Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Authority 2016.pdf
Toronto and Region ' Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #1116 was held at Centre of Excellence, Tennis Canada, on Friday, February 26, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 10:36 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Justin Di Ciano Member Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Rob Ford Member Rodney Hoinkes Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member George Mammoliti Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member O Canada was performed by Grade 12 students from Villanova College, King City GREETINGS (a) Francesco Sorbara, MP, Vaughan - Woodbridge (b) Premier Kathleen Wynne (video greetings) (c) Glen Murray, Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (d) Eleanor McMahon, Ontario Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. 1 APPOINTMENTS TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOR 2016 -2017 The Secretary- Treasurer can advise that all the persons listed below have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority for the 2016 -2017 year, or until their successors are appointed. ADJALA- TOSORONTIO /MONO Glenn Mason DURHAM Kevin Ashe Jack Ballinger Colleen Jordan TORONTO Paul Ainslie Maria Augimeri Vincent Crisanti Glenn De Baeremaeker Justin J. Di Ciano Jennifer Drake Rob Ford Rodney Hoinkes (resigned Maria Kelleher Giorgio Mammoliti Mike Mattos Jennifer McKelvie Ron Moeser Anthony Perruzza PEEL Chris Fonseca Jennifer Innis Matt Mahoney John Sprovieri Jim Tovey YORK David Barrow Michael Di Biase Jack Heath Linda Pabst Gino Rosati 2 awaiting replacement) The meeting was turned over to Brian Denney, Secretary- Treasurer, to conduct the elections. RES. #A1 /16 - APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Mr. Paul Speck, Senior Vice President, Marsh Canada Ltd. and Mr. Jonathan Wigley, Partner, Gardiner Roberts LLP, be appointed as scrutineers for the election of officers, if required. CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Maria Augimeri was nominated by Jim Tovey. RES. #A2 /16 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT nominations for the office of Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED CARRIED Maria Augimeri was declared elected by acclamation as Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. VICE CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Michael Di Biase was nominated by Jennifer Innis. RES. #A3 /16 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT nominations for the office of Vice Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED Michael Di Biase was declared elected by acclamation as Vice Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. R] The meeting was turned over to the new Chair, Maria Augimeri, to conduct the business meeting. RES. #A4 /16 Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Matt Mahoney Vincent Crisanti THAT the Minutes of Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016, be approved. CARRIED Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A5 /16 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS The Conservation Authorities Act requires each conservation authority to undergo an annual external audit of its accounts and transactions. Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT the Authority suspend the requirement under its Rules of Conduct to appoint auditors annually at the annual meeting for 2016; AND FURTHER THAT staff undertake a competitive procurement process for audit services in 2016 leading to the appointment of auditors for the 2016 fiscal year. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act reads as follows: 38. (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act. R. S. 0. 1990, c. C. 27, s. 38 (1). (2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2). (3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditors report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3). In addition, Section 7.1 of the TRCA Rules of Conduct requires that: "The appointment of auditors ... shall be held at the Annual Meeting of the Authority in each year." i❑ RATIONALE Staff will undertake a competition for audit services during 2016, resulting in a recommendation to the Authority to appoint auditors for the 2016 audit year. It is anticipated that a recommendation could be brought to the Authority at its September meeting. Grant Thornton LLP has been appointed auditor every year since 2010 following a competitive procurement process. While TRCA has been satisfied with the service received, in keeping with best management practices staff is of the opinion that these services should once again be tendered. As Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Rules of Conduct requires that the auditors be appointed at the Annual meeting, staff is requesting leave of this requirement in 2016 and approval to appoint the auditors later in the year. Report Prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca Date: February 18, 2016 RES. #A6116 - STATE OF THE URBAN FOREST IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA REPORT A Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition report completed in partnership with TRCA. Publication and media release of the report State of the Urban Forest in the Greater Toronto Area, jointly authored by the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition and TRCA. (Executive Res. #8154115) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) vision for The Living City is dependent on healthy and resilient urban forests; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff continues to work with partners to advocate for green infrastructure policies and programs, including urban forestry, through the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the report State of the Urban Forest in the Greater Toronto Area be published on behalf of Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition (GIO) and made widely available. CARRIED �41 RES. #A7/16 - REDELMEIER POND REHABILITATION Longyard