September 8, 2020 Special Council Agenda

Corporation of the City of Cambridge Special Council Meeting No. 25-20 Tuesday, September 8, 2020 Virtual Meeting 4:00 p.m. AGENDA

Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise social distancing, members of the public are invited to submit written comments or requests to delegate via telephone related to items on the agenda.

The public wishing to speak at Council may complete an online Delegation Request form no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting for Special Council Meetings occurring at 4:00 p.m. and no later than 12:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for Special Council – Public Meetings occurring at 10:00 a.m.

All written delegation submissions will be provided to the Mayor and Council prior to the meeting, and will form part of the public record.

Meeting Called to Order

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Consideration of Matters in Closed Session

Recommendation

In accordance with Section s.239 (2) (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Council to convene in Closed Session to consider the following subject matters:

Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees (Confidential HR Matter);

Council to Rise from Closed Session

Recommendation THAT Council rise from closed session and reconvene in open session.

Consent Procedure

THAT all items listed under the heading of Consent Procedure for Tuesday, September 8, 2020, Council Agenda be adopted as recommended.

Items #

1. Special Council Minutes – August 25, 2020

2. Committee of Adjustment Minutes- July 22, 2020

3. Council Information Package (CIP) – August 7, 2020

7. Riverside Dam - Resuming Detailed Design

8. 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive Strategy - Cambridge

9. Approval of the Amended Grand River Source Protection Plan

Note: Council Members, if you wish an item to be pulled from the Consent Procedure, please notify the City Clerk so the item can be listed on the Other Business Memo for tonight’s meeting to be dealt with separately by Council. You will also have the opportunity to pull an item at the Meeting.

Minutes of Previous Meetings

1. Special Council Minutes – August 25, 2020 PP. 8-33

Recommendation

THAT the minutes from the Special Council meeting held on August 25, 2020 be approved.

2. Committee of Adjustment Minutes- July 22, 2020 PP. 34-61 Recommendation

THAT the minutes from the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on July 22, 2020 be approved.

Consideration of Reports

3. Council Information Package (CIP) – August 7, 2020 PP. 62-115

Recommendation

THAT the Council Information Package (CIP)- August 7, 2020 be received for information.

4. Strategic Plan 2020-2023 Phase 2 Council Workshop PP. 116-121

Recommendation

THAT Report 20-211(CRE) re: Strategic Plan 2020-2023 Phase 2 Council Workshop be received; and

AND THAT Council direct the City Clerk to schedule a Council Workshop for Phase 2, to be held virtually, between the dates of September 28th and October 2nd, 2020.

5. Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) Community Improvement Plan PP. 122-135

Recommendation

THAT Report 20-083 (CRE), Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) Community Improvement Plan regarding the process for implementing a Community Improvement Plan for Financial Incentives be received; AND THAT Council pass the attached By-law designating the identified Core Areas as community improvement project areas;

AND THAT City staff prepare a draft community improvement plan for public consultation and input;

AND THAT the current Core Area incentives continue until the implementation of the new Core Area incentives arising out of this community improvement plan process;

AND FURTHER THAT City staff prepare a future report to Council about the recommended community improvement plan and public input received.

6. Request to Amend Development Covenants and Restrictions for the Time for Development – Boxwood Business Campus PP. 136-141

Recommendation

THAT report 20-192(CRE), re: Request to Amend Development Covenants and Restrictions for the Time for Development - Boxwood Business Campus be received;

AND THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute documentation to amend the Development Covenants and Restrictions to allow for a one (1) year extension to the construction start date AND a one (1) year extension to the substantial completion date, without penalties, to be granted to businesses/developers noted in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

Community Development

7. Riverside Dam - Resuming Detailed Design PP. 142-149

Recommendation

THAT Report 20-200(CD), Riverside Dam – Resuming Detailed Design, be received;

AND THAT Capital Project A/00024-20 Riverside Dam Detailed Design be approved to resume. 8. 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive PP. 150-179 Strategy - Cambridge

Recommendation

THAT Report 20-170 (CD), 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive Strategy - Cambridge, be received for information.

9. Approval of the Amended Grand River Source Protection Plan PP. 180-191

Recommendation

THAT Report No. 20-194(CD) re: Approval of the Amended Grand River Source Protection Plan be received as information.

Corporate Services

10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Cambridge Supporting Local PP. 192-195 Journalism

Recommendation

WHEREAS a healthy, professional news media is essential for the proper functioning of civil society and democracy at the local, regional, federal and international levels;

WHEREAS the Public Policy Forum declares — on its website for the 2017 report The Shattered Mirror: News, Democracy and Trust in the Digital Age (commissioned by the federal government) — that “real news is in crisis” in this country; WHEREAS the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cited eight “critical information needs” the media help to provide including emergencies; other public risks to health; education; the environment; economic opportunities; civic and political knowledge of policy initiatives; and the conduct of public officials, and candidates for office (The Shattered Mirror p.4);

WHEREAS Canadians have lost the essential services provided by roughly 2,000 media workers in 100 communities across Canada due to layoffs in only six weeks from the time the COVID-19 pandemic began — a time it became clearer to the public how important it is for Canadians to receive accurate information — and advertising revenues have plunged, prompting an emergency $30-million advertising-buy by the federal government; WHEREAS residents of 190 Canadian communities — including residents of Kitchener, Elmira and Guelph – lost 250 established news outlets due to closings or mergers between 2008 and 2018;

WHEREAS nearly two thirds of Canadians agree or somewhat agree that because of the Coronavirus/Covid-19 outbreak the federal government should treat widespread media bankruptcies and lay-offs as an emergency, according to a Nanos Research poll of April 2020;

WHEREAS the federal government allocated nearly $600 million in aid for Canadian media over five years in its 2019 budget, including a 25-per-cent tax credit for newsroom salaries; a 15-per-cent tax credit for digital media subscribers; and charitable tax status for non-profit news outlets;

WHEREAS Canada’s federal government acknowledged in its 2019 budget (p. 173) that “A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy.”;

WHEREAS the news media in Waterloo Region have been instrumental during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring local citizens have accurate local information.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Cambridge Council

1. recognizes that a healthy, professional news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in our city;

2. urges nearby municipal councils and across Canada to recognize that a robust news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in their jurisdictions;

3. endorses legislation and regulations to support and rejuvenate news outlets across Canada;

4. urges the federal government to move quickly to pass legislation to ensure an ecosystem for a healthy news media to serve all Canadians; and,

5. that the resolution be forwarded to the area municipalities, local M.P.s and M.P.P.s and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Unfinished Business Notice of Motion

Introduction and Consideration of By-laws

20-82 Being a by-law of the City of Cambridge to dedicate certain lands as public highway [Allendale Road].

Confirmatory By-law

20-83 Being a by-law of the City of Cambridge to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge at its meeting held on the 8th day of September, 2020.

PASSED AND ENACTED this 8th day of September, 2020.

Close of Meeting Item #1 MINUTES Corporation of the City of Cambridge Special Council Meeting No. 24-20

Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Virtual Meeting

Council Members in Attendance: Councillors Adshade (Ward 6); Devine (Ward 2); Ermeta (Ward 8); Liggett (Ward 4) (Arrived 4:05); Mann (Ward 3); Reid (Ward 1); and Wolf (Ward 5) with Mayor McGarry in the Chair.

Staff Members in Attendance: David Calder, City Manager; Dave Bush, Deputy City Manager Corporate Services; Cheryl Zahnleiter, Deputy City Manager – Corporate Enterprise; Hardy Bromberg, Deputy City Manager – Community Development; Lisa Shields, City Solicitor; James Goodram, Director of Economic Development; Sheryl Ayres, Chief Financial Officer; Yogesh Shah, Director of Asset Management and PMO; Sarah Austin, Acting Director of Engineering; Elaine Brunn Shaw, Chief Planner; Deanne Friess, Manager of Development Planning; Bryan Cooper, Senior Planner; Matthew Blevins, Senior Planner; Colin Westerhof, Planning Technician; Vanessa Lopak, Supervisor of Accessibility and Diversity; Danielle Manton, City Clerk; James Hutson, Deputy City Clerk.

Others in Attendance: Members of the general public are participating via Live Stream.

Meeting Called to Order

The meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge is held virtually via Microsoft Zoom and live streamed to the City of Cambridge website. Mayor McGarry welcomes everyone present and calls the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. and the meeting adjourns at 8:11 p.m.

Indigenous Territory Acknowledgement

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

There are no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Public Meetings

Statutory notice of today’s Public Meetings was given by publication in the Cambridge Times on Thursday, July 30, 2020 for Public Meetings A, B, and C

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 2

Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Presentations

1. Matthew Blevins, Senior Planner, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Matthew Blevins is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: Public Meeting Report - 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By- law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Delegations

1. Dave Galbraith, IBI Group, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Dave Galbraith is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

2. Bill Zachary, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Bill Zachary is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

3. Dawn Joseph, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Dawn Joseph is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 3

4. Charles van der Meulen, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Charles van der Meulen is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

5. Chris Ribeiro, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Chris Ribeiro is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

6. Sue Murphy, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Sue Murphy is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

7. Kolby Thompson Latimer, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Kolby Thompson Latimer is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

The Chair called for a recess to allow additional members of the public attending virtually to call in to speak regarding Public Meeting A.

No further persons contacted requesting to speak.

A. Public Meeting Report – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 4

Motion: 20-184 Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Ermeta

THAT report 20-181(CD) be received;

AND THAT the applications OR01/20 for 15 Clover Avenue be referred back to staff for a subsequent report and staff recommendation.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 6-1

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed: Councillor Ermeta

The Chair declared Public Meeting A closed at 11:59 a.m.

Public Meeting B – 215 Blenheim Rd – Zoning By-law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-20101 - Grand Ridge Estates Limited

Presentations

1. Bryan Cooper, Senior Planner, re: Public Meeting B – 215 Blenheim Rd – Zoning By- law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-20101 - Grand Ridge Estates Limited

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Bryan Cooper is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: Public Meeting Report - 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By- law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Delegations

1. Brandon Flewwelling, re: Public Meeting B – 215 Blenheim Rd – Zoning By-law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-20101 - Grand Ridge Estates Limited

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 5

Brandon Flewwelling is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: Public Meeting Report - 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

2. John Cressman, re: Public Meeting B – 215 Blenheim Rd – Zoning By-law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-20101 - Grand Ridge Estates Limited

John Cressman is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting A: Public Meeting Report - 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

The Chair called for a recess to allow additional members of the public attending virtually to call in to speak regarding Public Meeting B.

No further persons contacted requesting to speak.

B. Public Meeting Report – 215 Blenheim Rd – Zoning By-law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-20101 - Grand Ridge Estates Limited

Motion: 20-185 Moved By: Councillor Wolf Seconded By: Councillor Adshade

THAT report 20-140(CD) be received;

AND THAT the application R03/20 and 30T-20101 for 215 Blenheim Rd. be referred back to staff for a subsequent report and staff recommendation

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

The Chair declared Public Meeting B closed at 12:52 p.m.

Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 6

Presentations

1. Matthew Blevins, Senior Planner, re: Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By- law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Matthew Blevins is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Delegations

1. Miles Weekes, A.J. Clarke & Associates, Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Miles Weekes is in attendance virtually to speak to Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari). A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is on file in the Clerk’s Division.

The Chair called for a recess to allow additional members of the public attending virtually to call in to speak regarding Public Meeting C.

No further persons contacted requesting to speak.

C. Public Meeting Report – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Motion: 20-186 Moved By: Councillor Reid Seconded By: Councillor Devine

THAT report 20-132(CD) be received;

AND THAT the applications R07/20 & 30T-20103 for 285 Limerick Road be referred back to staff for a subsequent report and staff recommendation.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 7

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

The Chair declared Public Meeting C closed at 2:20 p.m.

Delegations

1. Paul Britton, MHBC Planning, re: item 4, Cambridge West/Westwood Village – Proposed Community Features

Paul Britton is in attendance virtually to speak to item 4, Cambridge West/Westwood Village – Proposed Community Features.

See item #4 – Resolution #20-188

2. Joe-Ann McComb, Kinbridge Community Association, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Joe-Ann McComb is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

3. Bob Howison, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Bob Howison is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

4. Jeff Willmer, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 8

Jeff Willmer is not in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge. A copy of comments is attached as correspondence.

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

5. Dominique Malogorski, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Dominique Malogorski is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

6. Kayla Andrade, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Kayla Andrade is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

7. Sandy Falkiner, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Sandy Falkiner is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

8. Dino Virgo, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Dino Virgo is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 9

9. Zoe Bakker, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Zoe Bakker is in attendance virtually to speak to item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

See item #5 – Resolution #20-189

Consent Procedure

THAT all items listed under the heading of Consent Procedure for Tuesday, August 25, 2020, Council Agenda be adopted as recommended.

Motion: 20-187 Moved By: Councillor Ermeta Seconded By: Councillor Adshade

1. Special Council Minutes – August 11, 2020

THAT the minutes from the Special Council meeting held on August 11, 2020 be approved.

2. Natural Heritage Trust Fund – Next Steps

THAT staff report No. 20-087(CD) Natural Heritage Trust Fund – Next Steps – be received as information;

AND THAT Council dissolve and transfer the Natural Heritage Trust Fund to the City’s Replacement Tree Planting Reserve Fund in order for Forestry Staff to plant large trees at City-owned splashpad and/or playground locations as a Community Climate Adaptation Plan and Urban Forest Plan implementation action.

3. Holding Removal – 800 Briardean Rd – River Mill Development Corporation

THAT report 20-139(CD) be received;

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 10

AND THAT Cambridge Council approves the application to remove the ‘H’ Holding Provision from the subject property;

AND FURTHER THAT the By-law attached to report 20-139(CD) is passed.

7. July 10, 2020 Council Information Package

THAT the July 10, 2020 Council Information package (CIP) be received as information.

8. August 11, 2020 Council Information Package

THAT the August 11, 2020 Council Information package (CIP) be received as information.

9. Capital Projects Status and Forecast Update

THAT Report 20-177(CRE) re: Capital Projects Status Update as of June 30, 2020 be received;

AND THAT the closure of capital projects identified to be closed in report 20-177(CRE) be approved;

AND THAT the capital forecast changes requiring approval under the Budget Control By-law as identified in report 20-177(CRE) be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT transfers to and from reserve funds as identified in report 20- 177(CRE) be approved.

10. 2019 Annual Financial Report

THAT Report 20-196(CRS) and the 2019 Annual Financial Report be received for information.

11. Safe Restart Funding Agreement

THAT Report 20-202(CRS) re: Safe Restart Funding Agreement be received.

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 11

AND THAT the City’s share of funding received from the Safe Restart Agreement be transferred to the Rate Stabilization Reserve.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Consideration of Reports

Community Development

4. Cambridge West/Westwood Village – Proposed Community Features

Motion: 20-188 Moved By: Councillor Wolf Seconded By: Councillor Mann

THAT Council receive report 20-156(CD) for information;

AND THAT Council endorse the “above service level” community features proposed by the developer group for the Cambridge West/Westwood community as described in report 20-156(CD);

AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to complete the review (including accessibility review) of the community features through the detailed design process for the draft plans of subdivision.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

5. Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Mann

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 12

THAT Report 20-197(CD) Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge be received as information and referred back to staff for a subsequent report and feasibility analysis.

MOTION WITHDRAWN

Motion: 20-189 Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Mann

THAT Council authorizes staff to complete community consultation and provide a

feasibility report on other city owned locations except for parkland, which support the

Regions mission to provide affordable housing for our community.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 6-2

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed: Councillor’s Devine and Liggett,

Corporate Enterprise

6. Industrial Land Sale – 1.28 acres in the Boxwood Business Campus

Motion: 20-190 Moved By: Councillor Reid Seconded By: Councillor Devine

THAT Report 20-188 (CRE), re: Industrial Land Sale – 1.28 acres in the Boxwood Business Campus be received;

AND THAT Council authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Corporation of the City of Cambridge and VFD Solutions Inc., for 1.28 acres of property as shown on Appendix “A”, at a price of Four Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($448,000);

AND THAT the net proceeds of the sale of land be transferred to the Economic Development Reserve Fund.

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 13

AND FURTHER THAT council authorizes staff to transfer Development Charge funding for soft services from the Economic Development Reserve Fund to the applicable Development Charge Funds including Fire, General Government, City wide Engineering and Public Works accounts.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 8-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Corporate Services

12. Interim Status Update on Stronger Together: City of Cambridge Diversity, Accessibility, and Inclusion Action Plan

Motion: 20-191 Moved By: Councillor Devine Seconded By: Councillor Ermeta

THAT Report 20-201(CRS) Interim Status Update on Stronger Together: City of Cambridge Diversity, Accessibility, and Inclusion Action Plan be received.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 8-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

13. Regional Council Composition and Review Process

Motion: 20-192 Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Wolf

THAT Report 20-207 (CRS) re: Regional Council Composition and Review Process be received;

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 14

AND THAT Council support Option 1, being the continuation of the current Regional Council composition model, as set out in the Region of Waterloo Report PDL-CAS-20- 05;

AND THAT the City Clerk be directed to submit this report and the adopted resolution to the Regional Clerk for the Region’s review and consideration.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-1

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed: Councillor’s Ermeta

14. 2020 Ward 7 By-Election Update

Motion: 20-193 Moved By: Councillor Reid Seconded By: Councillor Ermeta

THAT Report 20-209(CRS) 2020 Ward 7 By-election update be received;

AND THAT Council approve a budget of $235,000 for the Municipal By-election;

AND FURTHER THAT funding in the amount of $185,000 be transferred from the Election Reserve Fund.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-1

In Favour: Councillor’s Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed: Councillor Wolf

15. Meeting Times for the Revised Schedule of Council Meetings September – December, 2020

Motion: 20-194 Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Devine

THAT Council determine start times for the Special Council Meetings approved on August 11, 2020 as 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. as noted in Appendix “A” of Report 20-

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 15

203(CRS) being the Revised Schedule of Special Council Meetings to be held from September – December, 2020.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 5-2

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed: Councillor’s Liggett and Ermeta

Consideration of Matters in Closed Session

Motion: 20-195 Moved By: Councillor Ermeta Seconded By: Councillor Mann

In accordance with Section s.239 (2) (c) and (f) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Council to convene in Closed Session to consider the following subject matters:

1. A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality (Negotiations regarding potential land acquisition);

2. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Verbal Update on a Legal Matter)

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 8-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Council to Rise from Closed Session

Motion: 20-196 Moved By: Councillor Devine Seconded By: Councillor Wolf

THAT Council rise from closed session and reconvene in open session.

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 16

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 8-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Unfinished Business

Correspondence

1. Kerry Rush, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

2. Bailey Gladwin, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

3. Shannon Mastaler, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

4. Cheryl and James Gregory, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

5. Andrea Ireland, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

6. Leanne Love, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

7. Adam Love, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

8. Susan Bridges, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

9. Cinnamon Cantwell, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

10. Kelly Potocky, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

11. Robert and Donna Sprenger, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 17

12. Julie Currie, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

13. Lisa Maitland-Charles, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

14. Peter Dalton, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

15. Pamela Kent, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

16. David Kivell, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

17. Terra Dittenhoffer, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

18. Kim Herbert, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

19. Prakash Venkataraman, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

20. Sherri Roy, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

21. Sue Woznuk, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

22. Dominique Malogorski, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

23. Cole Jensen, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

24. Ravi Peddamudium and Mary Alice Mesa, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

25. Christine Brennan, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

26. Terra Almeida, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 18

27. Paul van Heeswyk, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

28. Melinda Kregar, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

29. Stephanie Pye, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

30. Alison Thomas, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

31. Jeremy and Elizabeth Clark, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

32. Kelly Potocky, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

33. Howard & Vicki McPhail, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

34. Pat Stager, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

35. Tammy Yetman, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

36. Dominic Tantalo, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

37. Paula Surdin, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

38. William Howarth, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

39. Laurie and Craig Turner, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

40. Stefano Almeida, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

41. Sara Byma, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 19

42. Linda Burnside, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

43. Sharon Forbes, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

44. Jaimey Andrade, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

45. Allison Preston, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

46. Erin Dej, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

47. Janelle McGlashan & Roger Leavitt, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

48. Jennifer Smith, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

49. Brad Boomer, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

50. Sam and Emma Livesey, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

51. Janelle McGlashan and Roger Leavitt, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

52. Susan Preston, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

53. Joe Hall, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

54. Dennis Gouveia, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

55. Nellie Cabral Melo, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

56. Rick Faulkner, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 20

57. Kayla Andrade and Jenn Roswell, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

58. Joyce Buell, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

59. Anonymous, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

60. Anonymous, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

61. Anonymous, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

62. Francis & Michelle Kerins , re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

63. Carol Thorman, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

64. Dave Zerfas, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

65. Tori Kennedy, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

66. Benoit Michaud, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

67. Dan Bacon, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

68. Diane, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

69. Jane Power, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

70. Samantha Little, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

71. Leanne Cwilewicz, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 21

72. Dino Guerra, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

73. Kenneth Freitas, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

74. Melissa Naylor, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

75. Alison Vanandel, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

76. Heather Heaney, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

77. Jessica Sousa, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

78. Tj Wray, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

79. Craig and Maria Hillier, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

80. Mike Luyckx, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

81. Jessica Richard-Wray, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

82. Paul-Michael Baillairge, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

83. Robyn Carey, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

84. Nicole Correia, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

85. Sharon Rice, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

86. Eian Campbell, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 22

87. Beth Deekon, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

88. Kayleigh Holden, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

89. Lorraine, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

90. Kathleen Mussia, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

91. Kerry Hertner, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

92. Paul Kotsamanes, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

93. Jeff Willmer, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

94. Barry Furzer, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

95. Dayle Meloche, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

96. David Drobena, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

97. Tracy Young, re: item 5, Alternative Housing Proposal at Churchill Park – Citizens for Cambridge

98. Sue Stubley, re: Cambridge West/Westwood Village – Proposed Community Features

99. Scott McGowan, Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

100. Dawn & Frank Joseph, Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By- law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

101. Rob Zachary, Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 23

102. Charles van der Meulen, re: Public Meeting A – 15 Clover Avenue, Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments – 10184217 Canada Corporation (Hunain Siddiqui)

103. Dana Jenkins, re: Public Meeting C – 285 Limerick Road, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2404445 Ontario Inc. (Arvin Zarkari)

Notice of Motion

1. Councillor Liggett – 150 Main Street

Motion: 20-197 Moved By: Councillor Liggett Seconded By: Councillor Devine

WHEREAS the Cambridge Downtown is in a vulnerable stage of precarious economic regeneration; and

WHEREAS the community of Cambridge has shown their concern for the deterioration of the Cambridge Downtown; and

WHEREAS the businesses in Downtown Cambridge have shown their concern for the progressive deterioration of the Cambridge Downtown placing them at risk; and

WHEREAS Council understands and accepts that these concerns are considered to be true; and

WHEREAS council also recognizes the significant need for social services and supportive programs in the City of Cambridge; and

WHEREAS 150 Main St is a prominently placed property in the Cambridge Downtown providing for those services; and

WHEREAS the Upper Tier municipality of the Region of Waterloo is the owner of 150 Main;

NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THAT Council directs staff to investigate the possible acquisition of the property located at 150 Main St from the Region of Waterloo;

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 24

AND FURTHER THAT Council also directs staff to participate in those discussions with mutual consideration and understanding of the needs for both parties to be dealt with in the spirit of cooperation and joint action for further discussion towards collaborative solutions.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 8-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Liggett, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Introduction and Consideration of By-laws

Motion: 20-198 Moved By: Councillor Adshade Seconded By: Councillor Devine

20-80 Being a By-law of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge to amend Zoning By- law No. 150-85, as amended, with respect to the blocks 43 and 44, draft plan 30T-12103 and blocks 1 and 4, draft plan 30T-12104

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Confirmatory By-law

Motion: 20-199 Moved By: Councillor Wolf Seconded By: Councillor Ermeta

20-81 Being a by-law of the City of Cambridge to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge at its meeting held on the 25th day of August, 2020.

PASSED AND ENACTED this 25th day of August, 2020.

Cambridge City Council Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Page 25

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

Close of Meeting

Motion: 20-200 Moved By: Councillor Devine Seconded By: Councillor Reid

THAT the August 25, 2020 Special Council meeting does now adjourn at 8:11 p.m.

CARRIED, on a recorded vote 7-0

In Favour: Councillor’s Wolf, Reid, Devine, Mann, Ermeta, Adshade and Mayor McGarry

Opposed:

, MINUTES Item #2

Corporation of the City of Cambridge The Committee of Adjustment Committee Meeting

Virtual Zoom Meeting Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Committee Members in Attendance: Don Drackley, Gerald Menezes and Danette Dalton, Catherine Thompson, Sandi Nicholls, Chair.

Regrets: N/A

Staff Members in Attendance: Deanne Friess, Manager Development Planning, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer and Maria Skara, Recording Secretary

Meeting Called to Order

The regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Cambridge was held on Zoom and live streamed on the City of Cambridge YouTube channel. Sandi Nicholls, Chair, welcomed the Committee and everyone present and called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and the meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m.

Disclosure of Interest:

Sandi Nicholls declared pecuniary interest regarding A25/20-16-20 George St

Committee Business

Adoption of Committee Minutes

Moved by: Catherine Thompson

Seconded by: Gerald Menezes

THAT the Committee of Adjustment minutes from the March 11, 2020 meeting be approved.

CARRIED

Notice

Applications

Application No.: A25/20

Property: 16-20 George St

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 2

PLAN 473 BLK G PT LOTS 11; AND 12 Property Owner: 2678752 Ontario Inc. Applicant: David Aston, MHBC Planning

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Dave Aston, from MHBC Planning, was in attendance to speak to the minor variance application.

2. Patrick Simmons, expressed concern with the height and setbacks of the project. Believes proposed project does not fit in the existing neighbourhood, and the variances are not minor in nature. Queen Square most important public space in Cambridge.

3. Angela Asodoorian, resident of 26 Wenworth Ave, speaking on behalf of all residents living in her condo. Not anti-development but have concerns with the density for the property and the number of units. Has concerns with the setbacks, which could pose a safety issue for pedestrians.

