Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2019 DC Study External Stakeholder Meeting – Minutes
Date / Time: May 10th, 2018 10:00 – 11:30
Location: Committee Room #3, City Hall 2nd Floor
Attended:
George Kotsifas (Chair) Bill Veitch, Jamie Crich, Craig Linton, Sandy Levin, Alasdair Beaton, Mike Carter Anna Lisa Barbon, Paul Yeoman, Matt Feldberg, Adam Langmuir, Kevin Edwards, Jason Senese, Greg LaForge, Kelly Scherr, Doug MacRae, Michelle Morris, Maged Elmadhoon, Andrew Giesen, Gregg Barrett, Jennie Ramsay, Scott Mathers, Peter Kokkoros
Purpose: • Monthly meetings leading up to adoption of 2019 DC Study & By-law Update
Agenda Item Discussion
1. Complete Streets (Maged E. & Michelle M.)
• Start-up of informative webpage to be available in roughly 2-3 weeks.
• There are no anticipated material cost increases to the major road projects
• Predominately used in larger municipalities, some ‘smaller’ sized cities have adopted a similar approach, considered a progressive approach to road classifications & design
• Targeting August Committee meeting for tabling of Complete Streets policy
• Important to know cost implications or scope of, along with tabling to Committee for Council adoption of the policy.
• Width of neighbourhood streets shrunk from 8m to 7.5m • Primary & secondary collectors are now called Neighbourhood
Connector, as a result of the London Plan • Sidewalk & curb changes on neighbourhood connectors could
have implications on owner borne costs (local service) also impacts current development plans.
• Suggestion to have conversation with utilities in order to reduce utility trench requirements. Staff indicated that
legislation will have an impact on the City’s ability to dictate requirements.
• Suggestion to have lead time, phase in, transitional language or date for new design standards/manual implementation. Consideration for current business or design plans already underway not to be ‘throw away.’
2. Non-Residential Rate Review Update (Jason S.)
• London is the only municipality surveyed which used an ‘ICI’ (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) rate
• Implications to existing incentive plans are outlined in the attached Watson memo
• Guelph had a good example of switching from a uniform rate to an industrial/non-industrial rate trying to stimulate industrial development with a lower rate, turned out to not be the case and several years later reverted back to a uniform non-residential rate
• Definition of ‘industrial’ needs to be looked at again if staying with incentive for those type of permits.
• Suggestion to have LEDC included in consultation to broader group, targeting a meeting towards end of May beginning of June
• Conversion credits were outlined as a stumbling block to current rate structure, difficult to determine how many proposals did not go forward due to the higher DC rate of commercial use vs. industrial use.
3. Local Service Policy (Jason S.)
• Please provide feedback on the proposed policy changes to Jason Senese directly ([email protected]).
• Suggestion to coordinate SWM land valuation with Parks land valuation.
• LID draft policy targeted for June meeting, multiple options will be included
4. Master Planning Review Process (Paul Y.)
• Draft DC rate calculations will be provided concurrently with Master Plans, consultation will commence after that time. Unless a major material cost implication is identified prior to release.
Next DC External Stakeholder Meeting – June 14, 2018 10:00-12:00 Location: Committee Room TBD
london.ca
Review of the Forthcoming
City of London Complete Streets Design Manual
Presentation to DC External Stakeholder Group May 10, 2018
london.ca 2
Introduction - What are Complete Streets? A complete street is one that is designed to accommodate the mobility needs of all
ages, abilities, and modes of travel. Safe and comfortable access for pedestrians,
bicycles, transit users, and the mobility challenged are not design after-thoughts,
but are integral to the planning of the street from the start.
”“
- London Transportation Master Plan
london.ca 3
Introduction – Complete Streets Manuals Complete Streets Guides & Manuals have been developed by many cities
around the world to help direct and coordinate street planning/design towards
more balanced mobility options
london.ca 4
BackgroundThe 2016 City of London Official Plan introduced a group of Street
Classifications, which set the stage for more context sensitive city building
policies and redefining mobility for Londoners
Classifications Include:
• Rapid Transit Boulevards
• Urban Thoroughfares
• Civic Boulevards
• Main Streets
• Neighbourhood Connectors
• Neighbourhood Streets
• Rural Thoroughfares
• Rural Connectors
london.ca 5
Background
Each Street Classifications was
accompanied with policies to
guide future planning and design
towards a an intended character
and function, while progressing
towards overall mobility goals
london.ca 6
Many stakeholders were included in consultation efforts for the development
of the Complete Streets Design Manual and attended a Stakeholder Workshop,
held on June 2nd, 2017. These groups included:
• Downtown London BIA
• London Hydro
• London Transit
• Union Gas
• Tree and Forests Advisory
Committee
• Argyle BIA
• City of London Water
• London Environmental Network
• City of London Development
Services
• Accessibility Advisory Committee
• Can-Bike
• Hyde Park Business Association
• Bell
• London Middlesex Road Safety
Committee
• Middlesex Health Unit
• Start Communications
• Cycling Advisory Committee
• London Fire
• London Development Institute (LDI)
Background
london.ca 7
GoalsThe City of London Official Plan suggested the preparation of a Complete
Streets Manual to establish:
• Overall cross-sections for the street classifications
• Design parameters for the public realm
london.ca 8
The Vision!