Properties Inc., Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 19T- 03V13, Block 12, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Don River Watershed. Authorization for staff to continue detailed design discussions, enter into final negotiations and reach an agreement toward the rehabilitation of Redelmeier Pond (also known as Patterson Pond), in Block 12, in the City of Vaughan. (Executive Res. #8155115) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to enter into final negotiations and to finalize an agreement toward the rehabilitation of Redelmeier Pond, in Block 12, in the City of Vaughan; THAT staff continue to work with representatives for Longyard Properties Inc., Senang Investments Limited, Block 12 Properties Inc., City of Vaughan, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and others, as may be required, to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (LCP) are met as they pertain to the proposed works and that a state -of- the -art channel rehabilitation be implemented; THAT Restoration Projects staff be permitted to construct the finalized, approved project for the proposed rehabilitation of Redelmeier Pond, subject to acceptance by the impacted parties and participants; THAT staff be permitted to clear the condition of draft plan approval for Longyard Properties Inc. (Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 19T- 03V13) for the conveyance of the valleylands and buffers into public ownership by allowing these lands to be held by Longyard Properties Inc. or Block 12 Properties Inc. in the interim until an agreement has been reached on the scope of the rehabilitation project or until such other time as agreed to by the parties, at which time those lands shall be transferred to TRCA; THAT staff be permitted to accept a Letter of Credit from Longyard Properties Inc. for the cost of the design, implementation and monitoring of the rehabilitation project, as well as the land transfer, in the event that Longyard Properties Inc. requests release of the conditions of draft plan approval in the absence of an agreement; THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee on the status of the project once an agreement has been reached between the parties; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Vaughan and all parties and participants for the proposed works be so advised. CARRED L4J Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A8 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT Section II item 16.2.1 — CEO Hiring Process, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #14/15, held on February 5, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A9 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT Section III item 16.3.1 — Good News Stories, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #14115, held on February 5, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A10 116 - SECTION IV — ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Section IV item 16.4 — Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #14/15, held on February 5, 2016, be received. CARRIED (a) Reflections on 60 Years of TRCA — Chairs Remarks — by Maria Augimeri (b) 2015 Year in Review Video. (c) Living Up To Our Legacy — CEO's Remarks — by Brian Denney (d) 601h Annual Meeting Anniversary Video 7 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:30 p.m., on Friday, February 26, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks '] Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #2/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, April 1, 2016. The Vice Chair Michael Di Blase, called the meeting to order at 9:58 a.m. Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Chair Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Justin Di Ciano Member Rob Ford Member Rodney Hoinkes Member Jennifer Innis Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member A moment of silence was observed in memory of Toronto Councillor and Authority Member Rob Ford. RES. #A11/16 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Colleen Jordan Kevin Ashe THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/16, held on February 26, 2016, be approved. CARRIED (a) Presentation to recognize Manulife as winners of the Paddle The Don Corporate Challenge and to thank them for their ongoing contribution to Paddle the Don. (b) Presentation of Years of Service awards to Members and staff. (c) A presentation by Ian McVey, Project Manager, Research Mobilization and Communication, TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Ontario's Proposed Cap- and -Trade Program for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions. (d) A presentation by Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer, TRCA, in regard to item 9.1.1 - 2016 Budget, Operating and Capital. RES. #Al2 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT above -noted presentation (a) be received. RES. #A13 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath CARRIED THAT above -noted presentation (b) be received. CARRIED 10 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A14/16 - ONTARIO'S PROPOSED CAP - AND -TRADE PROGRAM FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS Update on proposed provincial climate policy and cap and trade program as it relates to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie WHEREAS in February 2016 the Province of Ontario introduced the Climate Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act (Bill 172) and draft regulations that, if passed, will establish greenhouse gas reduction targets and a framework for a cap and trade program that would be launched in 2017 to support achievement of legislated targets; AND WHEREAS the climate mitigation legislation and draft regulations enabling cap and trade, if passed, will have fiscal implications for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and its partner municipalities, creating additional costs for fossil fuel consumption, compliance obligation for some municipalities, and new funding opportunities for programs and policies with a low carbon