4. Darrin Noble, resident of 6 Crescent Place, expressed concerns with the height and density of the proposed project. Also had concerns with the 0 m setback will be a safety issue sightline is too short.

5. Christine Rear, from the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, was the last delegate to speak to this application. Has requested that the Committee deny the variances, as they are not minor in nature. Queen Square is a magnet for the Cambridge community and believes the building will negatively affect the square and other neighbours.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 3

DECISION

Application No.: A25/20

DECISION: 16-20 George St PLAN 473 BLK G PT LOTS 11; AND 12 Moved By: Don Drackley Seconded By: Gerald Menezes

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to facilitate the construction of a new 43 unit mixed-use development:

1. Building height of 18 m (59 ft.) whereas the zoning by-law permits a maximum of 15 m (49.2 ft.);

2. Density of 262 units/hectare whereas the zoning by-law permits a maximum of 250 units/hectare;

3. A front yard setback of 0 m (0 ft.) whereas the zoning by-law requires 4.5 m (14.7 ft.);

4. Interior side yard setbacks of 1.5 m (4.9 ft.) whereas the zoning by-law requires 12 m (39.4 ft); and

5. Private amenity area of 601.9 m² (6,478.8 ft²) whereas the zoning by-law requires 1,050 m² (11,302ft²), be deferred for a maximum of 90 days.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation, the applicant’s presentation in relation to the application, and as well as neighbour and delegate oral and written comments on the issues regarding height, density, amenity area, setbacks, traffic impacts and heritage impacts. The application is therefore deferred for a maximum of 90 days to allow the applicant additional time to reconsider the scale and magnitude of the proposal and provide additional information regarding access and egress to the site.

Application No.: A60/19

Property: 2411 Eagle St N PLAN 1375 PT LOT 27

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 4

Property Owner: Ali Omar Applicant: Ali Omar

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Ali Omar, owner of 2411 Eagle St N was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons come forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A60/19

DECISION: 2411 Eagle St N PLAN 1375 PT LOT 27

Moved By: Danette Dalton

Seconded By: Don Drackley

That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit the sale of 5 used motor vehicles as an accessory use on the subject property with no service bay whereas the by-law only permits the sale of used motor vehicles subject to the number of service bays, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That the sale of used motor vehicles only be permitted as long as there is a motor vehicle repair or auto body repair shop on the subject lands.

2. That a maximum of 5 used motor vehicles may be for sale from the site at a time (independent from the number permitted by current service bays).

3. That the used motor vehicles for sale are located and displayed within the rear yard of the subject property. Only one used motor vehicle for sale may be displayed in the front parking lot.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 5

4. That the applicant submits an updated site plan to reflect the maximum of 5 used motor vehicles for sale from the site at a time, to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application. There were no further delegates to speak to this application. The application is approved with conditions, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.: A14/20

Property: 23 Cherry Taylor Ave PLAN 58M-582 LOT 250

Property Owner: Singh Raghvir

Applicant: Singh Raghvir

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Ragvir Singh, owner of 23 Cherry Taylor Ave was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A14/20

DECISION: 23 Cherry Taylor Ave

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 6

PLAN 58M-582 LOT 250

Moved By: Danette Dalton

Seconded By: Gerald Menezes

That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum lot area of approximately 362.18 m² (3,898 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843.76 ft²) for an accessory apartment, be approved subject to the following condition:

1. That the proposed secondary unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to two bedrooms. CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application. There were no further delegates to speak to the application. Therefore, the application is approved with one condition, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.: A17/20

Property: 148 Wheatland PLAN 58M120 LOT 14 Property Owner: Asif Ilyas & Fatima Ali Seema Applicant: Asif Ilyas & Fatima Ali Seema

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Asif Ilyas, owner of 148 Wheatland was present to speak to the minor variance application.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 7

2. Eian Campbell, owner of 140 Wheatland Drive was in attendance to speak to the minor variance application on behalf of his neighbours. Eian and his neighbours have concerns on whether the applicants will be able to support the required parking spots. Eian indicated that applicants widened their driveway and that they already have a large number of cars on the property. Has safety concerns with the number of cars parked on the street, many children are in the neighbourhood and there is no sidewalk on one side of the street. Neighbourhood is a single family neighbourhood and does not want to set precedence with secondary dwelling units.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A17/20

DECISION: 148 Wheatland PLAN 58M120 LOT 14 Moved By: Don Drackley Seconded By: Catherine Thompson

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from the Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit: That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum lot area of 366 m² (3,939.59 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 450 m² (4,843.76 ft²) for an accessory apartment, be deferred to the August 26, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation, the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application, and as well as neighbours’ oral and written comments regarding the number of bedrooms, parking concerns and driveway widening. The application is deferred to allow the applicant additional time to provide a more comprehensive and accurate floor plan of the proposed accessory unit, confirm if the driveway has been widened and reflect any changes on the site plan.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 8

Application No.: A18/20

Property: 156 Beck St PLAN 195 PT LOT 244 Property Owner: Derek Aiden McGrath & Matthew John Dahmer Applicant: Derek Aiden McGrath Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Derek McGrath, owner of 156 Beck St was present to speak to the application. Mr. McGrath had indicated he had a similar application on Beck St heard at a previous Committee of Adjustment meeting that had been approved.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A18/20

DECISION: 156 Beck Street PLAN 195 PT LOT 244

Moved By: Gerald Menezes

Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit an accessory apartment:

1. A secondary dwelling that is 43% of the total floor area whereas the by-law only permits the accessory apartment to be a maximum floor area of 40% of the principal dwelling, and

2. A minimum lot area of approximately 398 m² (4,284.04 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843.76 ft²) for an accessory apartment,

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 9 be approved subject to the following condition:

1. That the proposed secondary unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to one bedroom.

CARRIED

REASONS:

Application No.: A19/20

Property: 152 Beck St PLAN 195 PT LOT 243 Property Owner: Derek Aiden McGrath & Matthew John Dahmer Applicant: Derek Aiden McGrath

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

No further person came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A19/20

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 10

DECISION: 152 Beck St PLAN 195 PT LOT 243

Moved By: Gerald Menezes

Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit an accessory apartment:

1. A secondary dwelling that is 43% of the total floor area whereas the by-law only permits the accessory apartment unit to be a maximum floor area of 40% of the principal dwelling, and

2. A minimum lot area of approximately 398 m² (4,284.04 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843.76 ft²) for an accessory apartment, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That the proposed secondary unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to one bedroom.

CARRIED

REASONS:

Application No.: A20/20

Property: 140 Cooper St PLAN 2 LOT 14 Property Owner: Powell Damien Haffell

Applicant: Matt Morningstar, Caliber Contracting

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 11

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Matt Morningstar, agent for 140 Cooper St was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A20/20

DECISION: 140 Cooper St PLAN 2 LOT 14

Moved By: Catherine Thompson Seconded By: Don Drackley

That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum interior side yard of approximately 0.27 m (0.75 ft.) whereas 0.6 m (1.9 ft.) is required for an accessory structure, in order to convert the existing accessory building into a one bedroom accessory apartment, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That the proposed secondary unit be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the minor variance application and is limited to one bedroom, and

2. That there be no windows or doors installed along the western wall of the accessory building.

CARRIED

REASONS:

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 12 of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.: A21/20

Property: 101 Shade St PLAN D8 LOT 23 PT LOT 24 Property Owner: Giuseppe & Lisa Machado Mastrangelo

Applicant: Giuseppe & Lisa Machado Mastrangelo

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Joe Mastrangelo, owner of 101 Shade Street was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A21/20

DECISION: 101 Shade Street PLAN D8 LOT 23 PT LOT 24

Moved By: Danette Dalton Seconded By: Gerald Menezes

That the applicant’s request for the following variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit: 1. An interior side yard setback of 0.2 m (0.65ft.) whereas a minimum of 1.0 m (3.2 ft.) is required from a deck, and

2. An interior side yard setback of 0.30 m (0.98 ft.) whereas a minimum of 0.6 m (1.9 ft.) is required from an accessory structure,

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 13 be approved subject to the following condition:

1. That the proposed deck be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted.

CARRIED

REASONS:

Application No.: A31/20

Property: 12 Dellgrove Cir PLAN 58M353 LOT 104 Property Owner: Majeed Mohtsham & Tooba Mohtsham Applicant: Majeed Mohtsham & Tooba Mohtsham

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Majeed Mohtsham, owner of 12 Dellgrove was present to speak to the minor variance application. 2. Graham Price, owner of 128 Dellgrove Cir was present to speak to the minor variance application. He expressed concerns with the density and parking in the neighbourhood. Lots of cars parked on the street and lots of children live in the neighbourhood, poses safety issue. Secondary dwelling units will ruin character of neighbourhood. 3. Scott Sivyer, 8 Dellgrove Cir was present to speak to the minor variance application. Indicated that another neighbour wrote in a lengthy email on the concerns regarding allowing secondary dwelling units in the neighbourhood.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 14

Gerlad Menezes, spoke through the Chair on concerns regarding the increased lot size and believes there is not sufficient living area for the primary resident and residents of the secondary dwelling unit

DECISION

Application No.: A31/20

DECISION: 12 Dellgrove Cir PLAN 58M353 LOT 104

Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum lot area of approximately 327 m² (3,519 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843 ft²) to permit an accessory apartment, be refused.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation, the applicant’s oral comments, as well as oral and written comments from neighbours and delegates in relation to the application. The application is refused, as the Committee is of the opinion that the increased lot coverage zoning provision within the subdivision has resulted in insufficient lot area and insufficient amenity space to accommodate a secondary dwelling unit and will not result in appropriate development or use of the property.

Application No.: A32/20

Property: 16 Dellgrove Cir PLAN 58M353 LOT 105 Property Owner: Rageshkumar & Bhavanaben Patel Applicant: Rageshkumar & Bhavanaben Patel

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 15

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Ragesh Patel, owner of 16 Dellgrove was present to speak to the minor variance application. 2. Graham Price, owner of 128 Dellgrove Cir was present to speak to the minor variance application. He expressed concern with the density and parking in the neighbourhood. Lots of cars parked on the street and lots of children live in the neighbourhood, poses safety issue. Secondary dwelling units will ruin character of neighbourhood. 3. Scott Sivyer, 8 Dellgrove Cir was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A32/20

DECISION: 16 Dellgrove Cir PLAN 58M353 LOT 105

Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

CARRIED

REASONS:

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 16 amenity space to accommodate a secondary dwelling unit and will not result in appropriate development or use of the property.

Application No.: A33/20

Property: 214 Baldwin Dr PLAN 58M458 LOT 19 Property Owner: Donna Simonovic Applicant: Malav Shah, BluesPrintPermit

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Malav Shah, agent for 214 Baldwin was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A33/20

DECISION: 214 Baldwin PLAN 58M458 LOT 19

Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request for the following variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit:

1. A minimum lot area of approximately 345 m² (3,713 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 450 m² (4,843 ft²) to permit an accessory dwelling unit, and

2. A secondary entrance door in the reduced side yard whereas site specific provision s.4.1.277 does not permit doors, windows, or other openings on the side of a building where the yard is reduced. be refused.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 17

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation, the applicant’s oral comments, as well as written comments from neighbours in relation to the application. The application is refused, as the Committee is of the opinion that the increased lot coverage zoning provision within the subdivision has resulted in insufficient lot area and insufficient amenity space to accommodate a secondary dwelling unit and will not result in an appropriate development or use of the property.

Application No.: A27/20

Property: 30 Goddard Cres PLAN 58R-18484 PART 14 AND PART15 OF LOT 29 Property Owner: Hewson Brothers

Applicant: Bojan Markovic, CRD Construction Limited

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Bojan Markovic, agent for 30 Goddard Cres was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: A27/20

DECISION: 30 Goddard Cres PLAN 58R-18484 PART 14 AND PART15 OF LOT 29

Moved By: Catherine Thompson Seconded By: Don Drackley

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 18

That the applicant’s request for a minor variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum interior side yard of approximately 2.51 m (8.23 ft.) whereas 3.5 m (11.4 ft.) is required, in order to permit the construction of two furnace condensers, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the minor variance sketch is consistent with the plans submitted with the site plan application file (SP02/19), and

2. That the reduced interior side-yard setback only applies to the south side lot frontage in the location of the two furnace condensers.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application. There were no further delegates to speak to the application. Therefore, the application is approved with conditions, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.: A28/20

Property: Cambridge West CON 12 PT SUB LOTS 1 AND 2;WGR Property Owner: Cachet Developments (Cam West)

Applicant: Dan Currie, MHBC Planning

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Dan Currie, agent for Cambridge West was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 19

Application No.: A28/20

DECISION: Cambridge West CON 12 PT SUB LOTS 1 AND 2;WGR

Moved By: Danette Dalton Seconded By: Gerald Menezes

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from Zoning By-law150-85 to permit:

1. Single detached dwellings to have a maximum garage width of 52.2% of the lot frontage whereas the site specific by-law 4.2.359 only allows for a maximum garage width of 50% of the lot frontage,

2. Interior garage space dimensions of 2.9 m by 5.5 m (9.5 ft. x 18.1 ft.), and

3. Secondary dwelling (accessory apartment) units on R6 Residential lots with a minimum lot frontage of 9 m (29.5 ft.) for interior lots and 11.6 m (38.1 ft.) for corner lots with minimum lot areas of 255 m² (2,744.8 ft²) whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 11 m (36.0 ft.) for interior lots and 15 m (49.2 ft.) for corner lots with minimum lot areas of 450 m² (4,843.8 ft²),

be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That the proposed singe detached dwellings with double car garages be built substantially in accordance with the concept plans submitted with this variance applications.

2. That a secondary dwelling unit on a reduced lot size be limited to a maximum of one bedroom.

3. That these variances be addressed in the building designs in accordance with the final Urban Design Guidelines for the Cambridge West/Westwood Village dated August 2019. Certification of compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines will be completed by a Qualified Professional to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner.

4. That the owner/applicant pays the applicable plan review fee of $275.00 to the Grand River Conservation authority.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 20

5. That the owner/applicant submits revised plans to the satisfaction of Energy+ Inc. All minor variance requests/changes must be reflected in the latest draft plans submitted to Energy+ Inc. prior to approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application. There were no further delegates to speak to the application. Therefore, the application is approved with conditions, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.: A29/20

Property: 542 Mildred St PLAN 353 PT LOT 14 RP67R3405;PART 7

Property Owner: Mourik Shawn Casey Van & Shauna Leigh Crossman

Applicant: Shauna Leigh Crossman

Presentation Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the minor variance application.

Delegations

1. Shauna Crossman, owner of 542 Mildred St was present to speak to the minor variance application.

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: 542 Mildred St PLAN 353 PT LOT 14 RP67R3405;PART 7

Moved By: Don Drackley

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 21

Seconded By: Catherine Thompson

That the applicant’s request for the following minor variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit: 1. The location of the required parking space in front of the regulatory building line (6m from the front property line), whereas the by-law does not permit the required parking space to be located in front of the regulatory building line, and

2. Front yard landscaping of approximately 23% whereas a minimum of 45% of the front yard is required to be maintained as open landscaping, be refused.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation, the applicant’s oral comments, as well as written comments from the neighbour in relation to the application. The application is refused, as the Committee is of the opinion that this will not result in the appropriate development of the property as there would be insufficient front yard landscaping to maintain a consistent streetscape and insufficient parking spaces if the garage were to be converted into a living space.

Application No.’s: B08/20, A37/20 & A38/20

Property: 400 Allendale Rd CON BEASLEYS BROKEN FRONT PT;LOT 18 Property Owner: Nino Orasanin Applicant: Nino Orasanin

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the severance and minor variance applications.

Delegations

1. Nino Orasanin, owner of 400 Allendale Rd, was present to speak to the minor variance application.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 22

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: B08/20

DECISION: 400 Allendale Rd CON BEASLEYS BROKEN FRONT PT;LOT 18 Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request to sever a rural residential property to create a new parcel with an approximate area of 3,125 m² (33,637 ft²) and 22.59 m (74.11 ft.) frontage along Allendale Road, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submits a copy of the deposited reference plan indicating the boundaries of the parcels, any easements/rights-of-way and building locations, to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division

2. Approval of minor variance applications A37/20 and A38/20.

3. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the consent review of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 4. That prior to final approval, the City of Cambridge provide confirmation that full municipal services (sanitary and water) have been constructed to the property line of the proposed severed and retained parcels as per the Allendale Road reconstruction project.

5. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant demolish the existing detached garage with a demolition permit issued by the City.

6. That the applicant submits a spatial separation report to the satisfaction of the Building Division to verify that the requirements of the Ontario Building Code are met for the amount of unprotected opening area (or window area for single family dwellings) permitted to face the property line for the existing dwelling unit.

7. That the applicant verifies the location of any existing septic systems on the property to the satisfaction of the Building Division in order to confirm that the system will not cross over any proposed property lines and is not shared with any adjacent properties.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 23

Existing septic systems may need to be modified as required in order to meet the required setbacks to the new property line.

8. That a servicing plan be prepared, to the satisfaction of City of Cambridge Development Engineering, detailing the location of the proposed services for each lot.

9. That a grading plan be prepared, to the satisfaction of City of Cambridge Development Engineering, for the overall development, including proposed locations of roof leaders, rear yard catch basins (if required) and swales.

10. That the owner/applicant submit a legal survey showing the existing property, existing easements, existing dwelling, existing hydro pole(s), anchors, secondary hydro wire- feed to the existing dwelling, proposed severance, proposed dwellings, proposed driveway, proposed electric plant to the satisfaction of Energy+ Inc. The survey must include dimensions. The Applicant is cautioned that a minimum clearance between the proposed driveway entrance and existing poles, guy wires and anchors is 1.5 meters. All easements (will be determined once satisfactory legal plan has been submitted) must be approved and registered at customer’s cost.

11. That the applicant dedicate an approximate 5.182 m (17 ft.) road widening across the frontage of the severed and retained lands for the widening of Allendale Road to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge Transportation Engineering Services.

12. That the owner/applicant decommissions the well in accordance with Regulation 903 of the Ontario Water Resources Act to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division.

13. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant pay cash-in-lieu of parkland at 5% of the value of the severed land. The applicant shall provide an opinion of value from a qualified appraiser, to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge, Planning Services, in determining the value of the severed land.

14. That the above noted conditions must be fulfilled and the document for conveyance be presented with the required fee for signing on or before August 1, 2021, after which time this consent will lapse.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application, as well as neighbour and delegate comments regarding flooding on the property. Therefore, the application is approved with conditions, as it is in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that with the approved conditions, the application meets the criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act to which all consent applications must adhere.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 24

DECISION

Application No.: A37/20 (Retained)

DECISION: 400 Allendale Road CON BEASLEYS BROKEN FRONT PT;LOT 18 Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request for the following variances from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit:

1. A minimum lot frontage of approximately 22.59 m (74.11 ft.) whereas the minimum requirement is 30 m (98.4 ft.) in the Rural Residential zone, and

2. A reduced westerly interior side yard setback of approximately 2.14 m (7 ft.) whereas the minimum requirement is 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) in the RR2 zone, be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Subject to approval of consent application B08/20.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application, as well as neighbour and delegate comments regarding grading on the property. Therefore, the application is approved with one condition, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

DECISION

Application No.: A38/20 (Severed)

DECISION: 400 Allendale Rd CON BEASLEYS BROKEN FRONT PT;LOT 18 Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 25

That the applicant’s request for a variance from Zoning By-law 150-85 to permit a minimum lot frontage of approximately 22.59 m (74.11 ft.) whereas the minimum requirement is 30 m (98.4 ft.) in the Rural Residential zone, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Subject to approval of consent application B08/20.

2. That the proposed dwelling be substantially in keeping with the plans submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division.

3. That the proposed dwelling maintains a front yard setback aligned with the existing dwelling on the retained parcel.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application, as well as neighbour and delegate comments regarding grading on the property. Therefore, the application is approved with conditions, as it is the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that the proposal meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is minor and will result in the appropriate development of the site.

Application No.’s: B10/20

Property: 20 Ainslie Rd N PLAN 615 LOT C W/S AINSLIE Property Owner: Wfg Estates Incorporated Applicant: Wfg Estates Incorporated

Presentation

Using a Power Point presentation, Rachel Greene, Secretary-Treasurer, provided an overview of the severance and minor variance applications.

Delegations

1. Rob Grant, owner of 20 Ainslie St N, was present to speak on the application.

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 26

No further persons came forward to speak to the minor variance application.

DECISION

Application No.: B10/20

DECISION: 20 Ainslie St N PLAN 615 LOT C W/S AINSLIE Moved By: Gerald Menezes Seconded By: Danette Dalton

That the applicant’s request to sever a parcel of land with an approximate lot area of 295 m² (3,175 ft²) and frontage of 3.96 m (12.99 ft.) for the purpose of a lot addition to the lands at 27 Dickson Street,

be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submits a copy of the deposited reference plan indicating the boundaries of the parcels, any easements/rights-of-way and building locations, to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division.

2. That the easement in favour of 60 Main Street is registered on the title of the new property.

3. Architect to submit a spatial separation report to the satisfaction of the Building Division to verify that the requirements of the Ontario Building Code are met for the amount of unprotected opening area permitted to face the new property line.

4. That the applicant verifies the location of any existing sanitary, storm and water services on the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Engineering Division in order to confirm that no services will cross over any proposed property lines or are shared with any adjacent properties. Where services cross property lines easements and/or servicing agreements shall be registered on title.

5. A firewall is required for the demising wall on the new property line (architect to address). A building permit would be required. Architect to submit floor plans of the building showing how/if the buildings would be interconnected. If the existing building

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 27

and the attached garage are interconnected, right of way easement(s) to be registered on title for both properties.

6. That a servicing/grading or survey plan be prepared, to the satisfaction of City of Cambridge Development Engineering, detailing the location of the existing services for the retained lot and any roof leader outlet locations.

7. That the owner/applicant pays the applicable plan review fee of $420.00 to the Grand River Conservation Authority.

8. That sections 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act apply so that the severed lands will be merged in title with the abutting parcel and that the applicant/owner provides a draft transfer from a solicitor to merge the severed piece with the property known municipally as 27 Dickson Street, to the satisfaction of the Planning Services Division.

9. That the above noted conditions must be fulfilled and the document for conveyance be presented with the required fee for signing on or before August 1, 2021, after which time this consent will lapse.

CARRIED

REASONS:

The Committee considered staff’s recommendation and the applicant’s oral comments in relation to the application. There were no further delegates to speak to the application. Therefore, the application is approved with conditions, as it is in the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment, that with the approved conditions, the application meets the criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act to which all consent applications must adhere.

Committee Business

Revised 2020 Committee of Adjustment Schedule

Moved By: Gerald Menezes

Seconded By: Danette Dalton

Close of Meeting

Moved By: Don Drackley

Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Page 28

Seconded By: Catherine Thompson

THAT the Committee of Adjustment Committee meeting does now adjourn at 10:58 p.m.

CARRIED

Sandi Nicholls, Chair

Maria Skara, Recording Secretary

Item #3

COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKAGE August 7, 2020 Table of Contents

Item From Subject Page 1 City of Cambridge – Strategic Plan Phase 1 Report Follow 2-3 Corporate Enterprise Up - IM20-016(CRE) 2 City of Cambridge – Business Outreach Survey (COVID-19) 4-11 Corporate Enterprise - IM20-017(CRE) 3 City of Cambridge – Cambridge Recreation Complex – 12-47 Corporate Enterprise School Boards MOU - IM20-019(CRE) 4 City of Cambridge – Virtual Public Consultation Format - 48-50 Community Development IM20-022(CD) 5 Cambridge Professional Letter to Mayor - IAFF Canada Fire Fighters’ Association Statement on Emergency Funding for 51-52 Local 499 Municipalities 6 City of Bellville Resolution re: Request for Provincial 53-54 Funding for Rehabilitation Facilities

Date: 07/27/2020 Internal Memo #: IM20-016(CRE)

To: Members of Council

Circulated to: Corporate Leadership Team

Department: Corporate Enterprise

Division: Corporate Strategy

From: Nicole Drake, Strategic Initiatives & Policy Specialist

Subject: Strategic Plan Phase 1 Report Follow Up

Comments

Following up on report 20-067(CRE) received on Tuesday, July 14, 2020, staff has reviewed the responses to the Community Satisfaction Survey in collaboration with Forum Research Inc. in order to provide additional information with regards to questions received from Council.

As noted, this was the first statistically significant community satisfaction survey for the City of Cambridge. While we recognize that this information represents a snap-shot in time, the survey data will provide a valuable baseline from which we can continue to monitor our progress. It will also be an input into many of our services and programs across the corporation as we explore ways that we can continuously improve.

The information gathered through the survey is high-level and identifies opportunities where we can ‘dig deeper’ in Phase 2 consultation in order to better understand how the City can effectively respond to concerns and challenges. As noted by Council, two of these areas relate to community safety and government transparency.

‘Safety of the Residents’

As requested, staff reviewed the verbatim responses to the open-ended question “What is the most important issue facing the City?” to further understand the difference between responses that were coded as “Crime and Violence” (9%) and “Safety of the Residents” (2%). As the presenter William Schatten from Forum Research indicated, there is a relationship between these responses. Because the question was open-ended, ‘Crime’ and ‘Safety’ are typically umbrella terms used by respondents for more general concerns, whereas others had more specific responses related to “Homelessness” (19%) and “Drug Use and Addiction” (19%).

In general, responses were coded based on their use of the exact words in the category, such ‘safety’ or ‘crime’. Often, these were one-word responses so the motivation for identifying the issues cannot be inferred; however, in other cases respondents elaborated. For example, in

the case of “Safety of the Residents” responses typically referred to overall safety of family or children, without specific reference to crime or other issues.

Government Transparency

Forum Research also performed some additional analysis on the telephone survey data aimed at understanding why the level of agreement with the statement “The City of Cambridge provides transparent government” scored lower than other statements about the City. It is not possible to infer what ‘transparent government’ means to respondents from this data, but it is possible to cross reference the responses regarding transparency with demographic characteristics and other responses.

Based on a preliminary review of the cross-referenced data, it becomes clear that respondents’ interpretation of transparency is not universal across different demographic groups. Not everyone experiences the City in the same way, and the transparency response correlates with lower levels of satisfaction in other areas of the survey. As noted, this is something that staff can explore more deeply in the next phase of consultation, in order to better understand how we can better serve specific segments of our population.

