re- submission of the proposal or the City secures the required study through a Holding Provision. The requirement for a Hydrogeological Study has been identified in Regional comments to the City dated December 4, 2018 and June 25, 2019. Additional correspondence in this regard has also been sent directly to the applicant.

The Region’s comments of October 24, 2019 and June 25, 2019 as attached continue to apply. As indicated in the October correspondence and discussed with the applicant, the developer is encouraged to complete the scoped study prior to final approval of the applications to avoid higher costs and additional timing associated with the removal of the Holding Provision.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), February 11, 2019

1. GRCA Resource Concerns: GRCA staff have reviewed the existing conditions plan (MTE Consultants Inc. Drawing C1.1, revised August 24, 2018). The current Regulatory Flood Elevation (RFE) of 324.52 metres has been shown on the plan and illustrates that 164 King Street South and a portion of 8 George Street are within the floodplain of Laurel Creek and its associated allowance. As such, these properties are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation).

Please be aware that the Laurel Creek floodplain mapping is currently being updated by the City of Waterloo in partnership with the GRCA. However, floodline updates have not been completed or approved at this time. The floodline elevation applicable to the property may change. Please be advised that the GRCA would be applying the most current floodline information at the time of site plan, building permit and GRCA permit approval.

2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: The floodplain at this location has been designated as a Special Policy Area (SPA) by the Province, City of Waterloo and GRCA. Provincial Policy (3.1.4a), Regional Policy (7.H.8a), City of Waterloo Policy (8.4.2.4) and GRCA Policy (8.1.34) permit development and site alteration in hazardous lands (flooding hazard) where a SPA has been approved. Prior to approval of the applications, it must be demonstrated how the development is in conformance with the SPA policies as outlined in the City of Waterloo Official Plan.

The proposed new building is located outside the current floodplain. To ensure the residential component of the proposal meets the SPA policies related to safe

Council Meeting Page 150 of 158 March 9, 2020 access/evacuation to the building (Policy 8.4.2 (39) which refers to Policy 8.4.2 (26)) and surface parking (Policy 8.4.2 (46)), we have reviewed the Site Grading Plan (MTE Consultants Inc. Drawing C1.2). It is proposed to raise the grades so the parking lot on 164 King Street South and 8 George Street will be above the current RFE and dry access will be available. As dry (or at a minimum safe) access is achievable, we have no objection in principle to the zone change application.

We do recommend though that the zone change be amended to add the floodplain symbol prefix (F). As the existing conditions plan confirms that 164 King Street South and 8 George Street are within the floodplain, this “flag” should be incorporated in the zoning bylaw. While the preliminary grading plan illustrates that the site will be raised so the majority is out of the floodplain, there is no guarantee that this work will proceed as proposed, therefore the zoning should reflect existing conditions.

Please note that the GRCA will be further involved through the site plan approval and GRCA permitting process. Prior to construction, approval and issuance of a GRCA permit will be required.

3. Advisory Comments for Consideration: The Growth Plan (Policy 5.2.5.7a) states that the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan do not require or permit in a Special Policy Area that has been approved by the Province in accordance with Policy 3.1.4 of the PPS, 2014, development that is beyond what has been permitted. We trust the City of Waterloo will review the application for conformance with this Growth Plan policy.

We trust the municipality will review a satisfactory stormwater management strategy for the site.

For the site plan and permit application, the existing and ultimate floodline after development/grading should be shown on the Site Grading Plan. It appears the ultimate floodline will be at the bottom of the fill slope/retaining wall for the parking lot. As it is anticipated that the parking lot will be outside the floodplain after grading, no perimeter walls, berms, railing or other barriers are required to contain floating vehicles in the parking lot as per Official Plan Policy 8.4.2 (45).

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), May 30, 2019

GRCA comments from February 11, 2019 remain unchanged

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), December 27, 2019

GRCA comments from February 11, 2019 remain unchanged.

Council Meeting Page 151 of 158 March 9, 2020 CITY OF WATERLOO STAFF COMMENTS

Transportation Services, October 29, 2018 • Kuntz Lane is on the west side of King Street S (Regional). This road is called King Street South (Public Square west of King Street South). • King Street South is a one way street, southbound. It is not our intent to change the function of the lane. King Street South is comprised of a 3.5m drive lane and 2m parking lane. • As this area intensifies, Transportation Services forecast increased demand for the limited on-street parking spaces, and recommend that sufficient parking be provided on- site to meet the regular demands of the residents, patrons and visitors without reliance on municipal on-street parking. • Construction staging for this site will be challenging, as there is limited 30 minute parking on the south side and 1 hour parking on the east side of King Street South, and limited 2 hour parking on the south side of George Street. The Ion LRT tracks run along the west side of the site on King Street S (Regional). A Conceptual Workspace Management Plan should be provided to show how this will be managed. • Concerned about the functionality of the hammerheads in the proposed parking lot.