focus; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff comments on the proposed Climate Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act (Bill 172) submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change through the Environmental Registry on March 25`h, 2016 be received (Attachment 1); AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to follow changes in provincial climate policy and program implementation and provide future updates to the Authority as implications and opportunities, as they relate to TRCA operations and activities, become clearer. CARRIED BACKGROUND The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human - induced climate change is real and that impacts are being experienced around the globe. These impacts are projected to intensify over the coming decades as the warming accelerates due to the ongoing build -up of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Earth's atmosphere. In Paris in December of 2015, 195 nations reached a legally- binding agreement to transition the global economy to near -zero GHG emissions sometime after 2050 in order to limit global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre - industrial levels. A rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius is seen as posing catastrophic risk to countries around the world, including Canada. Putting a price on carbon through a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, when implemented as part of a comprehensive portfolio of complementary GHG reduction measures, is seen as the most cost effective policy intervention to enable a low carbon transformation. By making high carbon energy sources more expensive consumers and energy producers are incented to improve energy efficiency and to develop and deploy sustainable technologies that substitute for existing high carbon - emitting technologies. Carbon pricing effectively helps stimulate changes in energy production and consumption infrastructure and shifts the behaviours of energy producers and consumers. 11 Two forms of carbon pricing are in place in jurisdictions across North America. British Columbia has had a carbon tax in place since 2008, and California and Quebec have operated a linked cap- and -trade market since 2013. The main difference between these two approaches is that a carbon tax establishes a fixed price on carbon but allows uncertainty on what level of emissions reductions will be achieved, while a cap- and -trade program establishes a fixed amount of carbon (i.e., a cap) that can be emitted within a given jurisdiction but allows uncertainty in the pricing of that carbon (market forces). There is significant overlap between the two approaches, with most jurisdictions having some elements of both within their low carbon policy framework. Ontario Climate Policy Context The Government of Ontario has established GHG reduction targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050 that are aligned with the global effort to limit temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. These targets have not yet been legislated. While significant reductions have been made thus far as a result of the phase out of coal -fired generation from Ontario's electricity sector, Ontario is not on track to meet its near -term (2020) or long -term (2030 and 2050) GHG emission reduction targets. The gap between current emissions and Ontario's 2020 target is estimated to be about 20 million tonnes (MT), which is roughly equivalent to the amount already reduced by the coal power phase out. Ontario's remaining emissions come from a variety of sectors — with transportation (34 %), industry (30 %) and buildings (17 %) being the leading contributors. Reducing emissions across these dispersed sources will require broad -scale and costly transformation of energy systems. will also require an unprecedented level of coordination between upper (federal and provincial) and lower (municipal) levels of government to ensure effective implementation of low carbon policy and programs. While emissions reductions of the magnitude needed will be difficult and costly, it is widely accepted by economists and scientists that the costs of not acting would be much higher. The Province of Ontario has been contemplating the introduction of a wide- ranging cap- and -trade system for GHG emissions since at least 2008, when it passed GHG reporting regulations for large emitters and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Quebec that set out the two provinces' plans to create an interprovincial cap- and -trade system for the trading of emissions credits. The Province of Ontario demonstrated its further commitment to a cap- and -trade system by introducing enabling legislation in 2009 (Bill 185) that provided the government with broad authority to implement emissions trading systems and establish rules relating to the scope, trading, distribution and administration of such a system. At Authority Meeting #6/09, held on July 24, 2009, TRCA's comments (Resolution #A127/09) to the Province on Bill 185 were approved. Recent Developments on Carbon Pricing Policy in Ontario On February 24, 2016 the Province introduced the Climate Change Mitigation and Low - carbon Economy Act, 2016 which sets out the policy framework for achieving the Province's 2020, 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. If passed, the Act would establish the GHG reduction targets in law, and obligate the Province to develop successive five -year action plans that would support achievement of legislated targets. The first such action plan is expected to be released in April of 2016, and would set out how the Province intends to reach its 2020 emissions reduction target of 150 MT. 12 A central component of the proposed policy framework to 2020 and beyond is the implementation of a cap- and -trade program in collaboration with California and Quebec, partners under the Western Climate Initiative. Ontario's cap- and -trade program would cover more than 80 per cent of the Province's emissions. Large facilities (e.g. industry, institutions and