Streets in London will meet the needs of a wide range of users as
defined by the place type, feature high-quality pedestrian
environments, and integrate seamlessly with transit services,
cycling networks, and automobile users. London’s streets will be
designed for connectivity and support the use of active and
sustainable modes of transportation, and also strongly consider the
needs of utility and maintenance providers within the right-of-way.
With this balance of modes, users, and places in mind, all future
construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation projects for streets –
both large and small – in London will be influenced by principles of
“completeness” in both planning and design.
london.ca 9
The vision for the City of London Complete
Streets Design Manual grew to include . . .
london.ca 10
London Complete Street Manual - Content Chapter 1: Complete Streets: Vision and Principles
• Complete Streets concepts and policy support
Chapter 2: Elements of Complete Streets
• Complete Streets features
Chapter 3: Undertaking Complete Streets Design
• Processes for balancing the needs of current and future users
Chapter 4: Street Design for Roadways
• Street characteristics/priorities and conceptual cross sections, by street
classification
Chapter 5: Street Design for Intersections
• Intersection treatments that provide Complete Streets elements for
specific combinations of street classifications
Chapter 6: Moving Forward with Complete Streets
• Progress indicators for Complete Streets outcomes
london.ca
Contents:
1. What are Complete Streets?
2. Who is This Guide For?
3. Review of Complete Streets Policies in London
4. Core Principles for Complete Streets
11
london.ca
Local Policy Support
12
“
”
At the local level, policy support for complete streets is
found in a number of documents, including the:
• Strategic Plan
• The London Plan
• Downtown Plan
• Design Specifications and Requirements Manual
• Cycling Master Plan
• London Rapid Transit
• London Road Safety Strategy
• London 2030 Transportation Master Plan
london.ca
Municipal Council adopted the following Vision Zero Principles:
• No loss of life is acceptable
• Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable
• We all make mistakes
• We are all physically vulnerable when involved in motor vehicle collisions
• Eliminating fatalities and serious injuries is a shared responsibility between
road users and those who design and maintain our roadways
Local Policy Support
13
“
”
london.ca
Prioritize Safe and Accessible Options for People
Embed Sustainability
Ensure Context Sensitivity
Prioritize Connectivity
Emphasize Vitality
14
Core Principles
london.ca
Streets that attract pedestrians
enhance urban vitality in London.
“”
“ ”15
The safety and mobility needs of all
users is a priority in any street design
exercise.
Prioritize Safe and Accessible Options for People
Emphasize Vitality
Core Principles
london.ca 16
• Tactile walking surface indicators
• Separation of pedestrians and cyclists where practical
• Consideration of user needs and land uses in prioritizing
street elements such as sidewalk width
• Design processes that emphasize consultation with
stakeholder groups
• Pedestrian crossing refuge islands
• Accessible transit stop design
Key considerations:
Accessibility
The Manual defines what a pedestrian is, describes the central role of walking
and mobility device travel within London and outlines how the City will support
pedestrians through Complete Streets.
london.ca
Contents:
General Considerations and Tools for:
1. Pedestrian Facility Design
2. Cycling Facility Design
3. Transit Facility Design
4. Motor Vehicles
5. Green Infrastructure
6. Utilities and Municipal Services
17
london.ca
Cycling Facilities
Considerations
Pedestrian
Facility
Considerations
18
london.ca
Provide connectivity:
As the slowest
mode of transportation,
pedestrians have
the greatest sensitivity
to route directness.
“
”Prioritize vulnerable users:
Cyclists are more vulnerable
than transit riders and
motorists in a collision
because they are not
protected within a vehicle.
“
”19
london.ca 20
Design For Accessibility
Pedestrians include those who are using a walker, crutches, a wheelchair or an
electrically powered mobility device as well as individuals with a visual impairment. “
”
Design features should be used to accommodate all of London’s pedestrians,
such as:
• appropriately wide pedestrian clearways;
• audible pedestrian signals;
• tactile walking surface indicators (TWSIs);
• visually contrasting surface treatments; and
• amenities such as seating
london.ca
Contents:
(under development with City input)
1. Process Overview
2. Planning
3. Conceptualizing
4. Designing
5. Implementing
21
london.ca
Street Element
Decision
Making Tool
Complete Street
Audit Tool
22
london.ca
The tool on the
right outlines
suitable
alternatives that
should be
considered in
cases where
the Right of
Way is not
sufficiently
wide.
“
”
“
”23
The selected
street typology
automatically
loads the priority
rankings from the
Complete Street
Priorities Tool and
the graph below
displays the
difference
between desired
and existing
conditions.
london.ca
Contents:
1. Street Typologies
2. Design Guidance for: • Rapid Transit Boulevards
• Urban Thoroughfares
• Civic Boulevards
• Main Streets
• Neighbourhood Connectors
• Neighbourhood Streets
• Rural Thoroughfares
• Rural Connectors
24
london.ca 25
Civic
Boulevard
Example
london.ca
Civic
Boulevard
“
”“ ”
“ ”Example
26
Civic Boulevards
provide multi-modal
connections
between different
neighbourhoods
across the City
including
downtown.