As the City moves forward with the development of its Strategic Plan, these results will help to inform additional consultation activities. Should you have any further questions about this project, please contact Brooke Lambert, Director of Corporate Strategy at [email protected]

Approvals: ☒ Manager/Supervisor ☒ Deputy City Manager ☒ City Manager

Date: 08/07/2020 Internal Memo #: IM20-017(CRE)

To: Mayor and Council

Circulated to: Corporate Leadership Team

Department: Corporate Enterprise

Division: Economic Development

From: James Goodram, Director of Economic Development

Subject: Business Outreach Survey (COVID-19)

Comments

Background

On May 28, 2020, the Economic Development Division launched a survey for Cambridge businesses to capture impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their operations. The survey was open for approximately four weeks, and closed on June 30, 2020.

Survey

This survey utilized the engageCambridge platform on the City’s website to invite public participation. It was also emailed directly to the top 100 employers in Cambridge, in addition to being promoted through the INVEST Cambridge newsletter and our corporate social media channels.

Engagement

The City published a news release and 18 social media posts regarding the survey. Social posts were engaged with (liked/shared/commented on) 99 times over Facebook and Twitter (53 and 46 times respectively). Additionally, the INVEST Cambridge newsletter had 400 opens and 22 click throughs to the survey.

There were 116 visits to the survey, however, only 45 local businesses registered through the site and completed the survey providing their feedback and insight.

Many business support organizations have undertaken surveys within the past 4 months, and while quality data is key for government organizations moving forward, the sheer number of surveys undertaken has led to survey fatigue throughout the business community.

Data

Workforce Contraction and Expansion

The 45 respondent businesses represented a workforce of 12,372 pre-COVID and currently employ 11,479, equaling a reduction of 893 employees or 7.21%. Reductions in staff were for a variety of reasons including: temporary closure, lack of work, employees lacking childcare and employees not wishing to return (concerned about falling ill or collecting a higher income on CERB).

Of the respondents, 3 businesses increased their staff complement, while 14 continued to employ the same number of employees.

The greatest staff complement contraction was seen in the Small/Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) category, with large employers maintaining full time equivalents (FTEs) with the assistance of government programs. Industries experiencing the greatest contraction in FTEs were in Manufacturing (Warehousing/Distribution/Contractor) and Hospitality, making up 92% of all recorded reductions in staffing.

Operational Changes

22% of respondents increased or diversified operations:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Reduced operations (e.g. Fewer options, lower 28 output)

Modified operations (e.g. Online store, virtual 12 services, curbside pickup)

Increased operations (e.g. Increased output of 4 same products/services)

Diversified operations (e.g. new 6 products/services)

Temporarily closed 11

Please explain: 9

Sustainability of Current State

Only 20% of respondents indicated that they could sustain the current business environment for more than 6 months

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Less than 3 months 10

3-6 months 16

6-12 months 2

More than 12 months 7

Not sure 9

Prefer not to answer 1

Plans to Resume Normal Operations

75.5 % of respondents are prepared to resume full or modified operations in the near future

0 5 10 15 20 25

Plan to resume full operations 13

Plan for modified operations 21

No plan created at this time 4

Other (please specify) 7

Responses under “Other (please specify)” included items such as: variants of “never closed”, “running full production”, and “continued to provide service”, in addition to concerns regarding the return of recreational/professional sports and questions relating to vaccine availability.

Government Programs Accessed

33% of respondents did NOT access any support programs, with all of these businesses falling into the SME category.

0 5 10 15

Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) - 13 Government of Canada Temporary 10% Wage Subsidy - Government of 1 Canada Extending the Work Sharing Program - Government 1 of Canada Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) - 5 Government of Canada Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance 1 (CECRA) - Government of Canada Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) - 8 Government of Canada

Interest and Penalty Relief - Province of Ontario 1

None/Not applicable 15

Additional Supports Needed

73% of respondents would appreciate access to further professional development supports.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

No support needed 12

Links to information/articles 9

Webinars 2

Peer-to-peer groups 4

Connections to professional advisors 11

Other (please specify) 7

Responses under “Other (please specify)” included items such as: requests for funding and lobbying for more support for small business from other levels of government, as well as concerns that government programs did not go far enough to support affected businesses.

Observations and Analysis

The information provided by the business community supported the Division’s understanding of the effects of the current economic climate:

Observation: Survey fatigue

• The business community has been inundated with survey requests from all levels of government along with various business and community support agencies, many of which share overlapping questions and themes • While the information is beneficial to steer recovery planning, businesses are currently focused on other priorities

Observation: Small/Medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the hospitality sector in particular were the hardest hit

• SMEs are experiencing the greatest hardships as a result of the pandemic and are the least likely to qualify for or seek out supports • The hospitality sector has experienced the largest job losses at 92% of their pre- COVID FTEs for respondents

Observation: Numerous Cambridge businesses pivoted or expanded operations to support personal protective equipment (PPE) efforts

• Eclipse Automation – recently awarded over $1.4m from the Ontario Together Fund to scale up production of “Made in Ontario” N95 masks • Swift Components – building intubation shields for Cambridge Memorial Hospital • Allcard Industrial – design and manufacture of portable germicidal irradiation chambers • Prescientx – portable disinfectant conveyors for medical grade masks • ATS – Automated systems for test kits, mask filtration and ventilator components • Cambridge Materials Testing – Testing incoming PPE for Health Canada

The Cambridge business community is strong; possessing ingenuity and resiliency that will serve our community well as the economy rebounds from the pandemic. In addition to those noted above, many businesses and manufacturers are supporting the health of the public through the manufacturing of face shields, floor markings, hand sanitizer, PPE and table top shields and are deserving of recognition (Appendix ‘A’ attached).

External Survey Activity In addition to the City’s survey, other local partners and agencies have supported or undertaken their own surveys, which provide additional valuable feedback: o The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce did not undertake their own survey, choosing rather to encourage their member to participate in the survey being undertaken by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Statistics Canada. The results of this survey may be found on the Statistics Canada website. 12,630 businesses responded to this survey from across the nation – with 38.1% of all businesses reporting reduced staff

hours or shifts, 40.5% reporting layoffs and 18.3% of businesses reporting layoffs of 80% or more of their workforce. o The Manufacturing Innovation Network (MIN) also undertook a survey of businesses and while the number of respondents was quite low, the quality of responses was worthwhile and supported the information collected in the Cambridge Economic Development Division Survey. o Waterloo EDC is also undertaking a survey of the business community; however, they are still in the analysis phase of their project. o In addition to their annual Employer One Survey, the Waterloo Wellington Dufferin Workforce Planning Board undertook a follow up survey to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on employers. Of note, prior to COVID 83% of all employment separations were either quits or dismissals; since January 31, 2020 75% of separations are layoff related (with 10% being permanent in nature). o INVEST Cambridge promoted all of the above noted surveys on our recovery webpage and through social media to encourage the broadest possible response rate for these very important data collection efforts.

Conclusion and Next Steps Economic Development staff continue to follow up with survey respondents looking for professional development assistance, in addition to those that had not utilized existing government supports to ensure they are aware of programs they may be qualified to access. This continued focus on direct engagement will assist the City as it moves forward through the various stages of recovery and renewal planning.

Attachments – Appendix ‘A’

Disinfection Cintas Disinfect & Fog Fastenal GROK Energy Services JAN-PRO Mafna Air Sterilization units Orkin Canada Superior Solutions Face Shields Advantec Packaging Ltd Allcard Arrow Health Supplies Knapp Fasteners Floor Markings Allcard Arrow Health Supplies Grand River Sign Design Inc M & T Printing Mito Graphics Hand Sanitizer Arrow Health Supplies Avaria Beauty Cambridge Surplus Fastenal Fusion Products Heartzap Safety Training & Equipment Knapp Fasteners Magnotta Winery Septodont Superior Solutions Masks, Gloves and Gowns Arrow Health Supplies Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Cambridge Surplus Cintas Cosy Care Fastenal Fusion Products Guillevin Heartzap Safety Training & Equipment

Knapp Fasteners Len's Mill Store PENN Protective Equipment Rearz Superior Solutions Think LED Tabletop Shields Advantec Packaging Ltd Arrow Health Supplies atWork Office Interiors RMS Glass Other Allcard Germicidal sterilization units ATS Automated systems for test kits, mask filtration and ventilator components Cambridge Materials Testing Testing incoming PPE for Health Canada Eclipse Automation N95 Manufacturing to begin in July Prescientx Portable disinfectant conveyors for medical masks Swift Components Intubation Shields Uni-Spray soap and sanitizer dispensers for SC Johnson. Were currently doing around 60,000 dispensers per week and ramping up more products

Approvals: ☐ Manager/Supervisor ☒ Deputy City Manager ☒ City Manager

Date: 08/07/2020 Internal Memo #: IM20-019(CRE)

To: Mayor and Members of Council

Circulated to: Corporate Leadership Team

Department: Corporate Enterprise

Division: Asset Management & PMO

From: Yogesh Shah Director of Asset Management and PMO

Subject: Cambridge Recreation Complex – School Boards MOU

Comments

In 2007, the City of Cambridge purchased 32.5 acres of land in the southeast of the city for the purpose of hosting a recreation complex, IDEA Exchange location, and two elementary schools for the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board (WCDSB).

In 2019, Council approved the location of a recreation complex with a 25m swimming pool, gymnasiums, fitness track and multi-purpose rooms on this 32.5 acre parcel of land. This City- owned land is large enough to accommodate these recreational facilities, outdoor sports fields, two elementary schools, EarlyON and child care facilities, and an IDEA Exchange location.

Earlier this year, council provided staff direction to enter into discussions with the Cambridge Public Library (IDEA Exchange), the WRDSB and the WCDSB with respect to the design, construction and operation of a joint facility and to report back to Council at a future date.

Staff from the City, Cambridge Public Library and both school boards held discussions and finalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as attached to this report.

This MOU provides a framework for distribution of costs for acquisition and development of the land; and to initiate a feasibility study for a potential Joint Use Community Campus. The MOU also establishes the Steering Committee made up of staff members from all parties to guide the feasibility study, including establishing and approving the scope, budget and schedule of the feasibility study.

The feasibility study will explore opportunities for the conceptual designs, with considerations for the development and operation, of a Joint Use Facility / Campus on this parcel of land. The study will explore integrating facilities to maximize community benefit. The Feasibility

Study Report will be presented to City Council, the IDEA Exchange Board, the WRDSB and the WCDSB.

Following the City’s procurement process and with recommendation from the Steering Committee, the City has retained CS&P Architects to undertake the feasibility study for a potential Joint Use Community Campus.

At this time, the Ontario Ministry of Education has approved funding to build elementary schools at this location for both school Boards.

Contractors for site grading works and to build access roads and site servicing works for the site have been retained. The Contractor (G. Gordon) for site grading work has mobilized on site and works are expected to commence.

Attachments

Memorandum of Understanding - Cambridge Joint Use Campus

Approvals: ☐ Manager/Supervisor ☒ Deputy City Manager ☒ City Manager

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made this 18th day of June, 2020,

BETWEEN:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, a Municipal Corporation per the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001 c. 25 (the "City");

-AND-

THE WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, an English-Language Public District School Board per the Education Act, RSO 1990 c. E.2 (the "WRDSB");

-AND-

THE WATERLOO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, an English-Language Separate District School Board per the Education Act, RSO 1990 c. E.2 (the "WCDSB").

RECITALS

WHEREAS the City has acquired certain lands totalling approximately 32.5 acres in area in South East Cambridge further described in Schedule "A" hereto (the "Lands") for the purposes of developing a public recreation complex;

AND WHEREAS the WRDSB may wish to acquire a portion of the Lands for a future Public elementary school;

AND WHEREAS the WCDSB may, in the future, wish to acquire a portion of the Lands for a future Catholic elementary School;

AND WHEREAS the City, the WRDSB, and the WCDSB (each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties", where appropriate, the WRDSB and the WCDSB may be referred to together as the "School Boards") agree in principle to cooperate in undertaking a feasibility study to assess the potential for joint and/or cooperative development, management, operation, and use of the Lands (the "Feasibility Study") as an integrated or master planned educational, recreational and cultural community campus (the "Joint Use Community Campus"), in order to maximize the use of public resources by sharing in the costs of land acquisition and site preparation, and by examining the potential for use of shared space and infrastructure Wherever possible;

AND WHEREAS the Parties wish to set forth in this memorandum of understanding ("MOU") certain binding covenants and non-binding intentions to work together cooperatively in establishing the parameters for the Feasibility Study and to set out the broad parameters of the relationship between each of them in the event the Parties subsequently elect to proceed with the development of the Joint Community Use Campus, subject to the terms hereof;

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the respective covenants and agreements contained in this MOU and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1.3 Amendment

This MOU may be amended, modified or supplemented only by a written agreement signed by each Party.

1.4 Intent

(a) It is the intent of this MOU that it set out with sufficient particularity the general nature of the potential relationship between the Parties with respect to the Feasibility Study and also with respect to the potential subsequent development, management, operation, and use of the Joint Use Community Campus.

(b) The Parties will negotiate among themselves, as appropriate, those formal agreements called for in this MOU (being each a "Final Agreement" and collectively the "Final Agreements").

(c) Except for the matters specifically set out in section 8.1 - Binding Provisions, this MOU is not a binding agreement and neither this MOU nor any subsequent conduct of the Parties shall give rise to, evidence, or create any legally binding obligation of any Party or thereby create any liability on the part of any Party to any other Party hereto, and any binding agreement will result only from execution and delivery of one or more Final Agreements.

(d) This MOU has been prepared based upon the limited information provided to date by the Parties to each other and expressly identifies such further information as may be required to prepare the Final Agreements. To the extent such information identifies further issues that the Parties will need to address in order to prepare the Final Agreements, this MOU will necessarily need to be amended or a supplemental Memorandum of Agreement will need to be entered into.

1.5 Schedules

The following Schedules are appended to this MOU and form part of it:

(a) Schedule "A" - Description of the Lands

(b) Schedule "B" - Feasibility Study Terms of Reference

(d) Schedule "D" - Steering Committee Membership

2. PROCESS FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.1 Steering Committee

The Parties agree to strike a Steering Committee composed of the members set out in Schedule "D" hereto, which Committee shall be responsible to oversee and manage the Feasibility Study, including finalization of the Terms of Reference, finalization of the Study Schedule, hiring of a consultant to complete the Feasibility Study, and management and review of consultant deliverables.

The Parties agree that the Terms of Reference and Study Schedule set out in Schedule "B" and Schedule "C" respectively identify important matters to be considered through the Feasibility Study, but the final Terms of Reference and Study Schedule shall be set by the

• To encourage stakeholder participation in the design of the Project.

• To engage appropriate agencies and user groups in developing the design elements and specifications for the building(s) and the site for community use.

• To consider sustainable design elements, to the extent each Party is funded to construct, within the Project.

• To incorporate best-value procurement practices.

• To recognize the unique mission, limitations and responsibilities of each Party.

3.2 Cooperation and Phased Construction

The Parties recognize that funding approval for the construction of the component parts of the Joint Use Community Campus by each of the Parties may not coincide. The Parties will cooperate with each other, as necessary and acting reasonably, to ensure that the intent of the Joint Use Community Campus can be achieved through phased construction.

3.3 Final Agreements

Subject to the results of the Feasibility Study, the availability of capital funding, and the approval of their respective authorities .(Ministry of Education, Boards of Trustees, and City Council), the Parties agree to consider, at a future time, entering into Final Agreements relating to the development, management, operation, and use of the Joint Use Community Campus. Notwithstanding any other provision of this MOU, no Party shall · be required to enter into any Final Agreements relating to the development, management, operation, and use of the Joint Use Community Campus if such Party elects not to continue subsequent to completion of the Feasibility Study.

3.4 Coordination with Other Organization

It is understood by the Parties that the City, the WRDSB, and the WCDSB may wish to coordinate with other organizations in the development and/or future operation of Joint Use Community Campus. If a Party is coordinating with another organization or public body, unless otherwise agreed, then it is understood that they will act as a single entity with respect to this MOU. The introduction of any additional parties may be addressed as part of a Final Agreement.

4. STEERING COMMITTEE

4.1 Establishment and Participation

The Parties will jointly establish and participate in the Steering Committee, with the member composition as set out in Schedule "D". A Party's Steering Committee representative may be amended by such Party from time to time, without necessitating re• opening this agreement.

4.2 Staff Support

The Parties will each provide staff support to the Steering Committee to forward the objectives of this MOU.

4.3 Terms of Reference

The membership and duties of the Steering Committee will be defined in terms of reference to be aoreed uoon bv the Parties. and will include investiaatina anv

5. FEASIBILITY STUDY AND LAND COSTS

5.1 Intention to Share Costs

It is the intention of the Parties to share costs related to the Feasibility Study (the "Feasibility Study Costs"). In addition, in the event that the Parties subsequently elect to proceed with the development of the Joint Use Community Campus, then the costs associated with acquisition and development of the Lands shall also be shared (the "Land & Development Costs") through provisions to be incorporated into the terms of the Final Agreements.

5.2 Proportional Share

Each Party shall be responsible for its share of the Feasibility Study Costs and the Land & Development Costs, environmental investigations and studies, and any impact or other costs in relation to adjoining or adjacent lands that may be affected by the Project (that Party's "Share"), based on the proportion of the total Land intended to be held and used by that Party, as follows:

(a) The WCDSB shall be responsible for 20% of costs based on 6.5 acres of the total Land reserved for a Catholic Elementary School;

(b) The WRDSB shall be responsible for 24.6% of the costs based on 8 acres of the total Land reserved for a Public Elementary School; and

(c) The City shall be responsible for 55.4% of the costs based on 18 acres of the total Lands being reserved for municipal uses.

5.3 Interest on Shared Costs

The Parties agrees to pay, in addition to their Share, interest on the Feasibility Study Costs and, if the Parties elect subsequently elect to proceed with the Project, Land & Development Costs, incurred by another Party, until repaid, at a rate of interest per annum based on the City's average rate of return on investments, as reported to Council annually in accordance with Ontario Regulation 438/97, s. 8 (1) or, if the Party paying the.cost is borrowing funds to pay for one or more of the other Party's Share, shall be that Party's Share of the actual cost of borrowing incurred by the Party paying the cost.

5.4 Record of Expenses

The City agrees to maintain an accounting of all expenses related to the Project, including the Feasibility Study Costs and the Land & Development Costs, which the Parties agree shall be used for all future sharing of costs set out in this MOU. The City agrees to provide the Steering Committee with a report on the status of the expenses incurred for the approval of the Parties twice annually. The first report shall cover the period of September 1 to March 31 and shall be provided no later than April 30 of each year. The second report shall cover the period from April 1 to August 31 and shall be provided not later than September 30 each year. The accounting will be subject to an audit at the request of any Party, at that Party's sole expense.

6. FEASIBILITY STUDY

6.1 Initiation

The Parties agree to initiate and share proportionately in the costs of the Feasibility Study, which costs shall not exceed $100.000 exclusive of taxes. without approval of the Steering Committee.

6.4 Costs Included

Costs included in the Feasibility Study shall be agreed upon by the Parties, and shall generally be limited to matters relating to investigation of any environmental matters, concept and site layout for the Project.

6.5 Conduct of the Feasibility Study

The Parties agree that the Feasibility Study shall be initiated upon the Steering Committee's direction in general conformity with the Terms of Reference and Study Schedule appended hereto as Schedule "B" and Schedule "C" respectively.

The Steering Committee shall carry out the Feasibility Study according to the terms of this MOU. However, if the City chooses to proceed before the Steering Committee authorizes same, the School Boards reserve their right not to contribute to that expense.

6.6 Timeline

The Parties agree to work together cooperatively and in a constructive fashion to achieve the goals set out in this section within timelines agreed upon by the Steering Committee.

6.7 Liability for Costs of Feasibility Study Binding

The Parties agree to be liable for their Share of the costs actually incurred for the Feasibility Study in accordance with this section and sections 6.3 and 6.4 above. The Parties further understand and agree that this obligation is binding and survives any termination of or withdrawal from this MOU.

7. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

7.1 TheCitywill:

(a) Hold title to the Land with the intention to proceed with the Project together with the other Parties; and,

(b) Plan to enter into such Final Agreements with the WRDSB and the WCDSB if and when portions of the Land for school development have been identified and approval and funding for acquisition and construction has been secured by the School Boards or either of them.

7.2 The WRDSB will:

(a) Plan for the acquisition of up to 8 acres of the Land from the City with payment to be made as is mutually agreeable between the City and the WRSDB, and be responsible for transactional costs related to the said acquisition in accordance with section 7.7, below.

(b) Endeavour to secure approval and funding from the Ministry of Education for the acquisition of land and capital for, if necessary, and construction of an elementary school.

7.3 The WCDSB will:

(a) Plan for the acquisition of up to 6.5 acres of the Land from the City with payment to be made at such time as is mutually agreeable between the City and the WCDSB, and be responsible for all transactional costs related to the said acquisition in accordance with section 7.7, below.

(b) Servicing the Land (municipal roads and sidewalks, sanitary servicing, storm water servicing, potable water, hydro, and natural gas. Servicing may also include monetary contributions to storm water management facilities, not located on the subject Lands, to which the subject Lands contribute flow);

(d) Any other expense as may be agreed to by all Parties hereto.

7.5 Procurement

The City will lead all procurement for items included in the Development Costs in accordance with its purchasing By-law 19-187, as may be amended from time to time.

7.6 Costs of Acquisition

Unless an alternative formula is agreed to in a Final Agreement, the price of acquisition payable to the City by the School Boards shall be the purchasing Party's Share, determined in accordance with section 5.2 above, of the Land & Development Costs up to the Date of Purchase inclusive of all related taxes and fees, plus interest on those amounts in accordance with section 5.3 above from the date of the City's acquisition of the Lands or the date the Development Cost was incurred, respectively, and the date of purchase.

7.7 Transactional Costs

The Parties intend that all transactional costs incurred by any Party relating to any acquisition of a portion of the Lands from the City by the WRDSB or the WCDSB, including but not limited to taxes, registration fees, costs relating to the preparation documents, and the costs of surveys and/or plans shall be solely borne by such Party acquiring an interest in the Lands, provided the City shall remain solely responsible to pay its own legal costs in connection with such transactions.

7.8 No Beneficial Ownership

The Parties understand and agree that nothing in this MOU is to be construed so as to create any beneficial ownership of the Land or any claim to the Land in equity or otherwise by any Party except as may be expressly set out herein or in a Final Agreement.

8. GENERAL

8.1 Binding Provisions

This MOU is not intended to create a binding agreement or enforceable obligations between the Parties hereto save and except for the following provisions which shall be binding:

(a) Sections 6.7, 7.6 and 7.8;

(b) this section 8 (General), including all subsections thereunder; and

Any alleged breach of the Binding Provisions will entitle the injured Party to apply for damages in addition to any appropriate relief, including injunctive and other equitable

8.3 Confidentiality

The terms of this MOU and any information provided by any Party hereto to the other in connection with this MOU or otherwise with respect to the development of the Joint Use Community Campus shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed by any Party hereto without the express written consent of the Party that disclosed such confidential information, excepting that any Party may disclose such information to that Party's own Trustees, officers and directors, its own legal, financial and accounting advisors, or any key employee thereof designated in writing and jointly agreed to by the Parties to be required by each to give proper effect to the provisions of this MOU.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party is restricted or prohibited from making any disclosure legally required to be made by it. The terms and conditions of any prior agreements between the Parties regarding confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations shall continue in full force and effect and in complement to the terms of this section of the MOU. In the event of any conflict of terms in this regard, the terms of this section of the MOU shall prevail to the extent of the conflict.

8.4 Personal Information

The Parties acknowledge that any Party hereto may come into contact with Personal Information (as such term is defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c. M.56, as amended) of individuals, and agree that they will not, without the prior written consent of the disclosing Party, disclose or make available such Personal Information or any portion thereof to any other person or entity except to designated employees or agents who have a need to access the Personal Information in connection with the terms of this MOU. Regardless of whether the development of the Project or any study related thereto proceeds, the Parties agree that they will destroy or return all Personal Information which has been provided by the disclosing Party to the receiving Party forthwith once it is no long required by the receiving Party.

8.5 Termination and Survival

This MOU shall commence on the date first set forth above and shall terminate automatically on December 31, 2023, or such earlier date determined through a Final Agreement (the "Term"). The Term may be extended for a further period of up to two (2) years provided all Parties provide their written consent to that extension prior to the expiry of the Term. The Binding Provisions (as herein defined) shall survive any termination of this MOU, except as may be set out in a Final Agreement.

8.6 Withdrawal from MOU

Any Party may withdraw from this MOU upon 30-days written notice to the other(s) Parties.

8.7 Responsibility on Termination of or Withdrawal from MOU

If this MOU is terminated or a Party withdraws from this MOU, Parties shall remain responsible for payment or repayment of their Share of the Feasibility Study Costs described in section 6.7.

If a Party other than the City elects to withdraw from this MOU prior to acquiring a Share of the Land, the City shall be entitled to use or dispose of the Land as it sees fit without limitation. It is understood and agreed that a Party other than the City withdrawing from this MOU relinquishes any rights to acquire a portion of the Land and shall not have any legal interest, beneficial or equitable claim to the Land.

any costs paid by the City for the Feasibility Study on behalf of the School Boards, or either of them, or any interest thereon.

8.9 ·Disputes

If any dispute arises between the Parties as to whether any Party has complied with its obligations under this MOU or if any dispute or controversy arises between the Parties with respect to the interpretation or implementation of any of the provisions of this MOU (herein referred to as the "Dispute"), the Parties shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve any and all Disputes through amicable negotiations and the Parties shall provide, on a without prejudice basis, full, frank, candid and timely disclosure of relevant facts, information and documents in order to facilitate such negotiations.

Where a Dispute relates to a Binding Provision and a Party is of the reasonable opinion that the Dispute cannot be resolved by such negotiation, that Party may, upon ten (10) days written notice to the other Parties require that the Dispute be referred to a mediator for mandatory non-binding mediation by a mediator selected by the Parties to the Dispute. The format and timing of any such mediation shall be as agreed upon by the Parties and the mediator, and the costs of the mediator shall be borne equally by the Parties.