electricity generators) that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of GHGs per year, as well as natural gas and transportation fuel distributors, would face direct compliance obligations and thus be required to hold emission allowances to cover their annual emissions. Facilities that emit more than 10,000 tonnes of GHGs per year, but less than the 25,000 tonne threshold for mandatory participation in the cap- and -trade market, would have the option of voluntarily opting -in. Consumers of heating and transportation fuels, as well as electricity would be indirectly impacted as the cost of fossil fuels rise. In the latter half of 2015, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) set about consulting with major stakeholders, notably the large industrial facilities (e.g. steel, cement and petroleum refineries), natural gas utilities and transportation fuel distributors, that would be most directly impacted on design options for the cap and trade program, culminating in the release of draft regulations (Bill 172) on February 25, 2016. It is expected that the government will move quickly through 2016 to establish the administrative framework to support the launch of the program on January 1, 2017. How Will Cap and Trade Work? The draft regulation, if passed, would set a cap on emissions for each year between 2017 and 2020, which is the initial four -year compliance period. This cap would decline by about 4 per cent each year to meet Ontario's 2020 emissions- reduction target. Emissions allowances created as a result of the cap would be distributed by the Province to those with direct compliance obligations, either via auction or free of charge. Proceeds generated from the sale of allowances under the cap- and -trade program will be directed into a newly created Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account and used to fund a wide range of initiatives that lead to GHG reductions. The Province expects proceeds to total $1.9 billion of revenue in 2017, and to escalate annually thereafter as the price of permits increases. This includes investments in technologies and infrastructure across all emitting sectors, as well as education, training and outreach activities. The Province is also expected to release regulations relating to the creation of a carbon offset market. While the Province has indicated that it will move slowly to develop carbon sequestration offset protocols (i.e. forests, wetlands and agriculture) so as to give time to create accurate carbon sequestration measurement tools, experience in the California cap and trade program has shown an active market supporting improved forest management, avoided forest conversion and forest conservation projects across the United States. While urban forest projects are also an eligible project category in the California system, there has been no activity in that area to date. This is attributed to the relatively small project size coupled with the higher costs of urban trees as well as ongoing monitoring, reporting and verification costs. They continue to update the urban forest protocol in hopes of spurring more projects in this area. The most recent update added eligibility for urban forest management, a positive development beyond the urban forest tree planting only focus of the previous protocol. 13 Implications and Opportunities for TRCA and Partner Municipalities TRCA staff has been engaged with provincial staff and Conservation Ontario to inform development of the cap and trade program, and the future carbon offset market to reflect the interests of municipalities and TRCA. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has also been engaged with Conservation Ontario to advocate for provincial policy and investment to support municipal climate adaptation priorities. TRCA does not operate any facility that would face a direct compliance obligation under the draft regulations. Municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction do operate facilities that would face a direct compliance obligation under the draft regulations, such as large landfills and wastewater treatment plants. Based on a review of reported 2013 emissions data, available through Environment Canada's website, the following municipally -owned facilities would be required to participate in the cap- and -trade program: • Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant— Regional Municipality of Durham; • Britannia Sanitary Landfill Site — Region of Peel; • Brock West Landfill — Pickering (City of Toronto); • Green Lane Landfill — St. Thomas (City of Toronto); • Keele Valley Landfill — Maple (City of Toronto). In addition to these facilities the Durham York Energy Centre, which began operations in 2015, is expected to have emissions greater than 25,000 tonnes per year and will thus be required to participate in the cap- and -trade program. This list is provided for indicative purposes only, and does not necessarily represent the full list of municipally -owned facilities that may be subject to a direct compliance obligation under cap- and -trade when the program is expected to start on January 1, 2017. In addition to direct compliance obligations, the cost of natural gas and transportation fuels used in TRCA and municipal corporate operations is projected to increase by 3.3 cents /cubic metre for natural gas and 4.3 cents /litre for gasoline. In the case of TRCA the overall cost implications are expected to be marginal based on 2015 energy consumption records. If enacted, the proposed policy framework will lead to new funding opportunities for TRCA program activities that directly lead to GHG emission reductions, or that support the reduction of GHG emissions. For example, the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) appears well positioned to take advantage of funds to support research and development into renewable and alternative energy technologies in the transportation and buildings sectors. Similarly, the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Action Plan (SNAP), the Partners in Project Green (PPG) program, and