The variety of destinations along these corridors can
generate significant volumes of walking trips
Physically separated and continuous cycling facilities are preferred.
london.ca
Neighbourhood
Street
Example
27
london.ca
Neighbourhood
Street
“
” “”
“ ”Example
28
Neighbourhood
Streets are where
most Londoners,
including many
families, live;
enhancing the
livability, sense of
community, and the
ability to age-in-place
are important
considerations. Benches and newspaper boxes are
typically provided at corners with other
major streets.
Motorist speeds may be managed with speed humps.
london.ca
Neighbourhood
Connector
Example
29
london.ca
Neighbourhood
Connector
“
”“ ”
“ ”Example
30
Link residential areas to the City-wide road network.
Connectivity to key neighbourhood destinations can
generate large volumes of pedestrian trips
Travel lanes
may be
reduced to
3.0 m, unless
the street is
part of a
transit route.
london.ca 31
Contents:
1. Intersection Design Principles
2. Design Guidance for: • Rapid Transit Boulevard Intersecting a Main Street
• Urban Thoroughfare intersecting a Civic Boulevard
(Signalized)
• Urban Thoroughfare Intersecting a Civic Boulevard
(Roundabout)
• Urban Thoroughfare Intersecting a Neighbourhood
Connector
• Civic Boulevard Intersecting a Neighbourhood Street
london.ca 32
Example
Rapid Transit
Boulevard
Intersecting a
Main Street
london.ca 33
Example
Rapid Transit
Boulevard
Intersecting a
Main Street
The pedestrian
clearway widens as
the planter boxes
and trees are
discontinued,
providing for greater
ease of pedestrian
movement and
queuing. Centre median design requires dedicated
transit signals which use the same phasing
as the through motor vehicle movement.
“
” “”
london.ca
Contents:
(under development with City input)
1. Principles of Performance Metrics
2. Options for Measuring Complete Streets
Performance
34
london.ca
• Undertake relevant and multi-faceted data collection
• Analyze usage patterns in context
• Develop a feasible monitoring strategy
• Communicate findings and integrate data analysis into
project decision-making
Baltimore Case Study:
Network Completeness
Mapping: Pedestrian
Network
NYC Sustainable Streets Report: Combined Sales:
Improvement Sites vs. Comparison Sites35
Principles of Performance Measurement
london.ca
“”
“”
36
The spatial distribution of Complete Streets
can be used to visualize the City’s progress
and highlight specific areas that may have
less access to sustainable mode choices.
Sales data collected via electronic payment vendors can be
used to compare changes on streets where improvements
are made with control streets that have a similar character.
Baltimore Case Study:
Network Completeness
Mapping: Pedestrian
Network
NYC Sustainable Streets Report: Combined Sales:
Improvement Sites vs. Comparison Sites
london.ca
Next Steps
• Share Draft with Stakeholders and Finalize late
summer 2018
• Education campaign
• Move towards a network of Complete Streets
37
london.ca
Questions
2019 Development Charges
DC External Stakeholder CommitteeMay 10, 2018
2
Meeting Topic:
Background
• BackgroundoDC Act provides limited guidance regarding sub-
categorization on uses of land
oSome reference to “residential” and by inference, “non-residential”
oThis leaves discretion for how municipalities choose to define non-residential
oCurrent approach:‒ Institutional / Commercial / Industrial
3
Scope
• Independent third party review (Watson):oWhat are other municipalities doing?
oA review / analysis of other non-residential approaches:‒ Industrial / Non-Industrial‒ Commercial / Non-Commercial‒ Uniform Non-Residential
oConcluding remarks:‒ Summarizing key findings
4
What Are Other Municipalities Doing?
5
18
# of Municipalities Surveyed
Uniform Non-Residential
Retail / Non-Retail
Industrial / Non-Industrial
Industrial / Commercial / Institutional
Industrial, Office, Institutional (IOI) /
Retail / Hotel / Mixed Use Retail /
Mixed Use IOI
11 2 4 0 1
What Are Other Municipalities Doing?
6
Municipality Uniform Non-Residential
Retail / Non-Retail
Industrial / Non-Industrial
Industrial / Commercial / Institutional
Industrial, Office, Institutional (IOI) /
Retail / Hotel / Mixed Use Retail /
Mixed Use IOI
Markham X
Oakville X
Burlington X
Ottawa X
Mississauga X
Milton X
Hamilton X
Kitchener X
Thames Centre X
What Are Other Municipalities Doing?