Where a Dispute relates to a Binding Provision and cannot be resolved through mediation, including where the Parties are unable to agree on a mediator, a Party may give written notice that it requires the Dispute to be resolved through arbitration. Where the other Party or Parties agree to submit to arbitration, the arbitration of the Dispute shall be conducted in accordance with the Municipal Arbitrations Act, RSO 1990 c. M.48, as amended, if applicable, or by a single arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17, as amended or any successor legislation thereto. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be conclusive and binding upon the Parties.

Any mediation or Arbitration of a Dispute shall be conducted in the City of Cambridge, unless the Parties agree otherwise.

Nothing in this section prevents any Party from seeking interim injunctive relief from any court respecting a Dispute at any time, provided that the Dispute shall be finally resolved by Arbitration.

9. MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 Governing Law

This MOU shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein.

9.2 Expenses

Except as herein provided, no Party shall be responsible for the expenses of the other Party in connection with the transactions contemplated by the MOU.

9.3 Notices

All notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and delivered or sent by prepaid registered mail to the address of the intended recipient set forth below or at such other address as either Party may from time to time notify the other of in writing, or by email to the email address for the intended Party set out below, but in the case of a notice delivered by email, it shall not be considered delivered unless receipt of the notice is provided by the Party's recipient named below:

Address: 35 Weber Street West, Unit A, P.O. Box 91116, Kitchener ON N2G 4G2 Email: [email protected]

9.4 Enurement

Neither this MOU, nor any rights or obligations hereunder, may be assigned by any Party without the prior written consent of the other Parties and any purported assignment done without such consent shall be of no force or effect.

[the remainder of this page intentionally Jeff blank]

9.5 Counterparts and Facsimile Execution

This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument and receipt of a facsimile version of an executed signature page of this MOU by a Party shall constitute satisfactory evidence of execution of this MOU by such Party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have executed this MOU as of the date first set forth above.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE \ _ · · rxiu C By: Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

I have authority to bind the corporation

THE WATERLOO REGION STRICT SCHOOL BOA D

By:

- -lc,,t;,ur dinating Superintendent, Business Services and Treasurer of the Board

I have authority to bind the Board

THE WATERLOO CATHOLIC DISTRICT S ar.:lllk:'!!RD

By:

I have authority to bind the Board

Schedule “A” – Description of the Lands

NORTH DUMFRIES CON 10 PT LOT 3 PR 58R15868 PART 1 IRREG 32.54AC FR D, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

Schedule “B” – Feasibility Study Terms of Reference

P20-52

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR

Joint Use campus Feasibility Study

Terms of Reference P20-52

May 22, 2020

Page | 1 26

P20-52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose ...... 4 2.0 Background ...... 4 3.0 Project Summary ...... 4 4.0 Scope of Work ...... 5 5.0 Project Team ...... 6 6.0 Deliverables ...... 6 7.0 Project Timing ...... 9 8.0 Budget ...... 9 9.0 Additional tasks and value addition ...... 10 10.0 Reference Material ...... 10 11.0 Submission Requirements ...... 10 12.0 Fee Summary ...... 10 13.0 Evaluation and Award ...... 12 14.0 Declaration of Conflict of Interest ...... 13 15.0 Disclosure of Information/Release of Obligations ...... 14 PROPOSAL GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS...... 15

ATTACHMENTS A – Draft Space Needs Assessment

Page | 2 27

P20-52

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR INFORMATION

WRDSB elementary school space template

WRDSB Report: Major Capital Projects Quarterly Update Report (including information pertaining to Radon). Oct 21, 2019.

WRDSB Report: Investing in Canada Infrastructure Grant – Southeast Cambridge (Joint Use Project). Nov 18, 2019.

WCDSB draft space template

City Report: Recreation Complex Opportunities. Mar 5, 2019.

City Report: Recreation Complex – Recommendations. Jun 4, 2019.

City Report: Recreation Complex and Library Capital Project. Feb 18, 2020.

City Report: Cambridge Recreation Operating Plan. 2019.

Library Letter: South East Galt Joint Development. Mar 31, 2006.

Library: South East Public Library Vision Statement.

Page | 3 28

P20-52

1.0 PURPOSE The City of Cambridge (the City), Idea Exchange (Cambridge Public Library), Waterloo Region District School Board (the WRDSB), and Waterloo Catholic District School Board (the WCDSB) are exploring opportunities for the conceptual design, with considerations for the development and operation, of a Joint Use Facility/Campus in the south end of the City. The Feasibility Study will explore integrating the facilities to maximize community benefits. Results and recommendations from the study will be shared with City Council, and library and school Boards to aid in decision making.

2.0 BACKGROUND In 2007, the City acquired a 32.5 acre parcel in the southeast of the City. The site was envisioned to host a community centre, public library branch, and two elementary schools. Since 2014, the City has been evaluating the construction of a multi-purpose recreation complex. On June 18, 2019 City Council approved the development of a recreation complex on the 32.5 acre parcel. Further, in February 2020 City Council directed staff to enter into discussions with Idea Exchange, the WRDSB, and the WCDSB with respect to the design, construction, and operation of a joint facility. The site is estimated to be serviced and ready for construction in spring 2021.

To learn more about the City’s Recreation Complex project visit the project website at: https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/Cambridge-Multiplex.aspx.

3.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The following amenities are anticipated as part of the project:

Recreation Complex

● About 100,000 square foot facility ● Parking for facility users ● Aquatics o A 25-metre, 10 lane competition pool o A warm water therapy pool o A leisure/learning pool o Pool change room facilities o Pool office, storage and administrative space ● Dry Land o A triple gymnasium o An indoor walking/running track o Multi-use program rooms/meeting space o Capacity to accommodate the Sport Hall of Fame displays o Fitness studio o Gymnasium/fitness change rooms o Storage, office and administrative space

*NOTE: For the purposes of this project, the Recreation Complex is NOT to include ice facilities (rinks/arenas). Council reports and the Operating Plan provided in the Reference Materials reference ice facilities, which are NOT to be contemplated in this Feasibility Study.

Library

Page | 4 29

P20-52

● About 14,000 square foot facility ● Integrated in the Recreation Complex ● To include spaces for reading, studying, art, makerspace, collaborating, print collections and digital resources ● Parking for facility users

Public School

● School for about 519 students in Junior Kindergarten to Grade 8 ● About 57,700 square foot facility ● An additional 6,000 square foot 5 room child care centre ● Outdoor amenities, such as asphalt play area, soccer field, multiuse playing field, creative play structure, outdoor classroom and space for up to 12 portables ● Parking for about 80 vehicles

Catholic School

● School for about 354 students in Junior Kindergarten to Grade 8 ● Approximately 42,000 square foot facility (based on Ministry of Education space template) ● Potential to accommodate up to 6 classroom addition ● Space for up to 6 portables, complying with Ontario Building Code for fire separation from the main building and area of future addition ● Outdoor amenities, such as asphalt play area ● Parking for about 75 vehicles

Attachment A includes a draft space needs assessment. This space needs assessment is provided as a starting point for evaluation of opportunities to share amenities. This information was developed at a staff level, and is a preliminary draft which is subject to change.

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK The City and its partners are seeking professional services to complete a Feasibility Study for the conceptual design, construction phasing, and operations of a Joint Use Campus (JUC). The JUC is to include a recreation complex, public library branch, and two elementary schools. The Feasibility Study will succinctly outline the challenges and opportunities associated with a JUC, review site, design, and construction considerations and provide an analysis of operating performance and agreements. The study will include a conceptual design for the following two scenarios: Scenario 1: A fully integrated single building to house all amenities, with the opportunity for construction phasing. Scenario 2: Three separate land parcels for a combined recreation complex and library branch, a public elementary school, and a catholic elementary school. Opportunities for energy and/or sustainability features, such as geothermal energy, should be explored under both scenarios.

Page | 5 30

P20-52

Finally, the Feasibility Study will recommend a preferred approach with a schematic design and provide next steps to move the project forward. A detailed outline of expectations follows in the Deliverables section of this document. It should be noted that public engagement is not included in this scope of work. Extensive public engagement has been completed to date to identify the location and amenities of the Recreation Complex. Additional public consultation regarding recreation and library amenities will be conducted during the detailed design phase.

5.0 PROJECT TEAM The successful Proponent (hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”) will carry out the project under the direction of a Feasibility Study Steering Committee comprised of staff from the City (2 members), Idea Exchange (1 member), the WRDSB (2 members), and the WCDSB (2 members). The Steering Committee coordinator will be the primary point of contact for the Consultant and will administer the contract between the City and the Consultant. The Consultant’s Project Manager will coordinate all aspects of the project, and as such they will be the primary contact for the Feasibility Study Steering Committee. The Consultant’s Project Manager will have responsibility for:

● Ensuring the goals of the project are met ● Issues management ● Quality assurance ● Project-level issues

The Consultant’s Project Manager and any sub consultants or team members shall not be changed or altered without written consent of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee. Feasibility Study Steering Committee members will coordinate access to staff and stakeholders at the various organizations. The Consultant will be expected to meet with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee at all major milestones as determined by project schedule. These meetings will be used to report on findings, progress, budget and deliverables.

6.0 DELIVERABLES The Consultant will control all aspects of the project to achieve prescribed objectives defined in terms of time, quality, and cost. Through the application of appropriate project management techniques, the Consultant will administer and coordinate the efforts of their team (e.g., sub consultants etc.) to achieve the objectives of the project, such as the project being on time and within budget. The Consultant will provide appropriate professional and technical services in order to achieve the following list of deliverables. The Consultant shall provide the Feasibility Study Steering Committee with an electronic copy of each deliverable and up to 15 hardcopies if requested. Please note that all content must be fully accessible and in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11. If requested, hardcopy reports shall be a standard size of 8.5” X 11”. All deliverables will be considered final upon approval of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee. Page | 6 31

P20-52

Feasibility Study The following key areas must be explored and documented in the Feasibility Study: 1. Vision, Needs and Programming – The Consultant shall provide a full understanding of the proposed project and document: i. Vision and guiding principles; ii. Needs Analysis, including opportunities for sharing of amenities; and iii. Program Development, including a high level summary of the programming to be delivered by each of the project participants. 2. Community and Authority Engagement – The Consultant shall engage in activities (meetings, interviews, policy reviews, etc.) to determine site opportunities and limitations. At a minimum the following agencies will be consulted: i. City Planning Department; ii. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA); iii. Cambridge AODA Committee; and iv. Boards of Education, Library Board. 3. Design Considerations – The Consultant shall engage in activities (meetings, interviews, policy reviews, etc.) to determine and summarize: i. Site considerations, environmental site conditions and necessary next steps for development; ii. Design concept principles; iii. Parking and transit analysis, needs, options and access; iv. Connections to trails and active transportation routes; v. Life Safety Analysis – opportunities to be a location for community assembly or an emergency operations centre; and vi. Sustainability opportunities, including evaluating campus energy and sustainability features. An evaluation of the following sustainability topics will be included: 1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED); 2. Passive House; 3. Net Zero; and 4. Capital costs – The funding model should identify any specific grant opportunities. 4. Construction i. Timing; and ii. Opportunities and plans for phased construction. 5. Operational Analysis – At a minimum this will address the following: Page | 7 32

P20-52

i. Security; ii. Access; iii. Maintenance/cleaning; iv. Hours of operation; and v. Alterations of improvements. 6. Facility Operating Cost Summary – The funding model should identify any specific grant opportunities as well as any potential investment opportunities from the private sector. 7. Analysis – The Consultant will evaluate how stakeholder needs, regulatory requirements, design considerations, and construction timelines may affect the project. Information and analysis from the Feasibility Study will be provided to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee in a draft report. Following the workshop and conceptual site plan development as described below, a final report will be generated incorporating all of the above information and conceptual site plan analysis and supporting information. Workshop Following a draft report reviewed by the Feasibility Study Steering Committee the Consultant will host a workshop with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee to present the compiled information and analysis. The Consultant will guide a discussion on conceptual site plan opportunities and challenges. The outcome of the workshop will be incorporated into subsequent conceptual site plan development. Conceptual Site Plan The Consultant will generate and evaluate a minimum of five conceptual designs (three options for a joint facility and two for separate properties) that meet the vision and needs established as well as regulatory requirements as documented in the Feasibility Study. The following requirements will be met: 1. In each option drawings need to incorporate program elements arranged in several schemes or options addressing adjacency of spaces, circulation and building function. 2. Each option must provide efficient operations and administrative layout, optimal work area operation flow, noise suppression, energy efficiency, low maintenance and grading (approx. elevations of proposed finished grades), etc. 3. Operational/programming efficiencies between facility components are to be explored and evaluated. Meetings with operational facility management must occur to explore and evaluate these efficiencies. The Consultant will determine the most effective meeting schedule to obtain needed information. 4. Each option must include a site evaluation which includes at minimum, grading, flood zone, floor elevation, access, relationship to the street, noise impacts, and other related matters. 5. Each option must be represented in plan format and in three dimensional massing model format. Models shall address solar impacts, glare, warming and other effects, and illustrate day and night conditions from both the interior and exterior perspectives. 6. Pros/cons of each option need to be clear and must include, at a minimum: proximity of amenities, pedestrian/street/public transit access, highly visible, desirable layout, orientation Page | 8 33

P20-52

towards natural light, potential to adapt to future needs, safety, security and crime prevention through design, financially feasible, projected footprint/square footage, etc.

Conceptual site plans will be supported by relevant information and design briefs, including but not limited to civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical briefs. The findings will be provided to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee in a draft report and presented in a feedback gathering session. Feedback on the Conceptual Site Plans will be incorporated into a final report encompassing Feasibility Study information and analysis and Conceptual Plans. Presentation to Council and Boards The Consultant will generate a presentation slide deck and speaking notes summarizing key information from the Feasibility Study, including but not limited to opportunities and challenges with a joint facility, site and design considerations, construction timelines and conceptual site plans. The Consultant will present the slide deck to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee for feedback and will incorporate comments into a final presentation. The Consultant will complete four presentations, one each to City Council, IDEA Exchange Board, and each of the School Boards.

7.0 PROJECT TIMING

Project Kick Off Beginning of July, 2020

Draft Feasibility Study 6 weeks after project kick off

Workshop – Conceptual Design 7 weeks after project kick off

Draft Conceptual Design 11 weeks after project kick off

Final Feasibility Study and 14 weeks after project kick off Conceptual Design

Presentation to Council and Boards October-November 2020

Following selection of the successful Consultant, the City’s will issue a Purchase Order which will form the notice to proceed. A project kick-off meeting will be arranged with the Feasibility Study Steering Committee and will include discussion of available information, project scope, schedule, expectations, and confirmation and prioritization of the work plan. The Billing/invoicing arrangements will also be confirmed at the project kick-off meeting.

8.0 BUDGET The high level estimate to design and construct the project as outlined in Section 3 is $88M.

In September 2019 the WCDSB applied for $8.6M in capital priorities funding from the Ministry of Education to construct a 354 pupil place elementary school as further described in Section 3. The Ministry has not announced any funding associated with the September 2019 requests,

Page | 9 34

P20-52

and as such, WCDSB does not yet have committed funding for this project. If successful, the benchmark funding is inclusive of all design and construction related costs.

9.0 ADDITIONAL TASKS AND VALUE ADDITION Should the proponent identify any additional work tasks above the scope or cost included within this Terms of Reference, those individual line items and estimated costs should be identified as ‘optional’ in the proposal.

10.0 REFERENCE MATERIAL The following background documents are available for the development of the proposal and to the successful consultant as resources: 1. WRDSB elementary school space template 2. WCDSB draft space template 3. Recreation Complex – Operating Plan 4. Council reports 5. Board reports

*NOTE: For the purposes of this project, the Recreation Complex is NOT to include ice facilities (rinks/arenas). Council reports and the Operating Plan reference ice facilities, which are NOT to be contemplated in this Feasibility Study.

11.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The selection of the successful Consultant will be based on the highest rated proposal. Proposals shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20) pages, excluding the hourly task breakdown chart (time task matrix), project schedule and Appendices. In addition, curriculum vitae, company promotional literature, photographs, etc. may be included in the Appendices. References to the Consultant’s web page and/or any external communication material will not be considered or evaluated as part of the proposal submission. The proposal must, at a minimum, include the following elements: ● Proposed Project Approach and Methodology ● Declaration of any Conflict of Interest ● Signature of a person with authority to bind the company ● Other necessary relevant information

12.0 FEE SUMMARY

The following table is to be prepared and submitted for comparison of Fee Estimates. It is not intended to represent a detailed description of the full range of services to be provided. The Consultant should also provide a project staff list and indicate hours per task and hourly rates in an hourly task breakdown chart/time task matrix.

The Consultant is to ascertain the degree of detail to be summarized under each category and shall provide the summary for review by the Selection Committee along with any other related information for consideration. Page | 10 35

P20-52

The Consultant’s summary must include each of the tasks listed below for the Fee estimate to be considered for this project.

Phase Description / Activity Schedule Total Cost

Task 1 – Project Management, including project meetings (in person and conference calls) Task 2 – Information gathering and analysis

Task 3 – Draft Feasibility Study report and incorporation of Steering Committee comments (up to 4 sets of comments on draft) Task 4 – Workshop Task 5 – Draft Conceptual Plans and documentation, incorporation of Steering Committee comments (up to 4 sets of comments on draft) Task 6 – Final Report incorporating Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plans Task 7 – Preparation of Final Presentation, presentation to Steering Committee and incorporation of comments Task 6 – Presentations to Council and Boards (include a minimum of 4) Disbursements

Total Fee $

HST (13%) $

TOTAL FEE $

Page | 11 36

P20-52

13.0 EVALUATION AND AWARD For the purpose of developing a short list and/or determining the Proposal that is in the best interest of the City, the following criteria and weighting system shall be used:

Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Weighting

1. Qualifications and Experience of Firm o Relevant and similar project experience of consultant and all sub-consultants o Experience of previous similar projects 20 points o Experience of working on municipal and school Board projects o Minimum 3 references for projects of similar scope and budget

2. Qualifications and Experience of Key Team Members o Qualification and experience of Project Manager and available time commitment for the project o Demonstration of experience and qualifications in community development planning, urban and conceptual design 20 points o A complete list of project team members with their relevant experience and time commitment in this project o Curricula Vitae of key staff outlining technical qualifications and experience relevant to the work with references for related experience (maximum of 2 pages per team member) o Consideration will be given to proponents who demonstrate experience as a team on projects that align directly with the scope of work.

3. Overall Proposed Project Approach and Methodology o An understanding of the project objectives, requirements, key deliverables; o Proposed project approach and methodology to achieve the project objective; o Project Management Plan with detailed approach to 30 points manage project scope, schedule, budget, quality, risk and communication processes o Detailed project schedule with estimated start and end dates for each phase of the project from initiation to

Page | 12 37

P20-52

completion of the project

4. Financial o Time and materials project fees including disbursements o Breakdown and cost of major tasks and deliverables 30 points (as per the Fee Estimate table) o Appropriate fixed hourly rates and rate table for all staff that will be contributing to the project for the duration of the project in the form of an hourly task breakdown chart/time task matrix

TOTAL SCORE 100 points

The City may negotiate any aspect of any RFP submission with one or more of the proponents at any time. Negotiations with any proponent shall not oblige the City to enter into a contract with any proponent or be construed as an acceptance of the RFP submission. All negotiations shall be in writing, in a form satisfactory for inclusion into the contract.

All or any prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, understandings, undertakings and proposals, either written or oral, relating to this subject matter are hereby superseded by this RFP.

Proponents are advised that this information is to be provided at their own expense. The City may wish to interview proponents after submissions have been reviewed, for clarification.

Proponents are further advised that no contract may result from the Request for Proposal.

Note: it is expected that Purchase Order (notification to proceed) will be provided within four to five (4 - 5) weeks of closing.

14.0 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Interested parties must carefully consider whether they have an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest including situations where the Consultant performs work for clients owning property adjacent to the Study Area boundaries. Consultants involved in any activity or matter that could reasonably result in an actual, potential, or perceived conflict between its interest or the interest of its clients, and the interest of the City are required to clearly identify these situations and submit a plan on how they propose to handle these situations so that the City’s interests will not be prejudiced. The City reserves the right to request changes to a conflict management plan to better address its needs. Notwithstanding the City’s right to negotiate changes, where the City in its sole discretion determines a conflict management plan to be inadequate to protect the City’s interests the City may disqualify the Consultant. The proponent should identify in their proposal their assessment of potential conflicts.

Page | 13 38

P20-52

15.0 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION/RELEASE OF OBLIGATIONS Any information received by proponents relating to the submission gained through this process or otherwise, is to be treated in strict confidence. Consultants must not disclose any details pertaining to their submission, unless written consent is secured from the City prior to such disclosure. In particular, Consultants shall not issue a news release or other public announcement pertaining to details of their submission or the selection process without prior written approval of the City.

Further, by responding to this Request for Services Consultants commit not to lobby any person either directly or indirectly involved. This includes City Councilors, City Staff, members of the Technical Team and any potential Consultants or advisors.

The City is not bound to accept any submission and may proceed as, in its sole discretion, it determines following receipt of submissions. The City reserves the right to consider any, none or, all submissions received, to accept submissions in whole or in part, or to discuss different or additional terms to those envisaged in these terms of reference, to amend or modify any term and to elect not to proceed with this project.

The City reserves the right to request new or additional information regarding the Consultant and any individuals or other persons associated with their submissions.

The City also reserves the right to disseminate information to the public. The Municipal Freedom of Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act applies to this process.

Page | 14 39

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - JK-8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (519 PUPIL PLACES) SIZE FLOOR AREA INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Kindergarten 5 101 1,082 505 5,410 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Community use of schools permitting outside of school day Classroom 14 70 757 980 10,598 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Community use of schools permitting outside of school day Art Room 1 95 1,027 95 1,027 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Community use of schools permitting outside of school day Science Room 1 114 1,230 114 1,230 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization. Tech space could be scheduled between boards Ground floor and easy access to entrance/exit. Close proximity to the SPED bus drop Special Education Area 1 130 1,395 130 1,395 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization. off location should also be a strong consideration Resource Area - Loaded 1 57 614 57 614 All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Resource Area - Unloaded 3 20 210 60 630 N/A N/A Unloaded resource areas do not contribute to the school's On-the-Ground capacity Gymnasium Area and Stage 2 284 3,057 568 6,114 All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Community use of schools permitting outside of school day Change Rooms 2 21 229 43 458 All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Community use of schools permitting outside of school day

Library 1 224 2,630 224 2,630 All parties WRDSB exclusive use of some space during school day Square footage based on funding allocation (if building a stand-alone facility) General Purpose 3 50 542 150 1,626 All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Community use of schools permitting outside of school day TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL AREA 34 1,166 12,773 2,926 31,732 SIZE FLOOR AREA OPERATIONAL SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 General Office 128 1,373 All parties WRDSB's "Safe Welcome" security protocols need to be enforced Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 106 1,145 All parties Teacher work rooms Kitchen 24 261 All parties Custodial Areas 42 448 All parties Academic Storage 41 436 WRDSB/WCDSB Washrooms 154 1,660 All parties Gymnasium Storage 53 575 All parties Separate by locked areas? Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) 43 460 All parties Mechanical Spaces 64 688 All parties TOTAL OPERATIONAL AREA 0 0 0 655 7,046 SIZE FLOOR AREA COMMUNITY USE ROOMS # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Child Care 341 3,670 Safety and security of clients is top priority TOTAL COMMUNITY AREA 341 3,670 SIZE FLOOR AREA OUTDOOR AMENITIES # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Asphalt Play Area All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Soccer Pitch All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Multi-use Playing Field All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Creative Play Structure All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day Outdoor Classroom All parties WRDSB exclusive use during school day WRDSB exclusive use of approx. 80 spaces for Parking 80 All parties staff/child care during operational day TOTAL OUTDOOR AREA 80 0 0 0 0

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - JK-8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (519 PUPIL PLACES) SIZE FLOOR AREA OTHER FACILITIES (INTERNAL OR EXTE # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Bicycle Lockers/Storage All parties Skateboard/scooter storage All parties Flag and ceremonial area All parties Waste collection and recycling All parties Servery/canteen All parties Reception Area All parties Receiving and Loading area All parties Bus loading area All parties Site plan to include option of 2 x 6 packs of portables (complying with Ontario Building Portable Classrooms 12 N/A May not be required Code for fire separation from the main building and area of future addition) Meeting Room N/A Not included in funding for school External access to/ external washroom All parties TOTAL OTHER AREA 12 0 0 0 0 FLOOR AREA m2 ft2 WRDSB TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL AREA 2,926 31,732 WRDSB TOTAL OPERATIONAL AREA 655 7,046 GROSS UP ADDED (36.80%) 1,326 14,270 GROSS UP FLOOR AREA 4,928 53,048 CHILD CARE 341 3,670 WRDSB TOTAL AREA 10,176 56,718

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

WATERLOO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - JK-8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (354 PUPIL PLACES) SIZE FLOOR AREA INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Kindergarten 3 111 1,200 333 3,600 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Classroom 11 70 750 770 8,250 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Art Room 1 98 1,050 98 1,050 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization Science Room 1 98 1,050 98 1,050 WRDSB/WCDSB Availablity of sharing based on school utilization. Tech space could be scheduled between boards Special Education Area 130 1,395 0 0 Resource Area - Loaded 57 614 0 0 All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Resource Area - Unloaded 20 210 0 0 Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 372 4,000 372 4,000 All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Change Rooms 2 37 400 74 800 All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day All parties WCDSB exclusive use of some space during Library 1 223 2,400 223 2,400 school day General Purpose 50 542 0 0 All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Site plan to include option of 6 pack of portables (complying with Ontario May not be required Building Code for fire separation from the main building and area of future Portables 6 addition) Additional Instructional Area Flexibility 254 2,739 TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL AREA 26 1,266 13,611 2,222 23,889 SIZE FLOOR AREA OPERATIONAL SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 General Office 0.29 3.10 111 1,200 Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 0.20 2.20 72 779 Kitchen 20 210 Custodial Areas 0.16 1.70 56 602 Meeting Room 21 230 Academic Storage 0.09 1.00 33 354 Washrooms 0.30 3.20 105 1,133 Gymnasium Storage 31 330 Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) 12 130 Mechanical Spaces 0.54 5.77 190 2,043 All parties TOTAL OPERATIONAL AREA 0 1.58 16.97 651 7,011 SIZE FLOOR AREA COMMUNITY USE ROOMS # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Child Care 0 n/a n/a n/a TOTAL COMMUNITY AREA 0 0 SIZE OUTDOOR AMENITIES # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 Asphalt Play Area All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Soccer Pitch All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Multi-use Playing Field All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Creative Play Structure All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day Outdoor Classroom All parties WCDSB exclusive use during school day WCDSB exclusive use of approx. 75 spaces for Parking 75 All parties staff/child care during operational day TOTAL OUTDOOR AREA 75 0 0 0 0