the Community Transformation program may be able to leverage cap- and -trade funds to support their ongoing programs directed at residential, commercial, industrial and institutional audiences. The proposed policy framework could also support additional TRCA program activities, such as ongoing efforts to develop a green building agenda that engages diverse stakeholder groups in an effort focused on aggregating GHG emission measurement, reporting and target- setting activities across the building sector and mobilizing private capital to take advantage of provincial green building retrofit incentives that emerge out of the Climate Change Action Plan. This effort builds on the foundation and partnership between TRCA, Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) and World Green Building Council (WGBC), and represents the next phase of the Greening Greater Toronto program developed initially by CivicAction with support from TRCA. 14 As discussed above, the future carbon offset market provides another potential revenue stream to support forest restoration and conservation projects undertaken by TRCA. In order to take full advantage of the proposed cap and trade and offset program revenues, TRCA performance measurement and reporting frameworks may need to be adjusted to incorporate quantification of carbon reduction benefits. Enhanced support for TRCA's climate mitigation programs can help municipalities implement effective GHG reduction policies and programs, thereby reducing carbon costs for corporate operations and the wider community. The TRCA supported Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) program is leading research efforts among academic partners (York, McMaster and Guelph universities) to better understand the role that municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area and their conservation authority partners can play in supporting provincial and global efforts to reduce GHG emissions and transition to a low carbon economy. The OCC team is coordinating the development of a low carbon research agenda, which will include knowledge generation or synthesis of best practice, enabling policy or case studies on GHG reduction in other jurisdictions that can be passed along to partner municipalities to advance their mitigation program implementation, particularly through the lens of community energy planning. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE With the legislation and regulations surrounding cap and trade and the offset program still in draft form, specific details on how to leverage funding from the carbon market and /or the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account have yet to be released. Therefore it is recommended that OCC program staff be directed to: 1. continue to monitor policy developments; 2. embark on a deeper examination of the role that TRCA can play in supporting partner municipalities with GHG emission reduction planning and implementation efforts; and 3. report back to the Authority when further details and analysis are available. For Information contact: Ian McVey, 416- 451 -1420 Emails: imcveV(a)trca.on.ca Date: March 21, 2016 Attachments: 1 15 Chief Executive Officer March 24, 2016 EBR Registry Number 012 -6844 Ms. Melissa 011evier Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Climate Change and Environmental Policy Division Air Policy Instruments and Programs Design Branch 77 Wellesley Street West, Floor 10, Ferguson Block Toronto, ON M7A2T5 Dear Ms. 011evier: Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City- Sent via email melissa.ol levier @ontario.ca Re: Comments Respecting the Proposed Climate Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act, 2016 —Bill 172 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) applauds the Province of Ontario's efforts to develop a legislative framework to support the implementation of a comprehensive economy - wide approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and more specifically a regulatory cap- and -trade program to reduce GHG emissions at a pace that is aligned with global ambition to keep temperature rise within the 2 °C threshold. TRCA is pleased to provide comments on Bill 172, and we look forward to working with the Province to implement a comprehensive five -year climate action plan for 2016 -2020 and support longer -term efforts over the decades to come. To start, TRCA is strongly supportive of the proposed approach of legislating carbon reduction targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050, and of creating a first "carbon budget" to take the Province toward the 2020 target. TRCA also strongly supports the provision of authority to make these targets more stringent and /or to provide for interim targets between 2020 to 2030 and 2030 to 2050, as well as the transparency and accountability measures in the proposed Act, namely the requirement for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to prepare a Climate Change Action Plan every five years. TRCA believes that these core elements of the Act demonstrate Ontario's alignment with the ambitious global climate treaty that emerged out of the Paris Conference of the Parties in December 2015. However it is clear from analysis by the United Nations Framework Conventior on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that, even if pledges made by the more than 190 countries that signed on to the Paris agreement are fully implemented, the world is not on track to meeting the internationally - agreed to limit of 2 °C. Therefore further ambition will be required, and so the mechanisms embedded within the proposed Act support the notion of a ratchet mechanism by which provincial contributions can be adjusted upwards over time. Beyond these high -level comments on the broad policy architecture, TRCA has some more specific observations and suggestions which the Ministry may consider as it finalizes Bill 172 over the coming months. These are articulated in the pages that follow. Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info @trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Down sview, ON M3N 1S4 Member of Conservalion Ontario W W WWn.Ca Absence of Post -2020 Carbon Budgets TRCA notes that the absence of clear carbon budgets beyond 2020 creates uncertainty for Ontario firms, municipalities and households wishing to plan and invest for a low- carbon economy. By providing clear benchmarks toward the 2030 and 2050 targets, Ontario can help ensure that action toward these ambitious goals is not continually postponed. Given the long lead times for capital investment, clear carbon budgets covering the period to 2030 would help ensure a measured pace of emissions reductions that aligns with economic and technological development imperatives. Furthermore, it is worth noting that it is the cumulative emissions over time that matter— not our level of emissions in any given year. Every tonne of GHG emitted between now and 2030 or 2050 will count against our contribution to the global climate mitigation effort. Status of Annual GHG Progress Report? TRCA notes that the proposed Bill 172 does not contain provisions for annual reporting of progress against provincial GHG reduction targets. TRCA understands that this requirement is embedded in the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009, however the Province may consider consolidating this requirement within the proposed Bill 172 to align with the other transparency and accountability aspects of the new Act. Need for a Broader "Dashboard" of Climate Progress Indicators and Targets With respect to annual reporting on provincial progress toward climate change objectives, TRCA supports creating a more robust reporting framework that includes a broader suite of indicators, targets and benchmarks to evaluate progress — including those related to adaptation. The narrow focus on annual GHG figures in climate change reporting misses other important leading indicators such as urban development patterns, green infrastructure investment/deployment, low carbon energy installations (particularly respecting heat generation and energy storage), and area -based energy efficiency programs. TRCA has conducted a significant amount of research on and implementation of performance measurement frameworks, as evidenced by The Living City Report Card. As well, the Ontario Climate Consortium (of which TRCA is a founding member) conducted comprehensive research on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate (MOECC) in 2015 which led to the development of a proposed climate change performance measurement framework (indicators, targets and benchmarks) in the context of land use planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Region.' TRCA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Province to develop a more comprehensive approach to climate change performance measurement that includes both mitigation and adaptation in the GGH region and beyond. Mainstreaming — Municipal and Broader Public Sector Climate Action Planning and Reporting On this same theme of performance measurement and reporting, TRCA would like to highlight and support recommendations that emerged out of the Crombie Panel report asking the Province to mainstream climate action planning, respecting both mitigation and adaptation in municipal government (see recommendations 68 and 69). TRCA has long supported our partner municipalities with the development of climate change goals and action plans, and with 1 See report online: http://climateconnections.ca/ our - work / research - and - information - gathering- on- climate- change- mitigation - and - adaptation/ 17 reporting on metrics to assess progress. Situated as we are within Ontario's largest urban region, and straddling municipal boundaries, TRCA is well situated to help coordinate with municipalities and other relevant public bodies (eg. schools, hospitals, etc.) to develop, implement, review and report on municipal or regional -scale progress toward climate change targets that are aligned with provincial and global ambition. As stated above, TRCA welcomes the opportunity for further discussions with relevant ministries as to how we might support the Province in mainstreaming the practice of climate action planning and reporting within the municipal and broader public sector. Mainstreaming - Buildings Sector Building on TRCA's comments above respecting the need to mainstream climate action planning and reporting within the municipal and broader public sectors, TRCA sees a critical need to stimulate broad engagement on climate change with the building sector across the Greater Golden Horseshoe region, focused on commercial, institutional and multi -unit residential buildings. Given the prominence of building sector emissions within Ontario's GHG profile (20% of the total), it is clear that existing buildings is an area of strategic importance for climate action planning. Through multiple programs TRCA is engaged with building owners, managers and occupants across the buildings sector. - Institutional - Through the Sustainable Schools and Greening Health Care programs. - Multi -unit residential - through the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) program. - Commercial /industrial - through the Partners in Project Green (PPG) program. - Sector -wide - TRCA hosts the World Green Building Council (WGBC) Secretariat, and is engaged with the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC). TRCA sees an opportunity to leverage the strength of these programs to consolidate and enhance engagement with the building sector around climate change planning, target setting and reporting. TRCA is in the midst of broad engagement with key players across the building sector to develop the concept for a sector -wide program that would align with the Ontario Climate Action Plan and support achievement of 2020, 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets. TRCA looks forward to an opportunity to speak further with the Ministry about this concept, and to explore collaborative opportunities to support its implementation. Need for a Comprehensive "Resilience" Approach that