7
Municipality Uniform Non-Residential
Retail / Non-Retail
Industrial / Non-Industrial
Industrial / Commercial / Institutional
Industrial, Office, Institutional (IOI) /
Retail / Hotel / Mixed Use Retail /
Mixed Use IOI
Waterloo X
Kingston X
Guelph X
Brantford X
St. Thomas X
Sarnia X
Middlesex Centre X
Windsor X
Woodstock X
Analysis of Options
8
Category Key Takeaways
Industrial / Commercial / Institutional(Current Structure)
• Highest charge for commercial development with lower charges for both Institutional and Industrial development
• Disincentive for conversions of older industrial buildings to commercial use• Greater administrative effort required to administer by-law versus other
options evaluated
Industrial / Non-Industrial
• Lower industrial charge as opposed to non-industrial charge• Disincentive for conversions of older industrial buildings to commercial use
Commercial / Non-Commercial
• Higher commercial charge as opposed to non-commercial charge• Industrial incentive is the least expensive to fund of all options evaluated• Disincentive for conversions of older industrial buildings to commercial use
Uniform Non-Residential
• Least amount of administrative effort required to administer by-law versus other options evaluated
• Eliminates conversion issue• Industrial incentive is the most expensive to fund of all options evaluated
Financial Impacts
9
* Based on data from 2014 DC Study
Concluding Remarks
• Most common type of non-residential rate structure is the Uniform structureoLess administrative effort required to administer by-lawoBuilding conversion can occur without additional DC
charges
• Incentives can continue under the alternative options, but the cost of the incentive program will be impacted
10
Next Steps
• Presentation to DC Stakeholder’s and release of memo from Watson
• Consultation meeting with broader groupo 2-3 weeks
• Report back to next DC Stakeholder’s meetingo June 14o Recommended approach taking into consideration
consultation feedback• Report to SPPC
o July 23o Seeking Council endorsement on recommended
approach
11
12
Meeting Topic:
Local Service PolicyOverview
• Current approved local service policies cover the following sections:o General claimability / eligibilityo Road Workso Sanitary Sewage Workso Stormwater Workso Water Distribution
• There were significant changes to the 2014 local service policies.
• Reviewed opportunities for improved:o Clarityo Consistencyo Completeness 13
OVERALL THESE POLICIES WORKED WELL!
Local Service PolicyRecommended Changes
1. Clean-up of wording throughout policieso These changes are minor in nature and do not alter the intent of the policy
‒ For example:‒ Owner vs Developer (now Owner throughout polices and consistent with agreement language)‒ References to CSRF updated to reflect official name
2. The terminology under the Roads section has been updated to more closely align with terminology under the London Plan street classificationso Arterial continues to be used, but will be defined as Rapid Transit Boulevard, Urban
Thoroughfare, Civic Boulevard, Main Street and Rural Thoroughfare.o Primary Collector/Secondary Collector now referred to as Neighbourhood
Connectoro Local Street now referred to as Neighbourhood Street
14
Minor Improvements Rather Than Major Policy Overhaul
Local Service PolicyRecommended Changes
3. Policies recommended to be deleted:o “Use of Contingencies” in the General section. Policy not required because the
authority to make a claim related to a contingency is provided for under the provisions in “Claimability”.
o “Exceptions” in the General section. Policy not required because to the authority to substitute a project is permitted under the DC Act (i.e. does not also need to be in the DC By-law).
4. Policies recommended to be added:o Strategic Needs:
‒ Current policy: Sewers that are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer are eligible for a claim from the CSRF.
‒ Similar policies are recommended to be added to Roads, Water Distribution and Stormwater.‒ These policies are recommended to be added to provide flexibility to address emerging needs that
will satisfy a regional benefit to growth
o In Roads section a new policy to address cycling facilities lanes‒ Eligible for a claim if cycling facilities lanes are identified through development areas in the Cycling
Master Plan, on Neighbourhood Connectors or Neighbourhood Streets
o A new Parkland Development section has been added‒ Defines Parkland Development local service costs and what is eligible for claim from the CSRF‒ Consistent with current requirements under subdivision agreements 15
Local Service PolicyOutstanding Issues
• Policy addressing Infill and Intensification to be added o Will be consistent with the principles adopted by Council in January 2018o Update to be provided to the DC External Stakeholder’s at the June meeting
• Policy addressing Low Impact Development (LID) to be addedo Policy currently under development by the Staffo Update to be provided to the DC External Stakeholder’s at the June meeting
• Stormwater Management Facility Land Policies to be updatedo In order to provide greater clarity on developable versus non developable land,
Staff are currently reviewing language (can these be more clearly defined)o Land valuations currently being reviewed. Revised land valuations will not be
known for 8-10 weeks.
16
Local Service PoliciesNext Steps
• June 1st - DC External Stakeholder’s to provide feedback on draft local service policies
• June 14th – Updated local service policies to be presented at the DC External Stakeholder’s meetingo Infill and Intensification finalized for discussiono Low Impact Development (LID) finalized for discussion
17
Questions?
18
GENERAL
Claimability Any item listed as claimable, subsidizable, or eligible for funding from a development charge (DC) reserve fund must also be provided for in the approved DC rate calculations as reflected in the 2014 DC Background Study. To the extent that specific cost sharable works and projects cannot be identified as to location or timing, there should be a contingency provided for in the estimates that is incorporated into the rates.