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

WATERLOO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - JK-8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (354 PUPIL PLACES)

SIZE FLOOR AREA OTHER FACILITIES (INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL) # SHARING OPPORTUNRESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Bicycle Lockers/Storage Skateboard/scooter storage Flag and ceremonial area Waste collection and recycling Servery/canteen Reception Area Receiving and Loading area Bus loading area External access to/ external washroom TOTAL OTHER AREA 0 0 0 0 0

FLOOR AREA m2 ft2 WCDSB TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL AREA 2,222 23,889 WCDSB TOTAL OPERATIONAL AREA 651 7,011 GROSS UP ADDED (38%) 1,091 11,742 WCDSB TOTAL AREA 3,964 42,642

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RECREATION COMPLEX SIZE FLOOR AREA AQUATICS SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 3 basins, includes warm water therapy pool, leisure/learning pool and 25-metre, 10 Natatorium 3 20,000 All parties Rentals lane competition pool Change Rooms (Family) 3 5,500 Family, female and male. Wet change rooms Pool viewing/spectator seating 1 15,000 15,000 Pool Office 1 250 250 Pool Storage 1 750 750 Administrative space 1 1,800 1,800 View of pool required Mechanical 7,500 All parties Custodial 0 All parties TOTAL AQUATICS AREA 10 0 17,800 0 50,800 SIZE FLOOR AREA RECREATION SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Gymnasium & Bleachers 3 20,000 All parties Required City usage 3 FIBA Court Gym & Bleachers Indoor 4-lane walking/running track 1 12,000 Multi-use program room/meeting space 1 2,992 All parties Divisable to create two seperate spaces (23' x 44' and 45' x 44') Multi-use program room/meeting space 1 2,146 All parties Divisable to create two seperate spaces (32' x 37' and 26' x 37') Multi-use program room/meeting space 1 966 All parties Sport Hall of Fame displays 700 Fitness Studio 3,000 All parties Change room facilities 2,400 Confirm spacing Gym Storage 1,000 Office Administrative Space Confirm spacing Public lobby Circulation/Viewing Confirm spacing TOTAL RECREATION AREA 7 0 0 0 45,204 SIZE FLOOR AREA OTHER FACILITIES (INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL) # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Bicycle Lockers/Storage 10 Potential to split (ie. 5 at front entrance/5 at back entrace) Skateboard/scooter storage Flag and ceremonial area Potential for one flag area - all parties? Waste collection and recycling Servery/canteen (Food & Beverage service) Reception Area/Lobby Confirm spacing Receiving and Loading area External access to/ external washroom Preference for outdoor fields - significant cleaning requirement Gathering space Social spaces Landscaping Parking and site lighting 375 Hardscape TOTAL OTHER AREA 385 0 0 0 0 FLOOR AREA m2 ft2 TOTAL AQUATICS AREA 0 50,800 TOTAL RECREATION AREA 0 45,204 GROSS UP ADDED (15%) 13,568 GROSS UP FLOOR AREA CITY TOTAL AREA 0 109,572

Attachment A: Draft Space Needs Assessment

IDEA EXCHANGE SIZE FLOOR AREA PUBLIC USE SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Reading Area with Study Tables 1 550 Reading Area with Laptop Bar 1 500 Library Learning Commons - Study Area 1 2,200 WRDSB/WCDSB Shared Use Library Learning Commons - Book Stacks 1 1,700 Children's Area - Program Room 1 750 Children's Area - Play Area 1 800 Children's Area - Book Stacks & Reading 1 1,500 Public Meeting Rooms - Small 2 130 260 Occupancy of 6 people with table/chairs Public Meeting Room - Medium 1 300 Occupancy for 16 people with tables/chairs Large Classroom 1 750 All parties WRDSB/WCDSB exclusive use during school day; occupancy for 40 people with tables/chairs Makerspace 1 580 All parties Attached to Large Classroom Internet Station Area 1 200 Member Services 1 400 Service Desk, Accessibility Service Station, Bookdrop Access, Sorter Room Public Entrance & Security Gates 1 400 Bookdrop accessible by walk-up & drive-up, Lobby, Art Gallery Exhibition Space Public Universal Washroom 1 110 Universal family washroom TOTAL PUBLIC USE SPACE 0 11,000

SIZE FLOOR AREA OPERATIONAL NON-PUBLIC SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 IT Server Room 100 IT for Idea Exchange, not shared, room requires humidity & temperature controls

Administrative Space 1,200

Kitchenette/Staff room/Staff Washroom 100 Custodial Part of Gross Up Storage Part of Gross Up

Mechanical Spaces & BAS Part of Gross Up Waste Disposal & Recycling Area Part of Gross Up Receiving and Loading Area Part of Gross Up

TOTAL OFFICE & IT SPACE 1,400

SIZE FLOOR AREA OUTDOOR SPACE # SHARING OPPORTUNITIES RESTRICTIONS NOTES m2 ft2 m2 ft2 Reading garden Lockable, fenced grass area with benches and garden beds

Parking 22 Including 2 accessibility & 2 expectant mother/family parking near the front of the library TOTAL OUTDOOR SPACE 22 0

FLOOR AREA m2 ft2 TOTAL PUBLIC USE SPACE 11,000 TOTAL NON-PUBLIC IT SERVER ROOM & STAFF OFFICES 1,400 GROSS UP ADDED 1,600 GROSS UP FLOOR AREA IDEA EXCHANGE TOTAL AREA 0 14,000

Schedule “C” – Feasibility Study Schedule (Draft)

Project Kick Off Beginning of July, 2020

Draft Feasibility Study 6 weeks after project kick off

Workshop – Conceptual Design 7 weeks after project kick off

Draft Conceptual Design 11 weeks after project kick off

Final Feasibility Study and Conceptual 14 weeks after project kick off Design

Presentation to Council and Boards October-November 2020

Schedule “D” – Steering Committee Membership

Jennifer Passy, Manager of Planning, Waterloo Catholic District School Board

Adrian Frigula, Construction and Renovations Supervisor, Waterloo Catholic District School Board

Lauren Agar, Manager of Planning, Waterloo Region District School Board

Todd McDougall, Project Coordinator, Wateroo Region District School Board

Helen Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, Idea Exchange

Yogesh Shah, Director of Asset Management & Project Management Office, City of Cambridge

Rachel Fraser, Manager of Recreation and Culture, City of Cambridge

Steering Committee Coordinator: Mary Kennedy, Project Management Office Analyst, City of Cambridge

Date: 08/07/2020 Internal Memo #: IM20-022(CD)

To: Council

Circulated to: Corporate Leadership Team, Clerk

Department: Community Development

Divisions: Engineering & Transportation and Planning Services

From: Sarah Austin, Acting City Engineer

Elaine Brunn Shaw, Chief Planner

Subject: Virtual Public Consultation Format

Comments

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the requirement for physical distancing, the public consultation process has been interrupted as gatherings are prohibited. An online/virtual model is being proposed for public consultations moving forward. The purpose of this memo is to explain the process and capabilities of holding virtual public consultations.

What is a Virtual Public Consultation? There are many elements that could be included in a virtual public consultation. The main element would be a project page, typically on the engagecambridge.ca platform. The project page would have all the relevant content to the project such as, but not limited to: Drawings; Information Packages; Supporting/background studies Surveys; Polls; and, Frequently Asked Questions. There are also capabilities to include embedded videos and/or voiceovers with presentation materials as a substitute to a live presentation.

How will the public be notified? There would be no change to the notification process. Residents can be notified through mail outs, an ad in the Cambridge Times, email lists, signs at the project site, and social media.

How can the public provide feedback? The project page would have an area for public feedback. The project manager would decide how to collect this information, either through surveys, polls, or open comment forms. A phone number and email would also be provided as an alternative to provide feedback for those who are unable to use a computer or for those who want to speak directly with the project manager.

What if a resident doesn’t have access to a computer? With the reopening of local libraries for limited use including computers, residents could access the information at their local library. For those unable to access a computer, there would be an option to request a

hard copy package. Depending on the type of requests, residents could come to City Hall to pick up their package, or the package could be mailed or hand delivered.

Benefits to a Virtual Model: With an online platform, residents will have access to information from anywhere, at any time. The public consultation window can be open longer since staff, residents and consultants aren’t required to be at a location at a specific time. This gives the public more time to participate in the process and it is more accessible to a larger audience. This approach also allows public consultation to continue throughout the year, including summer months because people have more flexible opportunities to review information and provide input at their leisure. Staff also have the capabilities to update the page as questions and comments come in, keeping the public informed throughout the entirety of the project.

Many municipalities have pivoted to a virtual model for public consultations. The Region of Waterloo is taking a similar approach. Virtual consultation is also being supported by the Municipal Engineers Association as a way to meet the public consultation requirements of a Class Environmental Assessment.

The City of Cambridge has participated in two projects to date with virtual consultations. Examples of the project pages can be viewed at the links in the Attachments section of this memo. Other municipal examples have also been included.

Attachments

City of Cambridge Examples of Current and Upcoming Consultation Projects:

City of Cambridge - Dunbar Road Multi-Use Trail: https://www.engagewr.ca/dunbar-multi-use-trail

City of Cambridge - Dickson Street Reconstruction and Streetscaping: https://www.engagewr.ca/dickson-street-reconstruction-streetscaping

Upcoming – River Road Secondary Plan

Upcoming – Galt Core Area Urban Design Height Guidelines

Upcoming – Inclusionary Zoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Results

Upcoming – Growth and Intensification Study

Other Municipal Examples:

City of London - Dundas-Thames Valley Parkway Connection: https://getinvolved.london.ca/dundas-tvp-connection

City of Brantford – Three Grand River Crossings: https://www.brantford.ca/en/your-government/three-grand-river-crossings.aspx

Approvals: ☒ Manager/Supervisor ☒ Deputy City Manager ☒ City Manager

Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters' Associatio n Local 499 11 Tannery Stree t East - Cambridge, Ontario N3C ZCl Affi liated with th e IA FF, O PFFA , & CLC

June 10, 2020

Mayor Kathryn McGarry City of Cambridge 50 Dickson St Cambridge, Ontario NlR SW8

Your worship Mayor McGarry,

We would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of City Council, and Corporate Leadership through this recent pandemic. We recognize that our community as a whole has worked diligently to help reduce the spread of the COVID -19 virus. This unified approach has been appreciated by the more than 140 fire fighters safeguarding our community 24/7 protecting property, preventing injury and working to save lives throughout the pandemic.

Our members have attended a number of unfortunate and untimely incidents during the pandemic, and COVID-19 has made these events more stressful than normal. Mental Health resources such as the EFAP, and our IAFF Peer Support Team have been invaluable in assisting your fire fighters.

We offer our voice of support for your requests along with those of many other municipalities, for additional funding assistance from other levels of government. The cost containment plan and other deliberations of council are very proactive with respect to maintaining essential services linked to public safet y. These requests and actions are prudent and responsible to offset future operating expenses, manage municipal deficits, and optimize service levels in our communit y.

Enclosed, you will find a letter of support from the IAFF Canada, on behalf of more than 26,000 fr ont • line workers in the fire service, communications and paramedicine. Please share this correspondence and the enclosed with your colleagues on Council, and other Corporate leadership staff.

Our Legislative Committee has been keeping our members informed of City Council proceedings, and we acknowledge the efforts of all Council members. We are all on the same team with the fight against COVID-19, and we appreciate the public and council's continued support in this regard.

Sincerely,

Secretary and Chairperson, Legislative Committee Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters Association

Encl. : IAFF Canada Statement on Emergency Funding for Municipalities (1) CC: MP Bryan May, MPP Belinda Karahalios, MPP Amy Fee 51

IAFF Canada Statement on Emergency Funding for Municipalities

The International Association of Fire Fighters {IAFF) represents more than 26,000 frontline emergency responders in Canada, including men and women who serve their communities in municipal fire departments as professional fire fighters and as emergency medical responders including paramedics.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments at all levels have been working hard to protect the health and safety of Canadians, which remains an absolute priority, and to address the economic impacts of this unprecedented emergency . The IAFF recognizes and appreciates the many measures that governments have already undertaken in response to the pandemic.

As a result of the pandemic, communities across Canada are faced with exceptional challenges, including financial challenges and the challenge of maintaining a range services that Canadians depend on every day, including essential public safety services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. In the near term and in the long term, it will be important to ensure that Canadian municipalities have the financial resources they need to maintain municipal services. It is also important to the nation's economy that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who deliver those services keep working.

The International Association of Fire Fighters adds its voice to those calling for the federal and provincial/territorial governments to provide emergency operating funding to municipalities to help mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and allow them to maintain vital services.

We support recent statements from the Canadian Labour Congress and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also urging over $10 billion in emergency funding for municipalit ies .

On June 1, the federal government announced $2.2 billion in accelerated infrastructure funding for municipalities delivered through the federal Gas Tax Fund. While we support the federal government's response to expedite municipal payments, we share the concerns of municipalities, calling for additional funding towards future operating expenditures that will help municipalities maintain essential services including those directly linked to public saf et y.

An economically-secure city is best positioned to protect the safety of its citizens and to continue delivering the services they need and use every day .

CONTACT: Scott Marks, Assistant to the General President [email protected]

TELEPHONE 613-968-6481 FILE NO.

OFFICE OF CITY CLERK QCitp of ellebi lle 169 FRONT STREET BELLEVILLE, ONTARIO KBV 2Y8

June 11, 2020

The Honourable Doug Ford Premier's Office, Room 281 Legislative Building, Queen's Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Dear Premier Ford:

RE: Request for Provincial Funding for Rehabilitation Facilities

8.c.2.a. Belleville City Council Meeting, June 81 2020

This is to advise you that at the Council Meeting of June 8, 2020 the following resolution was approved.

"THAT Belleville City Council supports the following resolution of The City of Cambridge:

'WHEREAS there is a failure of our overall drug and addictions policies and strategies to provide for adequate, timely and sustainable detox and addiction rehabilitation programs in a safe, supportive environment; and,

WHEREAS methods of harm reduction are a stopgap until those struggling with addiction are able to have immediate access to adequate detox and rehabilitation programs; and

WHEREAS the community of Cambridge has shown their concern and compassion for the lack of access and availability for their fellow residents who are asking for such assistance; and

WHEREAS there is an inadequate quantity of rehabilitation facilities throughout the province providing the required number of beds and programs for those struggling with substance abuse requesting assistance; and ../2

8.c.2.a. . Council Informatio n Page 2 Matters June9, 2020

WHEREAS publically funded services for detox and rehabilitation programs would ensure that all persons receive such help equitably and in a sustainable way; and

WHEREAS some persons struggling with substance abuse may need such programs more than once;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cambridge asks the Province of Ontario for the much needed funding to provide for such relief for the City of Cambridge as well as throughout the province."'

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Matthew MacDonald Director of Corporate Services/City Clerk

MM/nh Pc: AMO Todd Smith, MPP Prince Edward-Hastings Daryl Kramp , MPP Hastings - Lennox & Addington Danielle Manton, City Clerk , City of Cambridge

Item #4

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/20

Subject: Strategic Plan 2020-2023 Phase 2 Council Workshop

Submitted By: Brooke Lambert, Director, Corporate Strategy

Prepared By: Nicole Drake, Strategic Initiatives & Policy Specialist

Report No.: 20-211(CRE)

File No.: CC101

Recommendation(s)

THAT Report 20-211(CRE) re: Strategic Plan 2020-2023 Phase 2 Council Workshop be received; and

AND THAT Council direct the City Clerk to schedule a Council Workshop for Phase 2, to be held virtually, between the dates of September 28th and October 2nd, 2020.

Executive Summary

Purpose

• The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s direction to proceed with planning a Council Workshop as part of the Phase 2 engagement for the 2020-2023 Strategic Plan.

• Community and staff engagement activities commenced in August 2020. A Council Workshop will provide members of Council with the opportunity to review consultation feedback and participate in an interactive sense-making and scenario-building workshop that will inform the final phase of strategic plan development.

• It is anticipated that the final version of the Cambridge Connected Strategic Plan will be brought to Council before the end of the year for approval. Key Findings

• The first phase of the strategic planning process for Cambridge Connected 2020- 2023 was successful at creating interest in the project and gathering community input.

• A Council workshop took place on March 9, 2020 during Phase 1 consultation. This event provided Council with a working session to discuss and identify Council’s priorities at this initial stage of strategy development.

• A second Council workshop is desirable in Phase 2 to allow members of Council the opportunity to review the input that has been received to date and continue to identify and confirm Council’s strategic priorities (including short-term COVID-19 recovery priorities) prior to entering the final phase of strategic plan development.

• As with the first council workshop, this will be a facilitated working session and public will be able to observe the proceedings; however, delegations will not be permitted and only directions to staff will be permitted. No motions will be provided.

• In order to maintain the timelines required to proceed to the final stages of plan development, this workshop should occur no later than Friday, October 2, 2020. Financial Implications

• The 2020-2023 Strategic Plan is part of the approved Capital Budget for 2019 (A/00689-20).

• The strategic plan supports the City’s annual budget by ensuring financial resources are appropriately allocated to achieve the vision of the plan.

Background

In 2016, Council adopted a new strategic plan, Cambridge Connected: Our Voice, Our Vision. This four year plan articulated the vision, mission and values of the City of Cambridge and identified the longer term strategic themes, goals and objectives.

In December 2019, Council endorsed staff report 19-199(CRE), which outlined the 2020-2023 strategic planning process and work plan to be accomplished in 2020.

As part of that work plan, staff indicated that reports would be brought to Council regularly to ensure maximum transparency and encourage ongoing communication about the strategic plan development. Council was also informed that opportunities to participate in the development of the plan would be available at all stages. The proposed workshop would be the key opportunity to accomplish this in Phase 2.

Phase 1 took place from December to March 2020, and is now complete. Staff Report 20-067(CRE) summarized the milestones achieved and input received through consultation with stakeholders, including the community and Council. Report 20- 067(CRE) was approved by Council on July 14, 2020.

Phase 2 began in April 2020 with background research and assessment of information gathered in Phase 1. Community and staff engagement activities are now underway.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PEOPLE To actively engage, inform and create opportunities for people to participate in community building – making Cambridge a better place to live, work, play and learn for all.

Goal #2 - Governance and Leadership

Objective 2.1 Provide a wide range of ways that people can become involved in city decision making.

The Strategic Plan is an important opportunity to check in with the community and make sure that the City is working towards the goals and objectives to achieve the overall vision that has been articulated. It helps to guide decision making, identify priorities, and measure progress so that resources can be allocated to areas of greatest importance and impact.

Comments

Project Administration

Project administration is being coordinated through the Corporate Strategy division, allowing the City to retain project management functions within the City and reduce costs. Openly Inc. has been retained to assist the City in developing the strategic plan through Phases 2 and 3 of this project.

The consultants’ scope of work focuses on data analysis and community consultation activities, including facilitation of focus groups and workshops such as the one proposed for Council. Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, all public consultation activities have been moved to online platforms such as Zoom and EngageCambridge.ca. The strategic plan is also being adapted to include short-term recovery objectives as part of the scope of work.

Phase 2 Council Workshop

A Council Workshop is desirable in Phase 2 to allow members of Council the opportunity to review the input that has been received to date and continue to identify and confirm Council’s strategic priorities (including short-term COVID-19 recovery priorities) prior to entering the final phase of strategic plan development.

As with the first council workshop, this will be a facilitated working session and the public will be able to observe the proceedings; however, no delegations will be permitted and only direction to staff will be given. In this case, Council direction is being requested prior to moving forward with planning the workshop due to the fact that meetings must be held virtually and it is not possible to accommodate a workshop within Council’s previously approved meeting schedule. Staff will schedule the workshop in collaboration with the City Clerk and Council staff.

In order to maintain the timelines required to proceed to the final stages of plan development, this workshop should occur no later than Friday, October 2, 2020.

Existing Policy/By-Law

There is no existing policy/by-law.

Financial Impact

Funding for the 2020-2023 Strategic Plan in the amount of $100,000 was approved as part of the 2019 Capital Budget process (Capital Project A/00689-20). The project is on target to be completed within this amount.

The strategic plan envisions the direction and goals of the City and establishes guidelines and actions to achieve those goals. It sets the direction for how the City will grow and prosper in future years, provide relevant and efficient services to the community, be effective in its governance and respond to challenges posed by the current global pandemic. This information will support the City’s annual budget and future financial decisions by providing the funding needed to achieve the goals.

Public Input

Public Input is critical to the development of the strategic plan. More than 1,000 people were engaged with the project during Phase 1.

In Phase 2, public input is invited via the project website on the EngageCambridge.ca platform and promoted through the City’s website and social media channels. All feedback is being provided to our consultants and will help to inform the workshop discussion and focus on community priorities.

Internal/External Consultation

As with Public Input, internal and external consultation is critical to the success of this project.

Staff across the corporation have been informed and engaged in the project through the Steering Committee, Project Team and internal communications channels.

Community members and agencies will be engaged and consulted during the development of the goals and objectives through online focus groups and through the EngageCambridge.ca platform.

Conclusion

The development of the City of Cambridge’s 2020-2023 strategic plan is an opportunity to identify current and emerging priorities for the City to address over the next few years. The project is still on track to be completed in 2020, however it is necessary that all Phase 2 engagement activities (including Council engagement) be completed in a timely manner so that the plan can be brought to City Council for approval. This will ensure that the City can move forward with implementation in early 2021.

Consultation and involvement of Council is an important complement to the input received from staff and community members. Ensuring the plan aligns with Council priorities will result in an achievable and meaningful framework for measurable action that can support the City during its short-term economic recovery resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and into the future.

Signature

Division Approval

Name: Brooke Lambert Title: Director, Corporate Strategy

Departmental Approval

Name: Cheryl Zahnleiter Title: Deputy City Manager Corporate Enterprise

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

N/A

Item #5

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/2020

Subject: Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) Community Improvement Plan

Submitted By: James Goodram, Director of Economic Development

Prepared By: Trevor McWilliams, Manager of Business Development

Report No.: 20-083(CRE)

File No.: C1101

Recommendation(s)

THAT Report 20-083 (CRE), Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) Community Improvement Plan regarding the process for implementing a Community Improvement Plan for Financial Incentives be received;

AND THAT Council pass the attached By-law designating the identified Core Areas as community improvement project areas;

AND THAT City staff prepare a draft community improvement plan for public consultation and input;

AND THAT the current Core Area incentives continue until the implementation of the new Core Area incentives arising out of this community improvement plan process;

AND FURTHER THAT City staff prepare a future report to Council about the recommended community improvement plan and public input received.

Executive Summary

Purpose

• The purpose of this report is to outline the process for implementing a new Community Improvement Plan (CIP) within the Core Areas for incentive programs and re-designate the Core Areas (as per the Official Plan) as community improvement project areas.

• The Core Areas are already exempt from various building/planning fees. New policies for new and updated financial incentive programs will be written to apply to the Core Areas. Until these new and updated financial incentive programs can be added, the current Core Area incentives will continue.

Key Findings

• One of the main pillars of the Core Areas Transformation Fund was specifically created to establish a program and funding mechanism to stimulate transformative investment to support city-building in Cambridge’s three urban Core Areas. This report is the first step in implementing a portion of that transformation. Financial Implications

• The new, Council approved, Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) will be used to fund the new incentive programs.

• The Core Areas Transformation initiative was approved by Council on June 23, 2020.

Background

Community Improvement Plans

Community Improvement Plans (CIP) are tools used to support and encourage physical improvement and investment within a delineated area of the city. Section 28 of the Planning Act provides powers to the municipality to develop a CIP and offer financial incentives to be used by private property owners and developers to undertake improvement projects.

Without a CIP, provision of these incentives to private businesses/developers would be considered ‘bonusing’ and would be illegal under the Municipal Act. A CIP must also include a comprehensive study that includes stakeholder and public engagement. At the end of the process, the City will have a series of economic development tools that will enhance investment in Cambridge’s three Core Areas.

Further information on CIPs is also contained within this report under the Existing By- law section and in Attachment 1 to this report.

City of Cambridge CIP

On July 23rd, 2019, Cambridge Council approved the $20 million Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF). The intent of this initiative was to provide financial assistance that can be leveraged to encourage partnerships that will create vibrant and

healthy Core Areas in our city. Financial incentives are one mechanism to achieve this goal.

While the City of Cambridge currently has financial incentives that have been in existence since the mid 1990’s, many such incentives are now quite antiquated.

The intent of this report is to advise Council that Staff is beginning the process to create a new Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to stimulate the development of the three (3) Core Areas by providing new and improved incentive-based programs. The actual intent of a CIP is to help focus public attention on local priorities and municipal initiatives which can be provided once the plan is in place.

In addition, with the adoption of the Core Areas Transformation Fund and the potential impacts of COVID 19 on Core Area businesses and developments, Staff is proposing bringing this new Plan forward at this time.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.2 Promote vibrant and inviting downtown cores by encouraging partnerships and creating a wide range of unique, exciting destinations and activities.

Creation of new Core Area incentives financed from the Core Areas Transformation Fund will provide financial assistance that can be leveraged to encourage partnerships that will create vibrant downtowns and healthy core areas in our city.

Comments

Cambridge’s Core Areas

Cities of all sizes throughout Canada have implemented new plans to revitalize and reinvent their downtowns. Such revitalization strategies are vital as Core Areas are the living, breathing heart of a City and are essential to the economic and social well-being of the community. In Cambridge, we are fortunate to have three, unique and historic Core Areas with their individual downtowns that we continually celebrate.