Active Transportation, October 29, 2018 • Sidewalks should be taken right through driveways (no tactile plates). • Corner of Kuntz Lane need to be improved for pedestrians. There is no crossing and the one sidewalk seems to lead to nowhere.

Active Transportation, May 9, 2019 • Improvement to the sidewalk connection around the corner along King St S (internal) still needs to be made. It looks like there is no logical connection. A continuous sidewalk should be constructed around the corner and across both driveways. • How will developer/contractor handle construction staging with ION rail right in front on King St S? King St S (internal) cannot handle the construction traffic and George St creates a logical in/out problem with the series of one way streets.

Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation (WACAT), November 13, 2018

The committee discussed the application and echoed Active Transportation and LRT integration staff comments:

1) Sidewalks are required to be taken through the driveways (no tactile plates) of the proposed development. 2) The north east corner of Kuntz Lane needs to be improved for pedestrians. The site requires to have a pedestrian connection on north side of the property which will link to the existing sidewalk on Kuntz Lane.

Council Meeting Page 152 of 158 March 9, 2020 3) The applicant is proposing seven Type A bike lockers on site, staff would suggest the developer reconsider the bike lockers and provide secure indoor bike parking for the residents of the building.

Motion: The WACAT committee agrees with Active Transportation staff comments regarding the zone change applications Z-18-18.

Integrated Planning & Public Works – Engineering Services (January 21, 2019)

Engineering Services does not have any significant concerns with the Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change Application Z-18-18. However, further details will be required during the Site Plan process and detailed design stage for review and acceptance from the Engineering Division. In review of the submission for the above noted development we would like to provide the following comments: Landscape Site Plan Comments:

1. The applicant is proposing to reduce the minimum landscape buffer from an average depth of 3.0m to 1.5m. Encourage the applicant to provide enhanced landscaping and buffering on site, but especially adjacent to the low rise residential area, during Site Plan.

2. There are a number of existing mature trees on site that will be removed during construction. If space permits, we recommend replacing trees at a ratio of 2:1. Where space is limited, trees with a columnar form can be planted, and soil cells can be used to increase soil volumes under hard surfaces.

3. Confirm ION setbacks for tree planting along the front of the building. 4. Consideration should be given to the overall connectivity of the site, with the opportunity to explore a walkway connection as described in the Draft Public Realm Strategy.

5. A complete set of landscape plans will be required through the site plan process including a Vegetation Management Plan.

Development Engineering 1. Grading and Drainage from the site is to be designed such that overland flows do not negatively impact adjacent properties and Wellhead. The major overland flow route from this property should be directed to the right of way and not to the adjacent property.

2. A fire hydrant test and analysis evaluating fire flow will be required at the detailed design stage. 3. In reviewing other development applications in the area, a high groundwater table has been identified for the area. At a minimum a Geotechnical Report will be required at the detailed design stage to confirm groundwater conditions.

Council Meeting Page 153 of 158 March 9, 2020 4. Engineering Services is not in support of the multiple driveway entrances to the development. The entrance from George Street should be removed.

5. The Lane right of way design will be reviewed in depth and Transportation Services and should be consulted to confirm ultimate design. 6. It appears the driveway entrances from Lane exceed the maximum 7 m width. 7. Permit To Work is required for works near the ION.

Council Meeting Page 154 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘C’ – Site Plan

King Street South (Internal)

George Street

Site Plan submitted by MHBC Planning (2019.11.12)

Council Meeting Page 155 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘D’ – Building Perspectives

Original Proposal (view from King Street South and George Street - looking north)

Rendering/Martin Simmons/2018.11.12

Council Meeting Page 156 of 158 March 9, 2020 Revised Proposal (view from corner of King St S and George St - looking north)

Rendering/Martin Simmons/2019.11.08

Revised Proposal (view from King St S - looking southeast)

Rendering/Martin Simmons/2019.11.08

Council Meeting Page 157 of 158 March 9, 2020 APPENDIX ‘E’ – Conceptual Building Cross-sections

KING SOUTH STREET (INTERNAL)

Council Meeting Page 158 of 158 March 9, 2020