The ultimate ability to claim for reimbursement, the cost of anyfor work constructed by an Owner shall be subject to authorization to construct the work in the development agreement or subject to execution of a servicing agreement prior to commencement of the work, and to other provisions of this Schedule. Coincident with the inclusion of a provision to construct a claimable work in a development agreement, Administration the City shall generate a Source of Financing Report demonstrating the availability of financing for the work in relation to the approved capital budget for the particular category of works. Where the approved budget is not sufficient to absorb the new funding commitment for the work, the capital budget approval may be deferred until the following year’s budget cycle. The developer Owner shall proceed at their own risk of refusal of the claim, should they proceed with works authorized in the development agreement until a commitment approving the funding of such works from an approved project budget has been obtained.
It is important that the City continue to monitor between DC Background Studies, the accuracy of the estimates and assumptions used to establish the rates. To the extent that substantial variations are identified, Council should be advised and will need to consider whether to increase or decrease the rates in accordance with the monitoring observations. Non-Growth Works that Benefit the Existing Population
Where works funded in part from the CSRF are subject to this policy and also include a non-growth component in the DC Background Study, funding of that portion of the works must wait until the City has approved sufficient funds in its Council approved capital budgets, or Council makes provision for a Reserve Fund designated for use in funding the non-growth share of DC funded works, to pay for that non-growth portion of the works. The non-growth portion of the funding shall be identified in the City’s Capital Works Budget and be subject to approval by Council. Use of Contingencies
Works listed as eligible in the DC Background Study, or with the approval of the City Engineer, in consultation with the Director, Development Finance, drawn from a contingency and/or an alternative to a work listed in the Background Study may be funded from the CSRF. Exceptions
The DC By-law allows for exceptions to projects listed in the DC Background Study for works listed as eligible in the DC Background Study, or with the approval of the City Engineer, in consultation with the Director, Development Finance, drawn from a contingency and/or substituted for a work listed in the Background Study may be claimable. ROAD WORKS
“Arterial” refers to London Plan street classifications of Rapid Transit Boulevard, Urban Thoroughfare, Civic Boulevard, Main Street and Rural Thoroughfare.
Major Road Works (CSRF - Roads Services)
Major Transportation road works typically consist of large-scale arterial road widening expansion projects or two lane road upgrades triggered by increased traffic volumes associated with growth across the City. All Major Transportation Road Works are constructed by the City and the growth related cost is eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Roads Services.
The costs of the following items are incorporated into road projects and are required as a result of growth:
Commented [SJ1]: It is recommended this section be
deleted because the authority to make a claim from a
contingency is covered off in the General section under
claimability.
Commented [SJ2]: It is recommended this section be
deleted because authority via by-law is not required to allow for
project substitutions. Also, this does not really fit with the
intent of the policies which is on claimability / eligibility.
a) Structures to be widened or replaced b) Noise barrier wall where required c) Land acquisition (raw land cost, appraisals, surveying, legal, etc.) but only where lands
cannot be acquired through dedications under the Planning Act on a timely basis. Minor Road Works (CSRF - Roads Services)
Minor Road Works that would be constructed as part of the major road project are eligible to be claimed from the CSRF - Roads Services. These works include: new traffic signals, channelization, sidewalks, and streetlights. In some cases, these works are done in advance of the road capacity expansion project as a means of addressing a network wide benefit to growth, without completing the entire road expansion.
Channelization (CSRF - Minor Road WorksRoads)
Channelization on an primary or arterial road into a new public street is eligible for a claim from the CSRF – Minor Road WorksRoads. The following subsections list the various additional components of the channelization which are considered claimable:
a) Tree Plantings
When replacement trees are planted as part of external road works to compensate for removed trees, other than those removed to facilitate an access, the cost of the removal and replacement is claimable. All other tree plantings are not claimable.
b) Ditching
When ditching and/or the installation of catchbasins is required to facilitate claimable external road work the drainage works may be incorporated in the minor road works claim to the CSRF.
c) Utility Relocations
Utility relocations necessitated by the claimable road works can be claimed upon providing a copy of the invoices from the utility and proof of payment in full. The City shall issue a letter to the utility company stating that this work is required by the City under the Public Service Works on HighwaysHighway Act and will pay for 50% of cost of labour and trucking. This 50% share is claimable from the CSRF; the other 50% is the utility’s share and is not claimable. Should the utility refuse to pay these costs, the 50% “utility share” shall be the responsibility of the proponent Owner. Engineering fees associated with these relocations are not claimable.
Minor Road Works - Road Oversizing (CSRF – Minor Road Works- Roads)
Where a new arterial or primary collector road is to be constructed in whole or in part through or adjacent to a development, the Owner is responsible for the cost of constructing a Neighbourhood Connectorsecondary collector road as defined in the City of London’s Design Specifications & Requirements Manual and Complete Streets Guide. If the required road is wider or at a higher standard, the Owner is responsible for the cost of a standard road, including sidewalks, street lights, etc., and is eligible for a claim to the CSRF – Minor Road WorksRoads for the difference in cost between a standard road and the road actually constructed. The construction responsibilities shall be defined by the conditions of an agreement between the City and the Owner. If the Owner wishes to construct the road at an enhanced standard beyond that acceptable to the City Engineer, then the Owner shall pay for the additional costs of enhancement with no eligibility for a claim from any fund. Arterial Road Extensions (CSRF - Roads Services)
When a development precedes the construction of a new arterial road that is either adjacent to or runs through the developable lands, the Owner is responsible for the construction of a Neighbourhood Connectorprimary collector road along the ultimate road right-of-way. A partial claim for this work may be made as per the primary road oversizing provisions for Minor Works -– CSRF - Roads.