Downtown Cambridge is specifically identified as the location of the City’s Urban Growth Centre. As noted by the Province, Urban Growth Centres are to be planned as focal points for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well as to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure. Downtown Cambridge provides

for the greatest opportunity for creating higher density housing as well as office and commercial development of all kinds.

In addition to Downtown Cambridge, there are also two community downtowns serving Preston and Hespeler. These community downtowns serve a vital economic purpose in the more immediate area. In the north end of the Preston core area a future LRT transit hub will be located and together with the current surrounding land use provides an opportunity for increased residential density. In Hespeler, several key sites remain vacant/underutilized that can accommodate more dense forms of urban development.

Core Areas represent a symbol of a city to other cities and regions, and provide a place for a wide range of unique, exciting destinations and activities. Having healthy Core Areas are essential to having a strong city and region.

Financial Incentives

Cambridge has had Core Area incentives from the mid 1990’s. However, as of 2020, many are now antiquated and unnecessarily complex as compared to other municipalities. One mechanism in investing in the Core Areas is utilization of incentive programs to stimulate revitalization and enhancement of a downtown area.

Cambridge currently has the following Core specific financial incentive programs:

• Design Guide Program

• Building Revitalization Program (BRP) Loan/Grant

• Contaminated Sites Grant Program

• Application Fee Exemptions

• Development Charge Exemptions

City wide incentives include:

• Heritage Grant Program

• Brownfield Tax Increment Grant Program

• Employment Land Development Charge Reduction

• Development Charge Exemptions

As part of the CIP process, Staff will be examining the existing incentive programs to see what needs to be retained, what can be removed, and what new incentives may be necessary. What is known is that financial incentives are still required as Cambridge has not yet reached a market tipping point for development without incentives.

Updated By-Law

Staff is bringing forward a new by-law designating the Core Areas as Community Improvement areas as the current by-laws are decades old. The current draft by-law (Attachment 2) uses the most current mapping of the Core Areas and also includes a provision to continue the current financial incentive programs until the new programs have been appropriately approved by Cambridge Council and by-law.

Next Steps

Staff will proceed to initiate this project. Stakeholder consultation will be taking place, as well as a public meeting, as required by the Planning Act. Staff anticipates returning to Council in the summer of 2021 for approval of the new program.

Existing Policy/By-Law

Section 28 of the Planning Act and sections 106 and 365.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provide the legislative framework for community improvement planning (CIPs).

CIPs are subject to Provincial approval, and the preparation of a community improvement plan is treated in the same manner as the preparation of an Official Plan. Subsection 28(5) of the Planning Act incorporates the provisions of Section 17 regarding requirements for consultation and public meetings, submissions and comments, adoption of the community improvement plan, and prescribed notice.

In accordance with the City of Cambridge Official Plan, the entire municipality is designated as a community improvement area and Council may, by by-law, designate part or all of the community improvement area as a Community Improvement Project Area and prepare a Community Improvement Plan (s.10.15 (3)). Further, community improvement initiatives may be undertaken to address “areas exhibiting symptoms of physical, functional, and/or economic decline (e.g. buildings in need of rehabilitation, high vacancy rate, decrease in retail sales)” (10.15.2 (c)). The intent and purpose of such a policy in the Official Plan was to permit the creation of incentives.

It is important to note for Council’s benefit that without an approved community improvement plan (CIP), incentives such as grants and loans to private property owners would be illegal per section 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Under this section, municipalities cannot grant ‘bonuses’ by financially assisting any industrial or commercial enterprise, such as financial incentives, unless done under the authority of an approved community improvement plan (CIP).

The current CIP designates the Core Areas (as per the City of Cambridge Official Plan). The proposed CIP also proposes to designate the Core Areas as designated by the Official Plan. This will permit a smooth transition from the old incentives to the new incentives.

Financial Impact

As noted previously, one of the pillars within the Council approved Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) was specifically created to provide private sector stimulus. This additional stimulus will bring many planned projects to a reality from a financing perspective. While Cambridge currently provides some financial incentives, additional funding from new and improved incentives will help to lead the transformational change necessary.

Public Input

The Planning Act requires public meetings be held before a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) can be considered by Council for adoption. The purpose of these public meetings is to provide the community with the required information regarding community needs to ensure any incentive-based programs address the needs and challenges of existing and future development in the Core Areas.

In addition, the City website will be updated to contain information on this new CIP and newspaper advertisements will go in the Cambridge Times to apprise the community of this undertaking. It is anticipated this public meeting will occur in early (January/February) 2021.

Internal/External Consultation

Economic Development Staff continues to be in consultation with:

• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

• Council Members

• Various City Departments (City Manager, Corporate Leadership Team, Policy Planning, etc.)

• Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC)

• Cambridge’s three Business Improvement Areas

• Chamber of Commerce

• Development Stakeholders

Due to the scope of implementing a CIP, staff from Legal Services, Realty and Property Services, and Financial Services will also be consulted during the process.

As noted above, further consultation with the public is legislated by the Planning Act.

Conclusion

The Core Areas Transformation Fund (CATF) was created specifically for economic stimulus to leverage partnerships and support transformative projects in the three Core Areas. Creating new and improved financial incentives funded from CATF will in turn stimulate commercial and residential development, create jobs, build transit ridership and increase assessment growth, among other tangible benefits.

Signature

Division Approval

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

Departmental Approval

Name: Cheryl Zahnleiter Title: Deputy City Manager Corporate Enterprise

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

• Attachment 1 - Community Improvement Plan Process

• Attachment 2 - Draft By-law with Schedules A, B, and C

Attachment 1 – Community Improvement Plan Process

A municipality is responsible for determining the steps within each stage of the three (3) part process of a Community Improvement Plan depending on the municipal goals and needs. Typically, the process is as follows:

Stage 1 – Building Your Plan’s Foundation (Community Vision)

a) Identify community need based on the Planning Act definition of “community improvement” and “community improvement project area.”

b) Building community support through stakeholder input and feedback.

c) Report to council for authorization and direction to prepare a community improvement plan.

Stage 2 – Preparing Your Plan (Building the Foundation)

a) Analyze and gather data on the physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the study area in order to identify key opportunities and challenges.

b) Conduct background analysis of planning, land use and other policies and strategies applicable to the study area.

c) Report back to Council with recommendation for designating a community improvement project area based on findings.

d) Draft municipal actions, programs and implementation policies that address identified problems and goals.

e) Develop detailed implementation policies for each incentive-based program.

f) Develop marketing policies to promote the intent of the program.

g) Develop criteria to measure and monitor the effectiveness of the financial incentive program.

h) Consider further stakeholder input at this time.

i) Develop an Action Plan for the allocation of resources and development of administrative practices and procedures necessary to implement your programs.

j) Finalize the draft community improvement plan and circulate to the appropriate staff at the Region/Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for review and comment.

k) Schedule and hold a formal public meeting no earlier than 20 days after the requirements for giving public notice have been completed.

l) Finalize the community improvement plan and forward it to council for adoption by by-law following the necessary revisions based on public input.

m) Finalize the Plan.

Stage 3 – Implementing the Plan (Getting Started)

a) Put the Plan into action by: establishing marketing programs; conducting ongoing screening and administering agreement and issuing financial assistance payments.

b) Periodically monitor each program and determine whether established targets are being met; desired outcome are being achieved; and full benefits and costs are in-line with CIP objectives. There may be other performance criteria established during the preparation of the plan.

c) Periodically monitor service delivery of each program to ensure service delivery is satisfactory; delivery methods may need to be modified; staff training may be required; and best practices from other municipalities may need to be adopted.

d) Make adjustments to policies, programs, administration or funding as deemed appropriate.

Attachment 2 – Draft By-law

BY-LAW NO. XXX-XX

of the

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Being a by-law of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge to designate Community Improvement Project Areas in the City of Cambridge for a new Financial Incentives (Core Areas Transformation Fund) Community Improvement Plan.

WHEREAS Sections 17 and 28 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended, provide for the designation of a Community Improvement Project Areas, and the preparation of Community Improvement Plans;

AND WHEREAS section 10.15 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan allows the City to designate Community Improvement Project Areas;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporation of the City of Cambridge enacts as follows:

1. THAT the Core Areas, as designated in the City of Cambridge Official Plan, also be designated Community Improvement Project Areas, as depicted in Schedules A, B, and C of this by-law.

2. THAT the current Financial Incentives continue until final approval of the new programs.

3. THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing thereof.

Read a First, Second and Third time Passed and Enacted this XX day of September 2020.

MAYOR

CLERK

AVE

RAND G

1:10,404

This is Schedule A attached to and forming part of By-law

Techno lo gy S ervi ces GIS Divisio n Lands affected by the by-law Mo nda y, J uly 27 , 2020 11 :02 :26 AM G:\CORP \TS\TSD\D 22_ 01 _GIS \In fo rm ation Pr odu cts\S ite Plan s\M xd \Co re A re as .m xd - walke rn

1:8,953

This is Schedule B attached to and forming part of By-law

Techno lo gy S ervi ces GIS Divisio n

Mo nda y, J uly 27 , 2020 11 :07 :26 AM G:\CORP \TS\TSD\D 22_ 01 _GIS \In fo rm ation Pr odu cts\S ite Plan s\M xd \Co re A re as .m xd - walke rn

1:6,000

This is Schedule C attached to and forming part of By-law

Techno lo gy S ervi ces GIS Divisio n Lands affected by the by-law Mo nda y, J uly 27 , 2020 11 :06 :10 AM G:\CORP \TS\TSD\D 22_ 01 _GIS \In fo rm ation Pr odu cts\S ite Plan s\M xd \Co re A re as .m xd - walke rn

Item #6

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/2020

Subject: Request to Amend Development Covenants and Restrictions for the Time for Development – Boxwood Business Campus

Submitted By: James Goodram, Director Economic Development

Prepared By: Trevor McWilliams, Manager of Business Development

Report No.: 20-192(CRE)

File No.: C1101

Recommendation(s)

THAT report 20-192(CRE), re: Request to Amend Development Covenants and Restrictions for the Time for Development - Boxwood Business Campus be received;

Executive Summary

Purpose

• A request for Council to approve an extension to the start of construction dates and substantial completion dates for the remaining eligible developments within the Boxwood Business Campus. The existing dates and new proposed dates are included in Attachment 1 to this report. Key Findings

• Under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for properties purchased within the Boxwood Business Campus, the owner is required to commence construction and be substantially complete within the times specified in the Agreement.

• Based on Clause 3d of the Development Covenants and Restrictions in the Agreement, if an extension of time is granted that the owner is required to pay liquidated damages to the City which are calculated based on the amount of

municipal taxes which the owner would have been required to pay had a building or buildings been constructed and any difference in land value. Under this current recommendation, no penalties would be issued or collected on the subject properties noted in Attachment 1 of this report.

• Due to the various economic impacts and delays from the legislated Provincial shutdown due to COVID-19, industrial development has been delayed within the prescribed timelines for several properties within Boxwood.

• As part of the City of Cambridge’s Economic Response Plan, Staff is proposing the one (1) year extensions noted above to allow eligible businesses time to economically stabilize while continuing on with their respective developments in Boxwood.

Financial Implications

• Collection of municipal property taxes on the subject sites noted in Attachment 1 will be deferred for a one (1) year duration. • Registration costs to amend the development covenants will be incurred per file in the amount of $77.31 inclusive of tax for an anticipated total of $695.79 inclusive of tax.

Background

As Council will recall, COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global recession that has seen a drop in the price of oil, severe impacts on tourism, the hospitality industry, the energy industry and a significant downturn in the development industry. These impacts have also been experienced locally.

For several developers in the Boxwood Business Campus construction stopped for a period of time during the legislated Provincial shut down which also directly impacted municipalities. Given this, developers have experienced delays in development due to reasons related directly to COVID-19. Due to these reasons, many developers within the Region, and Cambridge specifically, have suffered economic consequences.

Currently, all agreements of purchase and sale for properties in the Boxwood Business Campus contain Development Covenants and Restrictions requiring the owner to start construction within one (1) year of acquisition and then be substantially complete within one (1) year from said start of construction. Failure to do so causes liquidated damages to be assessed against the owner pursuant to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. This report is requesting to allow for a one (1) year extension to the start of construction date AND a one (1) year extension to the substantial completion date, without penalties, to be granted to the businesses/developers listed in Attachment 1 to this report.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.1 Support the creation and retention of high quality and diverse employment opportunities by becoming the destination of choice for business and entrepreneurship, including helping existing firms thrive and grow.

The development of the Boxwood Business Campus supported the City’s objective to assist with the creation of high quality and diverse employment opportunities. Providing latitude with a one year extension for the time of development will now assist businesses in these economically challenging times.

Comments

The COVID-19 pandemic has created economic uncertainty and a financial strain on the City, its residents, and its businesses. Additionally, developers have experienced delays in the development process due to the mandated Provincial shutdown. These delays have lengthened the time necessary for the development of the industrial facilities in Boxwood.

In consideration of these delays on the development industry since March of 2020, the City is proposing to assist the remaining developing businesses within the Boxwood Business Campus through the request of a one (1) year extension for the time of development. No liquidated damages would apply during that additional period.

For clarity, Staff has prepared the chart found in Attachment 1 to this report that details the existing dates and the new proposed dates for the start of construction and completion.

Eligibility

For Council’s information, any property that has currently been granted an extension would also be eligible for this further extension, provided that any and all associated penalties are not outstanding.

Existing Policy/By-Law

Timing of development and penalties are regulated as per the respective Development Covenants and Restrictions registered on title on the subject properties.

Financial Impact

As the developers are required to pay liquidated damages to the City (which are calculated based on the amount of municipal taxes which the owner would have been required to pay had a building or buildings been constructed and any difference in land value), approval of the recommendations contained in this report will defer the collection of municipal property taxes on the subject sites noted in Attachment 1. Registration costs to amend the development covenants will be incurred per file in the amount of $77.31 inclusive of tax, for a total of $695.79 inclusive of tax.

Public Input

Posted publicly as part of the report process.

Internal/External Consultation

Legal and Financial Services has been consulted on this report.

Conclusion

Staff recommends that a one (1) year extension to the construction start date and substantial completion date be granted without penalties to businesses/developers noted in Attachment 1, as outlined in this report.

Signature

Division Approval

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

Departmental Approval

Name: Cheryl Zahnleiter Title: Deputy City Manager

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

• Attachment 1 – List of Properties Eligible by the One (1) Year Extension

Attachment 1 – List of Properties Eligible by the One Year Extension

Date of Required Building permit New propsed buiding permit New proposed completion date, if Address Site Number Sold to Transfer date Required Completion Date date, if extended by 1 year extended by 1 year

1 150 Goddard 10+11+12 Dupar Controls Inc. 1-Feb-2019 February 1, 2020 February 1, 2021 NA February 1, 2022

140 Goddard 13 Goddard Developments 2 Cres 13 Corp. Albertino 23-Jul-2019 July 23, 2020 July 23, 2021 July 23, 2021 July 23, 2022

110 Goddard 16 Goddard Developments 3 Cres 16 Corp. Albertino 23-Jul-2019 January 24, 2021 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2023

100 Goddard 17 Goddard Developments 4 Cres 17 Corp. Alberttino 23-Jul-2019 January 24, 2021 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2023

38 Goddard Developments 5 Goddard Cres 38 Corp. Albertino 23-Jul-2019 July 23, 2020 July 23, 2021 July 23, 2021 July 23, 2022

42 Goddard Developments 6 Goddard Cres 42 Corp. Albertino 23-Jul-2019 January 24, 2021 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2023

43 Goddard Developments 7 Goddard Cres 43 Corp. Albertino 23-Jul-2019 January 24, 2021 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2022 January 24, 2023

115 Goddard 11092812 Canada Inc 8 Cres 40 (PPDS Canada) 12-Apr-2019 April 12, 2020 April 12, 2021 April 12, 2021 April 12, 2022

July 20, 2020 as amended July 20, 2021 as amended 9 10 Goddard 23 Blendtech Inc. 20-Jul-2018 2019-07-20 2020-07-20 NA July 20, 2022

Item #7

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/20

Subject: Riverside Dam – Resuming Detailed Design

Submitted By: Sarah Austin, Acting City Engineer

Prepared By: Scott MacDonald, Project Engineer

Report No.: 20-200(CD)

File No.: C1101

Recommendations

THAT Report 20-200(CD), Riverside Dam – Resuming Detailed Design, be received;

AND THAT Capital Project A/00024-20 Riverside Dam Detailed Design be approved to resume.

Executive Summary

Purpose

• In May 2020, the Riverside Dam Detailed Design capital project was paused until the fall as recommended in Report 20-134(CRE). The purpose of this report is to provide further information on the design assignment and to request Council’s approval to resume the detailed design.

Key Findings

• The Riverside Dam Detailed Design assignment (Capital Project A/00024-20) was included in Report 20-134(CRE), Capital Projects Status Update, presented at the May 19, 2020 Council meeting. The options presented to Council for this project were to continue with the design assignment or to pause the design assignment until the fall for further discussion and re-prioritization of capital projects for construction of Riverside Dam.

• The motion approved at the Council meeting on May 19, 2020 was to suspend the design assignment for Riverside Dam, with the exception of the sediment survey, until Fall 2020.

• Due to the suspension of the design, the planned capital projects for construction of Riverside Dam have been moved to 2022 and 2023, a delay of one year from the original schedule.

• Staff is recommending that the design assignment be resumed to ensure more refined cost estimates can be prepared for future budget planning and the design is ready for construction in 2022.

Financial Implications

• A total of $493,266 was approved for the Riverside Dam detailed design assignment. The cost of the design work completed to date is $31,350.

• Financial details and considerations for the design assignment are included in the Departmental Recommendation to Award Tender memo attached to Report 20-055(CRS) – Design of the Riverside Dam, which was provided to Council at the March 3rd, 2020 General Committee.

Background

The design and construction of a new Riverside Dam is based on the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) that was completed in July 2018 after approximately seven years of studies and public consultation. During the public review period, the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks received five Part II Order requests asking that the City of Cambridge be required to prepare an individual environmental assessment. A letter from Minister Rod Phillips was received on May 31, 2019 indicating that an individual environmental assessment was not required and the City could proceed with the preferred alternative to rebuild Riverside Dam. The Minister’s decision had conditions that the rebuilt dam must have operable gates, as well as a fish ladder or an alternative fish passage method.

On March 3, 2020, staff delivered Report 20-048(CD) to General Committee providing an update to Council on the Riverside Dam Detailed Design project, including next steps. A key finding from that report was that the Riverside Dam Detailed Design project could be initiated following award to a successful consultant (per Report 20-055(CRS) – Design of Riverside Dam). The successful Consultant was Sanchez Engineering Inc., in partnership with B.T. Engineering, and they were awarded the project and work was initiated in March 2020.

Shortly after work was initiated, capital projects were reviewed and re-prioritized as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic based on associated impacts to the City’s operations, staff and financial resources. Report 20-134(CRE) provided recommendations for project cancellations and deferrals as a result of the review and re-prioritization of capital projects. The Riverside Dam Detailed Design project was recommended for

deferral and a motion was carried by Council to suspend the design assignment for Riverside Dam, with the exception of the sediment survey, until Fall 2020.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PEOPLE To actively engage, inform and create opportunities for people to participate in community building – making Cambridge a better place to live, work, play and learn for all.

Goal #2 - Governance and Leadership

Objective 2.4 Work collaboratively with other government agencies and partners to achieve common goals and ensure representation of community interests.

The detailed design will involve significant agency and stakeholder input and will have additional public engagement opportunities above that already provided during the Municipal Class EA for the Riverside Dam replacement.

Comments

Rebuilding Riverside Dam was the preferred alternative determined through the completion of the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment. The City has now started the implementation of this preferred alternative by initiating the detailed design.

In May 2020, the Riverside Dam Detailed Design was suspended and at this time, staff are seeking approval to resume the detailed design assignment. The alternative is to continue to delay the completion of the design.

If the design is resumed now, construction of the dam could begin in 2022 and be completed in 2023, pending Council approval of capital projects for construction in future budget considerations. Should Council not approve the resumption of design, and instead opt to delay the design further, the timing for construction would need to be reviewed, but construction would not begin in 2022.

Staff are recommending resumption of detailed design for the following reasons:

• As the detailed design is advanced, more refined cost estimates will be available for budget preparation and approval;

• A completed design would allow the City to potentially apply for funding or grants that may be available for “shovel” ready projects; and

• The Structural Inspection of the Riverside Dam, completed in 2018, stated that “based on the advancing deterioration of the past decade, it is estimated that within two (2) to ten (10) years, the risk of concrete pop-out (separation of the

dam in two) would be high, and with a significant local failure, the integrity of the dam would be compromised.”

Existing Policy/By-Law

The study of alternatives for the future of Riverside Dam was carried out in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process and the Environmental Assessment Act. The detailed design project will follow the recommendations in the Environmental Study Report completed during the Municipal Class EA and the Minister’s decision letter dated May 31, 2019.

Financial Impact

A total of $493,266 was approved for the Riverside Dam detailed design assignment. The cost of the design work completed to date is $31,350.

Financial details and considerations for the design assignment are included in the Departmental Recommendation to Award Tender memo attached to Report 20- 055(CRS) – Design of the Riverside Dam which was provided to Council at the March 3rd, 2020 General Committee.

The Minister’s decision to support the preferred “Rebuild Riverside Dam” alternative in the 2018 Class EA Environmental Study Report (ESR) came with conditions that the proposed dam would be constructed in accordance with current Provincial guidelines and permitting requirements. As a result, the design of the new dam will be required to include:

• operating gates and valves to reduce flooding potential and help pass sediment; • a fish ladder or alternative fish passage method; • health and safety apparatus for safe access and protection of operations staff; and • fencing, signage and river barriers to prevent recreational use near the dam.

The estimated construction costs in the Final ESR did not include these requirements, as they were conditions that came after the completion of the Final ESR. The detailed design work completed to date has not advanced far enough to complete any design of these features or prepare updated cost estimates.

A large portion of the reconstruction costs relate to the removal and disposal of accumulated sediment. While the field work associated with the sediment survey was allowed to continue, the suspension of the detailed design did not allow for analysis of this data or updating of sediment removal costs.

Resumption of the detailed design will allow for the cost estimates to be revised and updated to accurately reflect these items.

Public Input

The design process will include opportunities to solicit further community input on the proposed design.

It should be noted that significant public consultation was completed as part of the Schedule ‘B’ Class EA study including four public information centres, four sets of technical and stakeholder advisory committee meetings, two stakeholder group workshops and a variety of individual outreach meetings.

The design assignment includes preparing three preliminary alternatives through stakeholder consultation early in the design process, and then the preferred alternative will be presented to the Public as part of further community engagement.

Assuming Council approves resumption of the design in September, it is anticipated that the public engagement will occur later this year. Given the current limitations for in- person consultation, it is expected public engagement will be through virtual means.

Internal/External Consultation

The detailed design of the new Riverside Dam will require significant consultation and approvals from both internal and external stakeholders. A large number of stakeholders will be engaged early in the design process, some of which will form part of the technical advisory committee (TAC). TAC meetings will take place during detailed design to get input on the design from key external agencies. The internal and external stakeholders include but are not limited to the following.

• Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee.

• Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)

• Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

• Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI)

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada

• Haudenosaunee Development Institute

• Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation

• Six Nations of the Grand River

• Transport Canada

• Canadian Pacific Rail

• Region of Waterloo

• City of Cambridge Internal Stakeholders (Council, Parks Operations etc.)

The above groups and agencies will be engaged at different points throughout the design and some of the stakeholders listed above will form part of the technical advisory committee (TAC). The schedule for this project will be largely dependent on the cooperation and approvals from the above noted stakeholders and agencies.

Conclusion

The Riverside Dam Detailed Design project was initiated in March 2020. Shortly after initiation, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff and senior management reviewed and re-prioritized capital projects and the associated impacts to the City’s operations, staff and financial resources. As a result of this review, the Riverside Dam Detailed Design project was suspended until Fall 2020.

Staff is recommending that the detailed design of Riverside Dam be resumed at this time.

Signature

Division Approval

Name: Sarah Austin Title: Acting City Engineer

Departmental Approval

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager, Community Development

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

• n/a

Item #8

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/2020

Subject: Regional Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge 2020 Implementation Plan

Submitted By: Sarah Austin, Acting City Engineer

Prepared By: Lisa Chominiec, Sustainable Transportation Coordinator

Report No.: 20-170(CD)

File No.: C1101

Recommendation

THAT Report 20-170 (CD), 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive Strategy - Cambridge, be received for information.

Executive Summary

Purpose

• To inform Council of the five initiatives included in the 2020 Regional Transit Supportive Strategy Implementation Plan for Cambridge, approved by Regional Council at the August 11, 2020 Committee of the Whole meeting.

Key Findings

• Every year, the Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) Working Group sets out to identify projects that would increase transit ridership and support Transit Oriented Development in the City of Cambridge. The 2020 Implementation Plan includes three new initiatives and funding increases to two existing initiatives.

• Since 2012, the TSS has approved $7,600,000 to support 33 transit-related initiatives in the City of Cambridge.

Financial Implications

• All initiatives will be funded by the Region of Waterloo through the Transit Supportive Strategy funding. Three new initiatives and funding increases to two existing initiatives are included in the plan, which will require $519,000 in 2020 and $422,000 in 2021.

• Maintenance costs of the initiatives will be incorporated into future operating City budgets.

• Annual maintenance of the Delta Intersection improvements has been discussed between City and Regional facility maintenance staff. An agreement in principle has been made to have Transit Supportive Strategy funds cover the first two years of annual maintenance by the City (at approximately $10,000 per year) following installation. This time period was deemed reasonable in order to allow City maintenance staff time to incorporate these additional maintenance tasks into their regularly scheduled activities. Long term maintenance will be negotiated through the Regional maintenance agreement, which is approved by Council.