Commented [SJ3]: Channelization moved under Minor
Road works.
Strategic Links (CSRF – Roads)
Portions of proposed Neighbourhood Connectors or Neighbourhood Streets that are required for transportation network connectivity, are not implementable in a timely manner due to reasons beyond the control of the surrounding Owners and are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer, may be constructed by the City and the cost is eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Roads. Cycling Lanes (CSRF – Roads)
Where on-road cycling facilities lanes are identified through development areas in the Cycling Master Plan, on Neighbourhood Connectors or Neighbourhood Streets, the Owner shall be responsible to construct the cycling lanes. If the required road is wider or at a higher standard, the Owner is responsible for the cost of a standard road, including sidewalks, street lights, etc., and is eligible for a claim to the CSRF - Roads (Active Transportation) for the difference in cost between a standard road and the road actually constructed. The construction responsibilities shall be defined by the conditions of an agreement between the City and the Owner. Local Service Costs (Owner Cost)
The following subsections list the various road components which are considered a local service cost and are therefore constructed at the expense of the Owner:
a) Connections Connections of all public and private new streets, roads, ramps or entrances (including features and design details such as: round-abouts, culverts, signage, gateway treatments, noise wall alterations, sidewalks, bike lanes, bike pathways, paths, directional traffic islands, decorative features) to the existing road infrastructure;
b) Placing Fill
Re-grading, cutting and placing fill on lands beyond the road allowance along their frontage in accordance with City of London standards. In addition, all grading and restoration of road allowance along the development frontage if no claimable road works are required;
c) Topsoil and Sod
Topsoil and sod to the edge of any existing sidewalk fronting the development;
d) Tree Planting Planting of new trees fronting the development, except as provided in the Minor Road Works - Road Oversizing or Channelization policies.
e) Sidewalk Reinforcement
Any upgrade or reinforcement from a standard 100mm thickness sidewalk across the development’s new access;
f) Retaining Walls
Retaining walls along the development frontage, where acceptable to the City Engineer;
g) Temporary Works 100% of the cost of temporary asphalt sidewalks, roads, paths, swales along the frontage abutting arterials or primary collectors where installation in ultimate location is deemed premature;
h) Traffic Signals at Private Streets
Traffic signal installations at all private entrances and at public entrances which do not meet MTO warrants;
i) Other Works
Any other services, removals, relocations, etc., required including but not limited to, utility relocation, sidewalk alterations, and curb cuts;
j) Restoration and Damage
Restoration of any utility cuts, and or damage created by construction activities and /or construction traffic in and out of the development. including but not limited to daily removal of mud tracking, daily dust suppression, milling and paving of deteriorated
asphalt caused by construction traffic, grading of gravel shoulders to remove rutting caused by construction traffic;
k) Noise Attenuation Measures
All noise berms, window streets, fences and privately maintained noise walls;
l) Grading and BMPs Grading elements such as: swales, ditches, best management practices, (BMPs) and any other feature to address over land flow routes needs created by the development’s grading;
m) Paths and Walkways
Pedestrian paths, walkways, bridges, tunnels, including the related lighting and signage (Note: Parkways are constructed by the City and are specifically provided in the DC Background Study);
n) Utility Upgrades
The costs related to the upgrading of any utility plant, or the relocation of the same, unless necessitated by the roadwork;
o) Relocation and Replacement Costs
The relocation and/or replacement costs of any encroachment on the City’s road allowance or easement including but not limited to hedges, sprinklers systems and fences;
p) Street Lighting
Street lighting at intersections with existing roads where required by the development agreement.
SANITARY SEWERAGE WASTEWATER WORKS
Regional Trunk Sewers (CSRF - Sanitary Sewerage Wastewater)
All sewers required to service future development with a diameter greater than 450mm are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Sanitary SewerageWastewater. All sewers of any diameter required to service future development and that are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Sanitary SewerageWastewater. In order to be eligible for a claim as a Regional Trunk Sewer, the sewer must have no Private Drain Connections to individual residential units otherwise the “Sewer Oversizing” policy applies. Sewer Oversizing (CSRF - Minor Sanitary SewersWastewater)
Sanitary Sewers, which are not Regional Trunk Sewers, with all of the following attributes are eligible for a subsidy from the CSRF - Minor Sanitary SewersWastewater:
a) The sewer services external developable areas, and b) The sewer is greater than 250mm in diameter.
The oversized portion (>250mm) is eligible for a subsidy payable based on an average oversizing cost and is stated in terms of a $/m of pipe constructed. The oversizing subsidy amounts are reflected in Appendix 8-A. The oversizing subsidy amounts cover the cost per metre of all associated eligible costs including engineering, manholes, restoration, etc.