Background

Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS)

As part of the approval for ION implementation in 2011, Regional Council approved an annual allocation of $1,000,000 for a period of ten years to implement a Regional Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) for Cambridge. The ultimate goal of the TSS is to accelerate the implementation of Stage 2 ION LRT through initiatives that improve transit ridership and/or encourage transit supportive development, specifically within the Central Transit Corridor (CTC) in Cambridge. The first annual TSS Implementation Plan was approved by Regional Council in 2012 (P-12-023/E-12-028) and the Region and City of Cambridge signed a TSS Funding Agreement in January 2014. Since 2012, the TSS has been used to support 33 transit-related initiatives in the City of Cambridge. To date, Regional Council approved a total of $7,600,000 for initiatives, and actual expenses have totalled $6,716,000.

The TSS Working Group, which consists of City of Cambridge and Regional staff representatives, identifies the initiatives that best meet the goals of increasing transit ridership and develops an implementation plan each year for Regional Council’s consideration. Public transit falls under the jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo.

A list of previously committed initiatives funded under the Transit Supportive Strategy can be found in Appendix A. The Region’s 2020 report PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20- 19, approved at the August 11, 2020 Committee of the Whole meeting, can be found in Appendix B.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #7 - Transportation and Infrastructure

Objective 7.2 Work with the Region and other partners to better coordinate the planning, communication and delivery of infrastructure (including roads and other transportation assets) in Cambridge.

City and Regional staff worked collaboratively to develop meaningful initiatives that will support the growth and economy of Cambridge while meeting the Transit Supportive Strategy program requirements.

Comments

Every year, the TSS Working Group, which consists of City of Cambridge and Regional staff representatives, identifies the initiatives that best meet the program requirements and develops an annual implementation plan for Regional Council’s consideration. A total of $444,000 has already been approved for 2020, as part of multi-year projects previously approved through annual TSS implementation plans (like the Transit Oriented Development Grant program and TDM position) as well as expanded project scopes. As part of the 2020 TSS Implementation Plan, three new initiatives and funding increases to two existing initiatives are included that will require total funding of $519,000 in 2020 and $422,000 in 2021. These initiatives are summarized below:

2. New initiative: Improve the signage, pavement markings and other wayfinding measures along the existing multi-use trails on Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South and King Street East. These improvements would improve first mile / last mile connections in the vicinity of the future Stage 2 ION route (Cost: $45,000).

3. New initiative: Improve a pedestrian connection at the intersection of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue. Minor infrastructure improvements (e.g. pavement,

curb cut-outs, signs/wayfinding and vehicular gates or bollards) in this area would enhance the pedestrian / active transportation linkage to Hespeler Road and a future Stage 2 ION station (Cost: $20,000).

4. Funding increase to existing initiative: Extend TSS funding of previously approved service improvements to GRT Routes 51, 53, 75, and 203 (evenings/weekends) through the first quarter of 2021. These service improvements were originally funded by TSS funds in 2017 and 2018 and were part of the approved GRT Service Expansion Budget Issue Paper. With the service expansion being deferred by the Region until the 2021 budget, TSS funding is required to cover the costs of the remaining months in 2020 as well as the first quarter of 2021 (Cost: $216,000 in 2020, $72,000 in 2021).

5. Funding increase to existing initiative: Extend additional funding to the Travelwise@Work Corporate Memberships for Cambridge businesses. The budget for this initiative was originally approved in 2014 and it is anticipated that the total expenses of existing and future workplaces will outpace the original budget (Cost: $38,000).

Any remaining funds will be utilized to fund initiatives in 2021, which will be the final year of TSS funding.

A full summary and budget details of initiatives one to five can be found in the Region of Waterloo Report PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19, attached as Appendix B.

Existing Policy/By-Law

There is no existing policy/by-law.

Financial Impact

All initiatives will be funded by the Region of Waterloo through Transit Supportive Strategy funding.

The three new initiatives and funding increases for two existing initiatives included in 2020 will require a total funding of $519,000 in 2020.

Maintenance costs of the initiatives will be incorporated into future City operating budgets.

Annual maintenance of the Delta Intersection improvements has been discussed between City and Regional facility maintenance staff. An agreement in principle has been made to have TSS funds cover the first two years of annual maintenance by the City (at approximately $10,000 per year) following installation. This time period was deemed reasonable in order to allow City maintenance staff time to incorporate these additional maintenance tasks into their regularly scheduled activities. At this time, it is

anticipated the long term maintenance will be negotiated through the Regional maintenance agreement, which is approved by Council.

Since 2012, the TSS has been used to support 33 transit related initiatives in the City of Cambridge. To date, Regional Council approved a total of $7,600,000 for initiatives and actual expenses have totalled $6,716,000.

Public Input

Posted publicly as part of the report process.

Internal/External Consultation

The proposed 2020 Implementation Plan was collaboratively developed by City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo staff representatives from various departments. Consensus was achieved by the TSS Working Group on all the proposed initiatives in the 2020 Implementation Plan. The TSS Working Group will continue to strategize for the remaining year of the program and bring a report forward in 2021, for the final year of TSS funding.

Conclusion

Transit Supportive Strategy initiatives are focused on laying the foundation for increases in transit ridership and transit oriented developments over the medium to long term horizon in anticipation of Stage 2 ION LRT. In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan, collaborating with the Region to develop meaningful initiatives supports the growth and economy of Cambridge by creating a highly effective, sustainable and coordinated local infrastructure and transportation network (Goal 7). The TSS initiatives achieve multiple objectives under this goal, such as better coordination in the planning, communication and delivery of infrastructure (Objective 7.2), finding new ways to help people move within and beyond the city without a car (Objective 7.1) and continuing to improve the accessibility of all built infrastructure (Objective 7.4).

Signature

Division Approval

Name: Sarah Austin Title: Acting City Engineer

Departmental Approval

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager, Community Development

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

• Attachment A - List of Completed, Ongoing, and Proposed Transit Supportive Strategy Projects since 2012

• Appendix B –Region of Waterloo Report PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19, Transit Supportive Strategy Implementation Plan for Cambridge – 2020

Appendix A: - List of Completed, Ongoing, and Proposed Transit Supportive Strategy Projects Since 2012

Table 1: Completed Projects (dollar amounts in 000s) Project Name Total Cost 1 Ainslie Terminal Improvement Study 50 2 Ainslie Terminal, Phase 1 Design 45 3 Ainslie Terminal Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements Phase 1 321 4 GO Transit Study, Phase 2 (2015) 132 5 Lovell Industrial Park TravelWise Survey 29 6 Transit Shelters / Sidewalks 456 7 Maple Grove iXpress (Weekday) 2,304 8 Weekend iXpress Service 288 9 Conestoga College Transit Pass Discount (Extension) 705 10 Multi-use Trail on Conestoga Blvd 225 11 Groff Mill Creek Plan 54 12 Cambridge Commercial Review 38 13 Improvements to Local Stops in Hespeler Road Corridor 8 14 Hespeler Road Bus Lane – markings and signage 5 15 TDM Co-ordinator / Station Area Planner 308 16 Transit Service Improvements (Routes 51, 52, 61, 200 iXpress) 288 17 Transit Stop / Accessibility Improvements (7 Areas) 130 18 TravelWise @ Work Pilot for Cambridge Businesses 37 19 Transit Service Improvements (Routes 53, 75, and 203 iXpress) 219 20 Transit Service Improvements (Routes 61 and 200 iXpress) -Expanded 163 21 Special Events Fare Promotion 18 Total 5,823

Table 2: Approved and Ongoing Projects (dollar amounts in 000s)

Project Name Committed Expensed Balance Funds Remaining 22 Growth & Intensification Study 525 272 253 23 Neighbourhood Marketing Plan + 210 160 50 Promotion of ION Bus Service, and LRT Connection 24 City of Cambridge Transportation Master 75 75 Plan (Expanded scope) 25 High School Student Transit Promotion 195 58 137 26 Cambridge GO Train Service Feasbility 200 170 30 Study (2 Phases) 27 TDM/TOD Grants 250 250 28 City of Cambridge Transportation Demand 100 23 77 Management Coordinator 29 CarShare Vehicles (VRTUCAR) in 80 62 18 Downtown Cambridge 30 Transit Service Improvements (Route 72 436 70 366 Flex) 31 Cambridge Business Park – Transit Stop 130 130 and Pedestrian Upgrades 32 Galt Transit Stop and Pedestrian Upgrades 170 170 33 Preston Transit Stop Enhancements 15 15 Totals 2,386 815 1,571

Table 3: Proposed New/Expanded Projects (dollar amounts in 000s)

Project Name Proposed Proposed 2020 2021 34 Improve the two traffic islands at The Delta 200 350 intersection (Coronation/Dundas/Hespeler/Water) 35 Improve the signage, pavement markings, and other 45 wayfinding measures along multi-use trails (Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South, and King Street East) 36 Improve a pedestrian connection at the intersection 20 of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue 37 Maintain service improvements to GRT Routes 51, 216 72 53, 75 and 203 (evenings/weekends) through Q1 2021 38 Extend additional funding to the Travelwise@Work 38 Corporate Memberships for Cambridge businesses Totals 519 422

223 Appendix B 223

Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19 Region of Waterloo

Planning, Development and Legislative Services Community Planning Transportation and Environmental Services Transit Services

To: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of Regional Council

Date: August 11, 2020 File Code: 010-40 (A)

Subject: Proposed 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive Strategy- Cambridge

Recommendation: That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the 2020 Implementation Plan for the Regional Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge as described in the Report, PDL-CPL-20- 23/TES-TRS-20-19, dated August 11, 2020.

Summary: As part of the approval for ION implementation in 2011, Regional Council approved an annual allocation of $1,000,000 for a period of ten years to implement a Regional Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) for Cambridge. The ultimate goal of the TSS is to accelerate the implementation of Stage 2 ION LRT through initiatives that improve transit ridership and/or encourage transit supportive development, specifically within the Central Transit Corridor (CTC) in Cambridge. It should be noted that the Covid-19 pandemic has significantly affected the timing of this report, the implementation of previously approved TSS projects, and the proposal for new initiatives in 2020.

The TSS Working Group, which consists of City of Cambridge and Regional staff representatives, identifies the initiatives that best meet the program requirements and develops an implementation plan each year for Regional Council's consideration. Since 2012, the TSS has been used to support 33 transit-related initiatives in the City of Cambridge. To date, Regional Council approved a total of $7,600,000 and actual expenses totalled $6,716,000.

3264844

224 22 ,4 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23ffES-TRS-20-19

A total of $444,000 has already been approved for 2020, as part of multi-year projects previously approved through annual TSS implementation plans as well as expanded project scopes as identified in recent TSS reports. Therefore, as part of the 2020 TSS Implementation Plan, three new initiatives and two cost increases are recommended to be approved that will require total funding of $519,000 in 2020 and $422,000 in 2021. These activities are summarized below:

1. New initiative: Improve the transit and pedestrian environment on two traffic islands at the Delta intersection (Coronation Boulevard/Dundas Street/Hespeler Road/Water Street) with functional art and semi-permanent plantings. Both traffic islands have transit shelters and improving the aesthetics of these spaces will create a better stop environment for current and prospective transit riders, and serve as a gateway feature into the core area of Galt (Cost: $200,000 in 2020; $350,000 in 2021). 2. New initiative: Improve the signage, pavement markings, and other wayfinding measures along the existing multi-use trails on Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South, and King Street East. These improvements would improve first mile/ last mile connections in the vicinity of the future Stage 2 ION route (Cost: $45,000). 3. New initiative: Improve a pedestrian connection at the intersection of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue. Minor infrastructure improvements (e.g. pavement, curb cut-outs, signs/wayfinding, and vehicular gates or bollards) in this area would enhance the pedestrian / active transportation linkage to Hespeler Road and a future Stage 2 ION station (Cost: $20,000). 4. Cost increase: Extend TSS funding of previously-approved service improvements to GRT Routes 51, 53, 75, and 203 (evenings/weekends) through the first quarter of 2021. These improvements were originally funded by the TSS in 2017 and 2018, and were part of the approved 2020 GRT Service Expansion Budget Issue Paper. With the service expansion being deferred until the 2021 Budget, TSS funding is requested to cover the costs of the remaining months in 2020 as well as the first quarter of 2021 (Cost: $216,000 in 2020; $72,000 in 2021). 5. Cost increase: Extend additional funding to the Travelwise@Work Corporate Memberships for Cambridge businesses. The budget for this initiative was originally approved in 2014 and it is anticipated that the total expenses of existing and future workplaces will outpace the original budget (Cost: $38,000).

Any remaining funds will be utilized to fund initiatives in 2021, which will be the last year of future TSS implementation plans brought forward to Regional Council for approval.

Report: As part of ION approval in 2011, Regional Council initiated an annual allocation of $1,000,000 for ten years to implement transit supportive initiatives in Cambridge through a program known as the Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) . The objective of the TSS is to expedite the development of LRT in Cambridge by enhancing transit ridership and/or encouraging transit• supportive development. Every year, the TSS Working Group, which consists of City of

3264844 Page 2 of 20

225 225 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23fTES-TRS-20-19

Cambridge and Regional staff representatives, identifies the initiatives that best meet the program requirements and develops an annual implementation plan for Regional Council's consideration. These projects can generally be categorized into four themes: 1) transit service and infrastructure improvements; 2) marketing and transit promotion; 3) long-term transportation or planning studies; and 4) financial incentives. The projects proposed as part of this plan fit the transit service and infrastructure improvements and marketing and transit promotion themes. This report outlines the proposed TSS Implementation Plan for 2020. City of Cambridge staff support this proposed TSS Implementation Plan.

It should be noted that the Covid-19 pandemic has altered many aspects of this project, including the timing of this report. Normally, this report is brought before Council in March or April every year. The pandemic has also delayed the implementation of TSS funded initiatives and the timing of some TSS projects. These affected projects have been deferred until 2021 that otherwise would have moved forward in 2020. In addition, the TSS Working Group has removed two project proposals from this report because of the realities of the pandemic and the effect the pandemic continues to have on transit ridership across the network.

2020 Implementation Plan

The proposed 2020 TSS Plan for consideration includes three new initiatives and two cost increases for previously approved initiatives.

1. New initiative: Improve the two traffic islands at the Delta intersection (Coronation Boulevard/Dundas Street/Hespeler Road/Water Street) with functional art and semi-permanent plantings

These concrete traffic islands have existing transit shelters, and improving the aesthetics and comfort of these areas will create better spaces for current and prospective transit riders and pedestrians, which is an effective way to encourage more transit ridership. The proposed shade structures and seating are intended to serve as "functional art" and are intended to act as a gateway feature into the core area of Galt. Proposed designs are illustrated in Attachment 2. Designs were initially prepared by a joint City and Region team as part of a collection of transit access improvements investigated under the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund the Region was allocated from the Government of Canada, but capital dollars were insufficient for construction. Regional Transportation and Traffic staff have also reviewed the details of this proposed initiative and are satisfied with the proposal. Annual maintenance of these improvements has also been discussed between City and Regional facility maintenance staff should the improvements be approved. If approved, an agreement in principle has been made to have TSS funds cover the first two years of annual maintenance by the City (at approximately $10,000 per year) for two years post-installation. This time period was deemed reasonable in order to allow City maintenance staff time to incorporate these additional maintenance tasks into their regularly scheduled activities. Design materials and installation of these improvements are estimated to cost up to $500,000.

3264844 Page 3 of 20

226 226, August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Accounting for the estimated installation and material costs, extra maintenance costs and other possible construction or contingency related costs, staff recommend approving up to $550,000 total for this initiative. Given the timing of this report, staff recommend a multi-year commitment of up to $200,000 in 2020 and $350,000 in 2021.

2. New initiative: Improve the signage, pavement markings, and other wayfinding measures along the existing multi-use trails on Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South, and King Street East

The existing multi-use trails on Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South, and King Street East do not have pavement markings, signs, or other wayfinding measures along them. These trails are adjacent to regional roads in key urban areas, and create important pedestrian and active transportation linkages to / from future Stage 2 ION stations. See Attachment 3 for the locations of these trails to be improved. Improving pedestrian access to transit is an effective way to increase transit ridership. These proposed improvements include the installation of 'elephant feet' symbols or durable green paint at the entrance/exits of driveways along the route, as well as yellow centrelines, stop bars, and shared-use signs and sign-posts. These improvements would improve first mile/ last mile connections in the vicinity of the future Stage 2 ION route and stations.

Staff estimate that purchasing the materials and installing the improvements would cost up to $45,000, to be implemented in Fall 2020 or Spring 2021.

3. New initiative: Improve a pedestrian connection at the intersection of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue

Improving the accessibility of pedestrian connections to transit stations are important to attract and retain transit users. Staff identified an opportunity to improve the grassed 'gap' between Sekura Cresent and Blain Avenue, a known pedestrian/cycling connection to Hespeler Road. See Attachment 4 for a map of this location. This grassy area is without a hard surface or other pedestrian/cycling amenities. Staff believe that minor infrastructure improvements in this area would further enhance the pedestrian/active transportation linkage to nearby GRT stops on Hespeler Road and a future Stage 2 ION station. Improvements proposed include a paved multi-use trail with curb cut-outs, signs/wayfinding, and may also include bollards or gates to exclude casual vehicle access.

Staff estimate these improvements costing up to $20,000, to be implemented in Fall 2020 or Spring 2021.

4. Cost increase: Extend TSS funding of service improvements to GRT Routes 51, 53, 75, and 203 through Q1 2021

Improving transit service is another effective way to increase transit ridership. To achieve ridership growth targets in Cambridge, GRT staff have implemented a range of service improvements ahead of the proposed schedule in the GRT Business Plan by using TSS

3264844 Page 4 of 20

227 227 ' August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

funds. In recent years, this has included improved off-peak and weekend service on various routes that connect industrial/employment and residential areas to the Central Transit Corridor. An analysis of ridership at specific times when service was improved demonstrates notable growth on these routes after improvements were implemented (for details, see Attachment 5).

Previously-approved TSS reports stated that the TSS would fund improvements on Routes 51, 53, 75, and 203 (evenings/weekends) until a Service Expansion Request was made as part of the Regional Budget (see Report PDL-CPL-18-14/TES-TRS-18-10 dated March 20, 2018). The approved 2020 Regional Budget included this expansion, but the pandemic has forced this to be deferred until 2021 (previously was to take effect September 1, 2020). In the meantime, these enhanced services have needed TSS funds to continue uninterrupted in the earlier part of 2020, and it is requested that the TSS continue to fund these improvements for the balance of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021. The enhanced services will be requested to continue for the remainder of 2021 through the 2021 budget process.

Staff estimate the combined net operating costs for these route improvements until December 31, 2020 is an additional $216,000 and $72,000 for the first quarter of 2021.

5. Cost increase: Extend additional funding to the Travelwise@Work Corporate Memberships for Cambridge businesses

Several major Cambridge employers (e.g. Toyota, Allianz, ATS, etc.) have taken advantage of the Travelwise@Work Corporate program in recent years, which offers free two-year TravelWise Memberships to workplaces in Cambridge. As a result, the total expenses of these memberships will outpace the budget originally approved in 2014, which was $36,000. Memberships are based on the size of employees at the workplace. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, momentum for this initiative was growing and if any new Cambridge-based workplaces wanted to participate this year or next, there is no budget left to accommodate them. The proposal for additional funding would allow the program to accommodate several more major employers as well as grant an extension of one year to every Cambridge business currently participating, given these businesses have 'lost' the opportunity to take advantage of the TravelWise program services for part of 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic measures.

Staff estimate that a reasonable increase of funds for this initiative to be an additional $38,000.

Update on Transit Ridership

Before the COVID-19 pandemic and the transit strike, ridership data indicated that Cambridge city-wide ridership had stabilized after a small decline in 2014-15. Boardings on Cambridge routes increased between 2018 and 2019, with 12 of 19 transit routes serving Cambridge experiencing positive growth. Where GRT route enhancements have been advanced ahead

3264844 Page 227 of 20

228 228 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23ffES-TRS-20-19

of schedule as a result of TSS funding, improvements in transit ridership have been observed along these routes (see Attachment 5 for details).

Infrastructure improvements have also shown ridership gains. Transit stops that have been upgraded with shelters using TSS funding experienced an overall 6% increase in activity by 2019. Where sidewalk/walkway segments were built, a 63% increase in stop activity had been observed by 2019.

TSS initiatives are focused on laying the foundation for increases in transit ridership and transit oriented development over the medium to long term horizon in anticipation of Stage 2 ION LRT.

Corporate Strategic Plan:

The TSS aligns with the 2019-2023 Corporate Strategic Plan. The proposed 2020 initiatives would directly support Focus Area 2: Sustainable Transportation. The proposed TSS initiatives also support several key objectives of the Community Building Strategy.

Area Municipal Consultation and Concurrence:

Financial Implications: The Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge was approved as part of the Preferred Rapid Transit System Implementation Option and Staging Plan approved June 15, 2011. This approval included an annual allocation of $1,000,000 for a ten-year period, subject to budget approval (Report E-11-072). A financial update is provided in each year's annual TSS Implementation Plan report.

The approved 2020 Regional Capital Budget includes $1,200,000 for the Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) for Cambridge to be funded from the RTMP Reserve Fund (100%). The additional $200,000 allocation is a result of surpluses that have been carried forward from previous TSS implementation plans. Historical TSS budgets are complicated by initiatives that have not been fully completed and those projects that span multiple years. For instance, previously approved and ongoing TSS projects have a remaining balance of $1,571,000 based on actual invoices or accruals to date and this balance will be carried forward. This amount includes previously approved initiatives such as the Transit Oriented Development Grant and co-funding the City of Cambridge Transportation Demand Management Coordinator position that were approved in prior years but likely will be spent in 2020 or 2021. See Attachment 6 for updates on approved and ongoing TSS Initiatives. A budgeted amount of $800,000 has been carried forward from 2019, resulting in a total 2020 Budget of $2,000,000. Of the $1,571,000 in commitments, approximately $300,000 will be incurred in

3264844 Page 6 of 20

7 229 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23ffES-TRS-20-19

2021. As a result, previous commitments comprise $1,271,000 for the 2020 budget, leaving a balance available for new initiatives of $729,000.

The three new initiatives and two cost increases proposed in 2020 will require a total funding of $519,000 in 2020. As a result, the proposed 2020 plan contemplates a planned surplus of $210,000, which will be integrated into future TSS budgets. Attachments 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D contain the financial details.

Other Department Consultations/Concurrence: Staff from Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Transportation and Environmental Services including Grand River Transit, Rapid Transit, Transportation Planning, and Corporate Services along with City of Cambridge Staff continue to be involved with the development, implementation, administration, and monitoring of the Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge.

Attachments Attachment 1A- Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Completed Project List Attachment 1B - Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Approved and Ongoing Projects Attachment 1C - Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Proposed New and Expanded Projects Attachment 1D - Summary of TSS Fund, 2012-2020 Attachment 2 - Proposed Traffic Island Improvement Designs

Attachment 3 - Proposed Improvements to Signage, Pavement Markings, and Other Wayfinding Measures Along Existing Multi-Use Trails Attachment 4 - Proposed Pedestrian Connection Improvement at the Intersection of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue - Location Map Attachment 5 - Updates on Recent Transit Service Improvements funded by the Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS) Attachment 6 - Updates on Approved and Ongoing TSS Initiatives

Prepared By: Peter Ellis, Principal Planner, Community Planning (POL) Eric Pisani, Principal Planner, Transit Development (TES)

Approved By: Rod Regier, Commissioner, Planning, Development and Legislative Services

Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services

3264844 Page 7 of 20

230 230 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 1A - Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Completed Project List (dollar amounts in 000s)

2012-2020 Completed Projects (2012 - 2020) (Actuals)

Ainslie Terminal Improvement Study 50 Ainslie Terminal, Phase 1 Design 45

Ainslie Terminal Streetscape and 321 Pedestrian Improvements Phase 1 GO Transit Study, Phase 2 (2015) 132 Lovell Industrial Park TravelWise Survey 29 Transit Shelters / Sidewalks 45· 6 Maple Grove iXpress (Weekday) 2,304 Weekend iXpress Service 28.8

Conestoga College Transit Pass Discount 705 (Extension)

Multi-use Trail on Conestoga Blvd 2.25

Groff Mill Creek Plan 54 Cambridge Commercial Review 38 Improvements to Local Stops in Hespeler 8 Road Corridor Hespeler Road Bus Lane - markings and 5 siQnaqe TOM Co-ordinator/ Station Area Planner 308 Transit Service Improvements (Routes 51, 288 52, 61, 200 iXpress} Transit Stop/ Accessibility Improvements 130 (7 Areas) TravelWise @ Work Pilot for Cambridge 3.7 Businesses Transit Service Improvements (Routes 53, 75, and 203 iXpress) 219 Transit Service Improvements (Routes 61 163 and 200 iXpress) - Expanded Special Events Fare Promotion 18

Total 5,823

3264844 Page 8 of 20

231 231 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23!TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 1B - Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Approved and Ongoing Projects (dollar amounts in 000s)

Approved and Ongoing Projects Committed Balance Expensed (2012 - 2020) Funds Remaining Growth & Intensification Study 525 272 253 Neighbourhood Marketing Plan + Promotion of ION Bus Service, and LRT 210 160 50 Connection

City of Cambridge Transportation Master Plan (Expanded scope) 75 75

High School Student Transit Promotion 195 58 137 Cambridge GO Train Service Feasbility 200 170 30 Study (2 Phases )

TDM!TOD Grants 250 250 City of Cambridge Transportation 100 23 77 Demand Manaqement Coordinator CarShare Vehicles (VRTUCAR) in 80 62 18 Downtown Cambridge Transit Service Improvements (Route 72 Flex) 436 70 366 Cambridge Business Park - Transit 130 130 Stop and Pedestrian Uoarades I Galt Transit Stop and Pedestrian 170 170 Upgrades Preston Transit Stop Enhancements 15 15

Totals 2,386 815 1,571

3264844 Page 9 of 20

232 232 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 1C - Transit Supportive Strategy for Cambridge Budget: Proposed New and Expanded Projects (dollar amounts in 000s)

Proposed New / Expanded Projects Proposed Proposed 2020 2021

Improve the two traffic islands at The Delta intersection 200 350 (Coronation/Dundas/Hespeler/Water)

Improve the signage, pavement markings, and other 45 wayfinding measures along multi-use trails (Eagle Street North, Fountain Street South, and King Street East)

Improve a pedestrian connection at the intersection of 20 Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue

Maintain service improvements to GRT Routes 51, 53, 75 216 72 and 203 (evenings/weekends) through Q1 2021

Extend additional funding to the Travelwise@Work 38 Corporate Memberships for Cambridge businesses

Totals 519 422

3264844 Page 10 of 20

233 233 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23ffES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 1D - Summary of TSS Fund, 2012-2020 (dollar amounts in 000s)

Description Amount

2012-19 Total Allocation 7,600

2012-19 Committed and Expensed (Actuals) (6,716)

2019 Carry Forward (as approved in 2020 Regional 80Qi Capital Budget)

2020 Allocation 1.200

2020 Total Available (as approved in 2020 Regional 2i 000 Capital Budget)

2012-19 Committed and Not Yet Expensed (Estimated (1,271) 2020 Expenditure)

Remaining Fund Available for 2020 New Initiatives 729

Proposed 2020 Plan (519)

Planned Surplus 210

3264844 Page 11 of 20

12 234 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 2 - Proposed Traffic Island Improvement Designs SITE 2 CONCEPT P1dr,

. , _.,.