Commented [SJ4]: Policy addressing infill and
intensification to be added, but currently under development
Commented [SJ5]: Appendix under review.
Pumping Stations (CSRF - Sanitary SewerageWastewater)
The upgrading or construction of new regional pumping stations are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Sanitary Sewerage Wastewater. These projects must also be identified in the DC Background Study. A figure showing the location of all of these pumping stations is provided in the Sanitary Servicing DC Background Study (March 2014). Temporary Pumping Stations (Owner Cost)
The cost of any temporary pumping stations or forcemains is borne by the Owner. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the Owner that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for the permanent facility (e.g. provide land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current DC Background Study. Wastewater Treatment Upgrades (CSRF - Sanitary SewerageWastewater)
All wastewater treatment upgrades are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF - Sanitary SewerageWastewater. Temporary Sanitary Sewerage Wastewater Systems (Owner Cost)
Costs of all sanitary sewagewastewater systems that are temporary or are not defined in the DC Background Charge Study shall be borne by the Owner. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the Owner that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for the permanent facility (e.g. secure land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current DC Background Study. Local Service Costs (Owner Cost)
Any pipe or portion of a larger pipe that is less than or equal to 250mm in diameter are referred to as local works, and undertaken at the Owner’s expense. STORMWATER WORKS
Regional Trunk Sewers (CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater)
All sewers to be constructed within existing City owned lands that service multiple new development areas are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater.
All sewers of any diameter required to service future development and that are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Stormwater. Regional Open Channels (CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater)
Any open channel works identified through the Environmental Assessment process that are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater. Storm Sewer Oversizing (CSRF- Minor Storm WorksStormwater)
Storm Sewers with all of the following attributes are eligible for a subsidy from the CSRF - Minor Storm WorksStormwater:
Commented [SJ6]: Policy addressing Low Impact
Development (LID) to be added, but currently under
development.
Policy addressing infill and intensification to be added, but
currently under development
a) The sewer services external developable areas, and b) The sewer is greater than 1050mm in diameter.
The oversized portion (>1050mm) is eligible for a subsidy payable based on an average oversizing cost and is stated in terms of a $/m of pipe constructed. The oversizing subsidy amounts are reflected in Appendix 8-B. The oversizing subsidy amounts cover the cost per metre of all associated eligible costs including engineering, manholes, restoration, etc. Open Channel Oversizing (CSRF- Minor Storm WorksStormwater)
Open Channels with all of the following attributes are eligible for a subsidy from the CSRF - Minor Storm WorksStormwater:
a) An open channel design is required for the reason of inherent site drainage constraints
and the design has been accepted by the City Engineer, b) The open channel services external developable areas, and c) The open channel has a 2-year storm design flow cross-sectional area greater than a
1050mm sewer using the City’s minimum design standards. The oversized portion represents the cross-sectional area required in excess of a 1050mm sewer for a 2-year storm design. The oversizing subsidy will be calculated based on the additional cost of oversizing beyond an area equivalent to a 1050mm pipe size using the City’s minimum design standards for a 2-year storm design flow. The oversizing subsidy is payable based on an average oversizing cost in the form of a $/m of channel constructed as calculated by the Owner’s professionalconsulting engineer and as accepted by the City Engineer (or designate). An allowance of 15% will be added to the calculated oversizing amount to cover applicable engineering costs. Stormwater Management Works (CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater)
Environmental Assessment Complete
Any municipally owned or operated stormwater management works designed to provide capacity to facilitate growth that are identified through the Environmental Assessment process and are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater.
Environmental Assessment Not Complete
Stormwater Management Works for which an Environmental Assessment has not been completed that are anticipated to satisfy a regional benefit to growth are to be identified as separate area specific contingencies in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater. Upon completion of the applicable Environmental Assessment (i.e. no outstanding Part 2 orders), a review of the related area specific contingency and the DC rate will be undertaken and, if required, a revision to the DC by-law will be made.
Stormwater Management Facility Land Policies (CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater)
With respect to land acquisition for storm water management facilities the value of the land shall be subject to review every five years and is established as follows: Non-Developable lands
Non-Developable lands may include designated flood plains, hazard lands, and natural heritage areas as defined in the City’s Official Plan or any area located outside the limit of development as determined through the development studies and/or draft plan or site plan process: $5,500/acre ($13,590/hectare)
Lands under existing open water are not claimable as defined by the London 2 year design storm high water elevation.
Commented [SJ7]: Appendix under review.
Commented [SJ8]: Section under review
Park Land
Lands set aside as a dedication for parks and not designated for development: $ Nil
Where there is a shared use of a stormwater or sanitary wastewater work such as a maintenance road/ pathway, the use and maintenance of the road/pathway shall be viewed as functioning solely for the sanitary wastewater or stormwater service use not the park use. The costs associated with the maintenance access path shall be borne by the related service’s CSRF.
Developable Lands
Developable lands are inside the urban growth boundary and included inside of the limit of development as established by the draft plan or site plan approval process: $125,000/acre ($308,880/hectare)
Lands Required Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Where lands are required outside the Urban Growth Boundary for the purposes of stormwater management the value of the required lands will be determined via a property appraisal completed by the City to the satisfaction of the City Treasurer.
Legal Fees
Legal fees directly related to the land transfer may be claimable subject to the review and acceptance of the City Solicitor.
Major SWM Facility Inlet and Outlet Sewers within the SWM Block (CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater)
Any storm sewers within a Major SWM Facility block that are either upstream or downstream of a facility are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater. Major SWM Facility Outlet Sewers outside the SWM Block (CSRF- Major SWM Works or CSRF- Minor Storm WorksStormwater)
Any major SWM facility outlet sewer that extends outside the SWM block facility is considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and is eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Major SWM WorksStormwater if the outlet sewer is not also used to provide drainage to a development adjacent to the outlet sewer.
In the event that all or a portion of the outlet sewer outside the SWM block is used to provide drainage to a development adjacent to the outlet sewer then the portion of the outlet sewer downstream from the adjacent development is eligible for “Storm Sewer Oversizing” as described above. Local Service Costs (Owner Cost)
Any pipe or portion of a larger pipe that is less than or equal to 1050 mm in diameter are referred to as local works, and undertaken at the Owner’s expense. Temporary Storm Sewers (Owner Cost)
Costs of all storm sewer systems that are temporary or not defined in the DC Background Charge Study shall be borne by the Owner. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current DC Background Study. Temporary Stormwater Management Works (Owner Cost)
Any temporary works or works not included in the approved DC Background Study are at the sole expense of the Owner including operation, maintenance and decommissioning. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the Owner that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for the permanent facility (e.g. secure land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. In order for a temporary
work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current DC Background Study.
Best management practices or private drainage systems are not claimable unless identified through the Environmental Assessment process as being required to meet a regional benefit to growth.
The construction of road side ditches, swales, and overland flow routes are not eligible for claim from the City Services Reserve Fund - Stormwater ManagementCSRF - Stormwater.
WATER DISTRIBUTION
Major Watermains (CSRF-Water Distribution)
All watermains required to service future development greater than or equal to 400mm in diameter are considered to satisfy a network wide benefit to growth and are to be identified separately as projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF-Water Distribution.
All watermains of any diameter required to service future development and that are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Water Distribution.
Watermain Oversizing (CSRF-Water Distribution)
Watermains with the all of the following attributes are eligible for a subsidy from the CSRF-Water Distribution:
a) The watermain services external developable areas, and b) The watermain is greater than 250mm in diameter and less than 400mm in diameter.
The oversized portion (>250mm) is eligible for a subsidy payable based on an average oversizing cost and is stated in terms of a $/m of pipe constructed. The oversizing subsidy amounts are identified in Appendix 8-C and are to be payable from the City Services Reserve Fund. Payment of claims from the City Services Reserve fund is subject to budget approval.The oversizing subsidy amounts cover the cost per metre of all associated eligible costs including engineering, appurtenances, restoration, etc.
Water Facilities (CSRF-Water Distribution)
Where the upgrading or construction of new public water booster pumping stations and reservoir projects are designed to increase capacity or improve service to acceptable standards and as a result of growth, these works are eligible for a claim from the CSRF-Water Distribution. These projects must also be identified in the DC Background Study. Temporary Facilities (Owner Cost)
Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the Owner that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for the permanent facility (e.g. secure land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current DC Background Study.
Local Service Costs (Owner Cost)
Any watermain or portion of a larger watermain that is less than or equal to 250mm in diameter is referred to as “local works”, and undertaken at the Owner’s expense.
Commented [SJ9]: Policy addressing infill and
intensification to be added, but currently under development
Commented [SJ10]: Appendix under review.
Commented [SJ11]: Sentence included so similar to
Wastewater Oversizing
PARKS Parkland Development (Owner Cost)
Parkland Development costs to bring Neighbourhood Parks, District Parks, Sports Parks, Urban Parks and Civic Spaces to a base condition shall be borne by the Owner. This includes grading, seeding, servicing, fencing and the associated engineering and landscape architect design costs as required by City standards. For Open Space, Woodland Parks and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), costs for fencing as required by City standards, and for the establishment of mitigation measures and development limits as outlined in an approved Environmental Impact Study shall be borne by the Owner. Where the Owner enhances Parkland Development above City standards, these costs shall be borne by the Owner. Cul-de-sac Islands, Roundabout Islands and Window Streets (Owner Cost)
Development costs for landscape features, cul-de-sac islands, roundabout islands and window streets shall be borne by the Owner. This includes grading, seeding, landscaping, fencing, plantings and the associated engineering and landscape architect design costs as required by City standards. Parkland Development (CSRF – Parks & Recreation)
Parkland infrastructure beyond the basic parkland development standard noted above may be eligible for a claim from the CSRF – Parks & Recreation. Approval of Owner constructed pathways and parkland infrastructure shall be at the discretion and approval of the City and outlined in the registered Agreement.
Commented [SJ12]: New Policy