SITE 2 CONCEPT 1r •r' I I lit ."L i

3264844 Page 12 of 20

235, 235 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 3 - Proposed Improvements to Signage, Pavement Markings, and Other Wayfinding Measures Along Existing Multi-Use Trails

Eagle Street North

3264844 Page 13 of 20

23 ,5 236 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 4 - Proposed Pedestrian Connection Improvement at the Intersection of Sekura Crescent and Blain Avenue - Location Map

3264844 Page 14 of 20

237 2 37 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 5 - Update on Recent Transit Service Improvements funded by the Transit Supportive Strategy (TSS}

TSS funds continue to be allocated to advancing service improvements in the City of Cambridge, and this has contributed to positive ridership numbers for these routes. Improvements have included providing more frequent service, expanding hours of operation, and a new pilot route. See Table A below for a summary of recent GRT route improvements from TSS funds and preliminary ridership statistics.

Table A- Summary of TSS Service Improvements on GRT Routes in Cambridge

Route Summary of Boardings Growth Percentage Improvements During Service Growth in Improvement Times* Boardings, Route Overall (2018-2019)

51 Hespeler - - Extended 15-minute - On average, 23 +7.0% Saturdays service frequency start additional boardings time by one hour, to every Saturday during start at 8:45am these improved service - Added two early times morning trips - Removed inconvenient short turns

53 Franklin - - Extended evening On average, 36 +1.4% Weekdays service by two hours, additional boardings to end at 8:45pm every evening during the extended time

61 Fountain - - Extended evening - On average, 114 +78.0%1\ Weekdays service by three additional boardings hours, to end at every evening during 10:30pm the extended time

75 Saginaw- - New 30-minute - On average, 276 new +49.7% Weekends service on Saturdays, boardings every from 9:00am to Saturday 7:00pm - New 60-minute - On average, 258 new service on Sundays, boardings every from 10:00am to Sunday 6:00pm

3264844 Page 237 of 20

238 238 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

203 iXpress - - Extended evening - On average, 19 +10.9% Weekdays service by one hour, to additional boardings end at 11:30pm every evening during the extended time

72 Boxwood- - Pilot new Flex - On average, 14 +13.9% Weekdays (flexible) service to the additional boardings Cambridge Business every weekday Park compared to previous route

*Boardings are on the specified route within the City of Cambridge. Data represents daily averages over the period since the improvement was implemented. Route 72 data only compares Fall 2018 to Fall 2019, as the new route was not implemented until September 2019 and a full year of data is not available.

"Route 61 replaced a high ridership section of Route 52 in Fall 2019, and combined with strong growth at Conestoga College, this contributed to an anomalous increase. This service improvement was part of the Fall 2019 Service Expansion and is the only one in the table to no longer be funded through the TSS.

3264844 Page 16 of 20

239 239 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Attachment 6 - Updates on Approved and Ongoing TSS Initiatives

Initiatives Year Descriptions Status Approved TravelWise@ 2014 Purpose: Trial TravelWise Status: See item 5 in report for Work Pilot memberships to attract an update. Cost Increase for businesses located in 2020 proposed. Cambridge to join the TravelWise@ Work program.

Growth and 2015 + Purpose: To develop Status: Commenced in August Intensification 2020 secondary plans for the City's 2015, the Main and Dundas and Study Community Core, Nodes and Hespeler Road Corridor Reurbanization Corridors, to Secondary Plans have been facilitate the development drafted. A recommendation intensification needed to report to City Council is support rapid transit in anticipated to occur late 2020 or Cambridge. early 2021. Development of the Secondary Plans for the three Study Areas: Galt City Centre, Core Areas is underway. Hespeler Village and Community Node, Preston Town Centre, Hespeler Road, and the Main/Dundas Node

Neighbourhood 2015 + Purpose: To develop and Status: Implementation of ION Marketing Plan 2018 implement a marketing plan Bus marketing initiatives and using a segmented marketing Cambridge-specific promotions analysis based on the mostly completed. Remaining characteristics of each funds will be used for continued neighbourhood and identified post-ION launch initiatives, areas of the City that are more which were affected because of likely to take transit. the pandemic.

Remaining and additional funds dedicated to ION Bus marketing and promotion campaign that builds upon recommendations from the ACART study.

City of 2016 Purpose: To develop the Status: The Master Plan is Cambridge Cambridge Transportation complete with the exception of Transportation Master Plan including an posting the Notice of Study Master Plan update of parking policies, block Completion which has been pattern considerations in the delayed due to the pandemic. Hespeler Road Corridor, The Notice is anticipated to be integration of ION BRT, posted shortly. planning for Stage 2 LRT and GO Trains, and connections to active transportation facilities.

3264844 Page 17 of 20

240 2,4 0 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Initiatives Year Descriptions Status Approved CarShare/ 2016 + Purpose:Tofundthe Status: Program started in May VRTUCAR 2019 placement of two 2016. Vehicles in CarShareNRTUCAR Vehicles Downtown in Downtown Cambridge. The There are a total of 44 members Cambridge vehicles can be booked by all in the City of Cambridge - 16 are CarShareNRTUCAR members, City staff through the City's including City of Cambridge Corporate CarShare program staff and the public. This and 28 members are from the service is intended to make it general public. more feasible for City staff to use CarShareNRTUCAR vehicles for business trips so In 2019, a total of 306 trips were that staff can take transit to taken, resulting in 22,784kms work. The service also provides driven. the public with an alternative to car ownership so that they can take transit while still having access to a vehicle when needed.

Transit Service 2017 Purpose: To increase transit Status: Ridership numbers Improvements ridership by providing more indicate that these service (51, 52, 61, 200 frequent service, improving improvements continue to see iXpress) hours of operation, especially at affirmative results. See off-peak times, and increasing Attachment 5 for more details. Transit Service 2018 service to key destinations. The improvements on Routes Improvements 52, 61, and 200 have since (53, 75,203 been assumed by the GRT iXpress) Operating Budget. Route 52 was replaced by the 206 iXpress Transit Service 2019 and Route 200 was replaced by Improvement the 302 ION Bus. (Route 72- Flex) High School 2017 Purpose: To introduce youth to Status: 2,097 students took Student transit as a viable transportation advantage of the promotion Promotion option for school, part-time between 2018 and 2020 (out of employment, and extra- an estimated 7,500). curricular activities. In addition, this promotion plans to achieve This initiative still has the side benefit of accelerating considerable funds remaining. the distribution of the new GRT staff have proposed to use EasyGO Fare Cards. these remaining funds for a future pilot High School Student Transit Ambassador program. However, the pandemic has created uncertainty with what school will look like in the Fall of 2020 and beyond. This possible future pilot program will be

3264844 Page 18 of 20

241 2411 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Initiatives Year Descriptions Status Approved ' discussed further in future TSS reports depending on the outcome of the pandemic and back-to-school scheduling.

In the short-term, GRT staff will re-launch the online request form for the 2020-2021 school year.

Upgrade Transit 2018 Purpose: To provide an Status: All stops planned for Stop enhanced stop environment upgrades were completed or are Infrastructure in and improve access to transit in scheduled to be complete by seven locations strategic locations. Fall 2020. These have been across included in the 2019 TSS Cambridge Implementation Plan.

Feasibility Study 2018 Purpose: To re-examine the Status: Regional Committee of GO feasibility of GO service Report TES-TRP-20-09 dated passenger rail between Cambridge and May 26, 2020 provided an service Guelph that could leverage update of the status of this investments by the Province on project. the Kitchener GO Line, including potential future High In the short-term, the next step Speed Rail. In addition, the for this Study is to finalize the possibility of linking rail service Phase 2 summary report with ION BRT/LRT is also being (targeting summer of 2020 - investigated. barring any further external delays). A Communications Strategy is being developed to provide recommendations for the Region regarding key stakeholder engagement to support the advancement of this project into the Metrolinx Business Case stage.

Transit Oriented 2018 Purpose: To provide financial Status: City of Cambridge Development incentives for Transit Oriented Council passed a by-law on Incentive Development projects within the June 16, 2020 to designate the Central Transit Corridor in lands within 800m of the LRT Cambridge. Route / Central Transit Corridor within the City of Cambridge as a Community Improvement Project Area. Staff plan to start public consultation on the Community Improvement Plan in late Summer/early Fall 2020, and to have the program ready in early 2021.

3264844 Page 19 of 20

242 242 August 11, 2020 Report: PDL-CPL-20-23/TES-TRS-20-19

Initiatives Year Descriptions Status I Approved

Upgrade Transit 2019 Purpose: To provide an Status: Improvements have Stop and enhanced stop environment, been designed and tendered, Pedestrian improve access to transit, and with construction expected to be Infrastructure in support the pilot flex route in the complete by Fall 2020. the Cambridge Cambridge Business Park area Business Park

Enhance 2019 Purpose: To provide an Status: Work is ongoing to Pedestrian and enhanced stop and pedestrian implement the proposed Transit environment in the Galt area pedestrian refuge, curb work, Infrastructure in and trail expansion on Water Galt Street. Designs and contact with local authorities are complete; outstanding steps include: obtaining GRCA permits, completing a public survey and Parking Removal Report, and tender/construction. The proposed crossing on Grand Avenue is on hold pending completion of a pedestrian volume survey on Grand across from the pedestrian bridge.

Enhance Transit 2019 Purpose: To provide an Status: Improvements on Eagle Infrastructure in enhanced stop environment in Street have been designed and Preston the Preston area tendered, with construction expected to be complete by Fall 2020.

3264844 Page 20 of 20

Item #9

To: COUNCIL

Meeting Date: 09/08/2020

Subject: Approval of the Amended Grand River Source Protection Plan

Submitted By: Elaine Brunn Shaw, Chief Planner, MCIP, RPP

Prepared By: Kathy Padgett, Senior Planner – Environment, MCIP, RPP

Report No.: 20-194(CD)

File No.: A.16.02.03.03.01

Recommendation

THAT Report No. 20-194(CD) re: Approval of the Amended Grand River Source Protection Plan be received as information.

Executive Summary

Purpose

• The Grand River Source Protection Plan (Plan) affecting the City of Cambridge was approved by the Province and has been in effect since July 1, 2016. • The Source Protection Plan applies to the Kettle Creek, Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Grand River Watersheds. • The Region initiated a change to the Source Protection Plan as a result of extensive technical work that has been completed. • The proposed changes include updating the Well Head Protection Area (WHPA) mapping and reviewing the water quality based policies.

• The amended Plan comes into effect on October 1, 2020. Key Findings

• The changes to the WHPAs in Cambridge will result in 16% more area of land in the city that is now within a WHPA. They also include two new WHPAs and the removal of one well that was decommissioned. The increase in land area does not directly translate into new requirements for property owners, as most of the policies in the added areas are for promoting education and awareness.

• Many of proposed policy changes in the amended Plan are generally administrative in nature and do not substantially change the purpose of the policies or the number of properties affected.

• Under the current Plan, 26 City of Cambridge properties require a Risk Management Plan for salt application. It is expected that approximately 56 City of Cambridge properties will require a Risk Management Plan for salt application under the proposed mapping and policy changes.

• For applications received before October 1, 2020, the policies in the current Plan will apply. For applications received after October 1, 2020, the policies in the amended Plan will apply. Therefore, applications currently in process submitted prior to October 1, 2020 must continue to comply with the current Plan.

Financial Implications

• The cost of negotiating a Risk Management Plan with the Risk Management Official, and any costs associated with implementing the measures outlined in the Risk Management Plan continue to be the responsibility of the applicant. • It is expected that City staff will be required to negotiate more Risk Management Plans for salt application on roads and on City-owned properties with medium to large parking lots. • The City has already negotiated RMPs for a number of City-owned parking lots and has yet to incur any costs since the identified risk management practices are measures the City has already implemented through our winter maintenance contract for parking lots. • It is expected that City staff will be required to assess additional stormwater management ponds to determine the type of measures that will need to be undertaken to protect drinking water sources. These measures (e.g. regular maintenance, including sediment clean-out) of priority ponds will require a sustainable funding source which is currently being evaluated through the Stormwater Management Funding Strategy. The assessment will form part of the Terms of Reference for the Stormwater Master Plan update currently being planned for 2021.

Background

The Clean Water Act was passed by the Ontario Legislature in October 2006 and provides a framework for the development and implementation of local, watershed- based source protection plans. It is intended to implement the recommendations made by Justice Dennis O’Connor in the Walkerton Inquiry Report which investigated a tragic drinking water contamination event in that community. The key objectives of the source

protection planning process are to: (1) complete science-based assessment reports that identify the risks to municipal drinking water sources; and (2) develop local, watershed- based source protection plans that put policies in place to protect the quality and quantity of existing and future sources of municipal drinking water.

The Grand River Assessment Report (Assessment Report) was approved in August 2012 and provided the scientific understanding needed to develop a local source protection plan. The Grand River Source Protection Plan (Plan) affecting the City of Cambridge was approved by the Province and has been in effect since July 1, 2016. The Plan includes policies to protect municipal sources of drinking water in the Grand River watershed. A report on May 10, 2016 to the Planning and Development Committee outlined the measures being undertaken by the City to implement the Plan, which included: staff training; flagging source water protection requirements in pre- consultation in advance of submission of formal planning applications and at the planning and building counters at City Hall; and updating the City’s interactive mapping with the new information.

In 2018, the Region initiated an amendment to the Plan as a result of extensive technical work that had been completed. A report on July 16, 2019 to the Planning and Development Committee outlined the proposed amendments to the Plan, which included:

• updating the Well Head Protection Area (WHPAs); and • reviewing water quality based policies.

An amended Plan was submitted to the Province for approval in 2019 and received formal approval on June 2, 2020. The amended Plan comes into effect on October 1, 2020.

Analysis

Strategic Alignment

PLACE: To take care of, celebrate and share the great features in Cambridge that we love and mean the most to us.

Goal #4 - Environment and Rivers

Objective 4.4 Manage city resources in a responsible and sustainable manner, considering future needs for resiliency and community adaptation.

The mapping and policies outlined in the Grand River Source Protection Plan relate to these goals and objectives as the Plan is meant to ensure that communities are able to protect their municipal drinking water supplies now and in the future from contamination and overuse.

Comments

Well Head Protection Area Changes

As a result of new comprehensive groundwater modelling that was completed, the Well Head Protection Areas (WHPAs) in Cambridge have changed. WHPAs are areas on the land around a municipal well, the size of which is determined by how quickly water travels underground to the well. The updated modelling found that in Cambridge, the bedrock allows for relatively rapid water movement towards the wells that can extend over large areas, which has affected the size of all of the WHPAs in Cambridge. See Attachment No. 1 for the changes to the WHPA mapping between the current and amended Source Protection Plan, Attachment No. 2 for the current WHPA mapping and Attachment No. 3 for the amended WHPA mapping effective October 1, 2020.

In addition to the updated modelling information, two new WHPAs were added, one in Blair and another at the Regional Operations Centre on Maple Grove Road. A well was also decommissioned in the Dumfries Conservation Area, and as such the WHPA related to that well was removed.

The changes to the WHPA mapping will result in 16% more area of land in the city that is now within a WHPA. However, this increase does not directly translate into new requirements for property owners, as most of the policies in the outer WHPAs (yellow and green areas on Attachment No. 3) are for promoting education and awareness with respect to the use of fertilizers, salt, etc. through education materials, such as pamphlets.

Two wells in Cambridge in the Pinebush well system were found to have elevated sodium and chloride concentrations due to winter road and parking lot maintenance. These wells are now identified as an Issue Contributing Area for sodium and chloride due to these increased levels (Issue Contributing Areas are identified by the black dotted line on Attachment No. 3). It was also found that concentrations of sodium and chloride in other wells with sodium and/or chloride issues have continued to increase. The greatest impact to property owners is due to the Issue Contributing Areas for sodium and chloride. Due to concern over increasing levels of sodium and chloride, a Risk Management Plan is proposed to be required on roads and medium to large parking lots within any area identified as having a water quality issue related to sodium and/or chloride.

Policy Changes

Many of the policy changes in the amended Plan are generally administrative in nature and do not substantially change the purpose of the policies or the number of properties affected.

Substantive policy changes in the amended Plan include:

• the definition of stormwater management facilities was broadened to align with the definition under the Environmental Protection Act, which includes unlined ditches; • a policy was added to require the inclusion of sewer and storm water pipe inspection, testing and construction standards in the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services document to minimize the risk of leaks from these systems; • the prohibition of the storage of agricultural source material (i.e. manure) within 100 metres (328 feet) of a well was replaced by a policy that requires management of agricultural source material because the original prohibition unintentionally applied to animal barns; and • the area for which Risk Management Plans are required to minimize the impact of salt application on roads and parking lots was expanded to include all areas within the Issue Contributing Area of a well with sodium and/or chloride water quality issues.

Minor policy changes in the amended Plan include:

• housekeeping and administrative updates; • wording changes for consistency; and • adjustments to the policies based on implementation experience.

Impacts

City staff does not anticipate the changes to the WHPAs and policies to impact the timelines for processing development and building permit applications as there is already a well-established process in place since the implementation of the Plan on July 1, 2016. For our area, the Region of Waterloo houses the Risk Management Official’s (RMO) office, which under Section 59 of the Clean Water Act, must screen planning and building permit applications for potential threats within vulnerable areas around wells before they can proceed through the City’s approval process. To simplify the process for an applicant to apply for a Section 59 Notice, the Region developed an online questionnaire tool to be filled out by the applicant. This tool has been in place since July 1, 2016 and is currently being updated by the Region to reflect the amendments. It is anticipated that the majority of applicants will receive a Section 59 Notice flagging no issues and they will proceed through the typical municipal process. Applicants that receive a Section 59 Notice indicating they need to negotiate a Risk Management Plan prior to proceeding through the City’s approval process will need to contact the RMO. With a cooperative applicant, negotiating a Risk Management Plan with the RMO takes approximately two to four weeks.

For applications received before October 1, 2020, the policies in the current Plan will apply. For applications received after October 1, 2020, the policies in the amended Plan

will apply. Therefore, applications currently in process submitted prior to October 1, 2020 must continue to comply with the current Plan. The Region, in consultation with Area Municipalities, is preparing a communications strategy leading up to October 1, 2020. The Region is also making applicants aware of the upcoming changes through pre-consultation comments before formal planning applications are submitted.

Existing Policy/By-Law

City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012)

Policies pertaining to Source Water Protection are found in the Cambridge Official Plan in Chapter 15 (Appendix A: Regional Official Plan Policies Modified for Source Water Protection in Cambridge) and Map 15 (Source Water Protection Areas).

Due to the two-tier structure, the Regional Official Plan must be amended with the Source Protection Plan policies prior to amending the City of Cambridge Official Plan. The Plan requires that the Regional Official Plan be updated to conform with the Plan within five years of the effective date of the Source Protection Plan; however, the timeline for updating the Regional and City Official Plans will reset after this proposed update in order to allow additional time to incorporate the updated mapping and policies. After the City’s Official Plan is updated, corresponding zoning regulations will be proposed for the city-wide zoning by-law to implement the updated Official Plan policies.

Financial Impact

For applicants requiring Risk Management Plans, the cost of negotiating a Risk Management Plan (RMP) with the Risk Management Official, and any costs associated with implementing the measures outlined in the RMP are the responsibility of the applicant.

It is expected that City staff will be required to negotiate more Risk Management Plans for salt application on roads and on City-owned properties with medium to large parking lots. Under the current Plan, 26 City of Cambridge properties require a RMP for salt application. It is expected that approximately 56 City of Cambridge properties will require a RMP for salt application under the amended Plan. The City has already negotiated RMPs for a number of City-owned parking lots and has yet to incur additional costs since the identified risk management practices are measures the City has already implemented through our winter maintenance contract for parking lots. It should be noted that RMPs are negotiated on a site-specific basis and some sites may require more measures than others; however, the main intent of the RMP is to optimize salt usage (e.g., closing off areas not requiring maintenance during winter months, cleaning- up excess applied salt, storing snow on sufficiently sized impermeable surfaces, etc.).

It is expected that City staff will be required to assess approximately 59 stormwater management ponds to determine the type of measures that will need to be undertaken to protect drinking water sources. The assessment will form part of the Terms of Reference for the Stormwater Master Plan update currently being planned for 2021. These measures (e.g. regular maintenance, including sediment clean-out) for priority ponds will require a sustainable funding source.

Public Input

The Clean Water Act requires all property owners affected by the proposed changes to be notified. The Region and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) mailed approximately 1,300 letters in early March 2019 to the following properties in Cambridge:

• Properties that are now located in a Well Head Protection Area (WHPA) that previously weren’t; • Properties that are no longer located in a WHPA that previously were; and • Properties that were located in a WHPA and continue to be located in a WHPA.

Letters were not mailed to single detached and low density residential properties because policies affecting these properties are generally limited to education and awareness and the changes minimally affect these properties.

In addition to the notification letters, the Region and GRCA hosted two Public Consultation Centres (PCCs) on March 27 and 28, 2019 to present the new WHPAs and receive public feedback. In general, most of the feedback was positive acknowledging that the main purpose of the amendment was to update the underlying technical information and not the policy framework.

Following the PCCs, on April 4, 2019, the Source Protection Committee (SPC) approved the release of the proposed draft amended Plan for public consultation from April 8 to July 21, 2019. Following this, any necessary edits were completed and presented to the SPC and the Source Protection Authority and submitted to the Province.

Internal/External Consultation

The draft amended Plan was circulated for comment to the Area Municipalities for preliminary comments in late February 2019. Additionally, Area Municipalities and Regional staff met to discuss the content of the draft proposed Plan and updated mapping through the Region’s Source Water Protection Liaison Committee, which includes City of Cambridge Planning and Engineering staff. Additionally, Public Works and Engineering reviewed this staff report.

Conclusion

The Region initiated an amendment to the Grand River Source Protection Plan as a result of extensive technical work that has been completed. These amendments include:

• updating the Well Head Protection Area (WHPAs); and • reviewing water quality based policies.

The changes to the WHPAs in Cambridge will result in 16% more area of land in the city that is now within a WHPA. They also include two new WHPAs and the removal of one well that was decommissioned. The increase does not directly translate into new requirements for property owners, as most of the policies in the added areas are for promoting education and awareness.

With respect to policy changes, many of the policy changes in the amended Plan are generally administrative in nature and do not substantially change the purpose of the policies or the number of properties affected.

It is recommended that the approval of the amended Source Protection Plan be received as information.

Signature

Division Approval

Name: Elaine Brunn Shaw Title: Chief Planner Departmental Approval

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager, Community Development

City Manager Approval

Name: David Calder Title: City Manager

Attachments

Attachment No. 1 – Changes to Well Head Protection Area Mapping between the Current and Amended Source Protection Plan

Attachment No. 2 – Current Well Head Protection Area Mapping

Attachment No. 3 – Amended Well Head Protection Area Mapping (effective October 1, 2020)

Attachment No. 1 – Changes to Well Head Protection Area Mapping between the Current and Amended Source Protection Plan

Attachment No. 2 – Current Well Head Protection Area Mapping

Attachment No. 3 – Amended Well Head Protection Area Mapping (effective October 1, 2020)

Item #10

September 8, 2020

The Honourable Bardish Chagger, P.C., M.P. Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth 100 Regina St. South Suite 360 Waterloo, ON N2J 4P9

Re: Resolution of the Council of the City of Cambridge Supporting Local Journalism

Dear Minister Chagger,

Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge at its Council meeting held on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 approved the following motion:

WHEREAS a healthy, professional news media is essential for the proper functioning of civil society and democracy at the local, regional, federal and international levels;

and advertising revenues have plunged, prompting an emergency $30-million advertising-buy by the federal government;

WHEREAS residents of 190 Canadian communities — including residents of Kitchener, Elmira and Guelph – lost 250 established news outlets due to closings or mergers between 2008 and 2018;

WHEREAS Canada’s federal government acknowledged in its 2019 budget (p. 173) that “A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy.”;

WHEREAS the news media in Waterloo Region have been instrumental during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring local citizens have accurate local information.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Cambridge Council

1. recognizes that a healthy, professional news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in our city;

2. urges nearby municipal councils and across Canada to recognize that a robust news media is essential to the proper functioning of democracy in their jurisdictions;

3. endorses legislation and regulations to support and rejuvenate news outlets across Canada;

4. urges the federal government to move quickly to pass legislation to ensure an ecosystem for a healthy news media to serve all Canadians; and,

5. that the resolution be forwarded to the area municipalities, local M.P.s and M.P.P.s and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Please accept this letter for information purposes only.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Danielle Manton, City Clerk, City of Cambridge

CC (by email):

Raj Saini, M.P. (Kitchener Centre) Bryan May, M.P. (Cambridge) Tim Louis, M.P. (Kitchener-Conestoga) Catherine Fife, M.P.P (Waterloo) Laura Mae Lindo, M.P.P (Kitchener Centre) Amy Fee, M.P P (Kitchener-South Hespeler) Mike Harris, M.P.P (Kitchener-Conestoga) The Association of Municipalities of Ontario The Federation of Canadian Municipalities Christine Tarling, Clerk, City of Kitchener Kris Fletcher, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Waterloo Ashley Sage, Clerk, Township of North Dumfries Grace Kosch, Clerk, Township of Wellesley Dawn Mittleholtz, Clerk, Township of Wilmot Val Hummel, Clerk, Township of Woolwich