Integrates Mitigation and Adaptation TRCA understands that the limited resources within MOECC coupled with the significant effort required to design and develop a climate policy framework that supports a complex and dynamic policy instrument such as cap- and -trade has meant that adaptation has received relatively less attention to date. TRCA also recognizes that comprehensive climate action planning requires significant coordination across provincial government ministries to address some of the underlying drivers of GHG emissions such as land use planning and transportation planning, and that this cross - ministerial coordination takes time and effort to bear fruit. we Nonetheless, TRCA remains hopeful that the forthcoming climate action plan will present a holistic and comprehensive resilience approach to climate change in the Province which addresses adaptation alongside mitigation. Notwithstanding the mitigation imperative, adaptation efforts that prepare us for the changes that are already in store due to past and present GHG emissions are critical. One only has to look at the costs from recent extreme weather events in the Toronto region (e.g. more than $1 billion from the July 2013 storm according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada) to understand the importance of adaptation. TRCA is also hopeful that the forthcoming action plan will recognize the important synergies between mitigation and adaptation planning, particularly in the areas of land use, infrastructure and water management. Indeed it is clear that protection and enhancement of green infrastructure, particularly in and near urban areas, is critical for building resilience to increasingly severe weather events and sequestering carbon. With respect to the GHG reduction benefits, TRCA suggests that living green infrastructure, as defined in the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014), be added to the list of eligible initiatives for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (schedule 1). TRCA sees the potential offset market as an avenue to support resilience building through agriculture and natural systems protection and enhancement. However the challenge (and cost) of implementing offset projects in an urban, or near urban, context may mean that funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account will be needed to scale -up green infrastructure investment. Similarly, investments in water management and conservation have important co- benefits for both adaptation and mitigation. As with green infrastructure, we note that water management is not explicitly noted in schedule 1 as an eligible initiative, and suggest that the Province consider adding it to the list given the important mitigation (and adaptation) opportunities available in the municipal water sector. Water management, green infrastructure and urban /peri -urban agriculture are all areas where TRCA has many years of experience. A notable example comes from TRCA's Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Program, which is engaged at the community -scale in planning and implementing gray and green infrastructure renewal projects, and tailored residential retrofit programs, that address multiple benefits, including GHG reductions and building climate resilience. TRCA welcomes the opportunity to share lessons learned from SNAP and other programs, and to discuss appropriate mechanisms to support continued efforts in the context of Ontario's climate change action plan. Importance of Public Education and Outreach TRCA lauds the Province for the extensive public consultations that took place over 2015 and leading up to the release of the proposed bill and draft regulation in late February 2016. These broad stakeholder consultations have laid the groundwork for successful implementation of cap - and -trade in January 2017. However as TRCA is sure the Province is aware, the need for public engagement and awareness is only going to build in the lead -up to the program launch and beyond. The complexity of the cap- and -trade approach and the optics surrounding the distribution of free allowances to large final emitters, create significant risks around public acceptance and support for the program. Concerted and sustained education and outreach with the public at large, and particularly with key stakeholder groups, will be critical for the long -term success of the cap- and -trade program and Ontario's broader climate mitigation efforts. 19 Education and outreach on environmental issues is one of the core functions of TRCA, and we operate a wide range of programs that are building public awareness around energy conservation and climate change action across many sectors. With the introduction of this legislation and the cap- and -trade program, TRCA sees an opportunity to enhance our education and outreach activities around the theme of Ontario's (and more specifically to our mandate, the Toronto region's) low carbon transition. By articulating a positive vision for what a low carbon climate resilient province or region could look like, TRCA's education and outreach programs can help to mobilize the public in support of ambitious provincial government action. As stated above, we look forward to future discussions between TRCA and MOECC that address how TRCA's education and outreach programming can support broader provincial communication efforts in support of the legislation and cap- and -trade program. Transparency around Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account TRCA understands that the Province will develop a set of criteria to guide the Minister in making investment decisions relating to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account. While clearly cost per tonne of GHG reduced will be a core criteria for decision - making, given that the list of eligible initiatives includes many actions that will have an indirect GHG reduction benefit (i.e. education, training and outreach), or will have significant co- benefits for health and other environmental issues (i.e. natural systems, agriculture. etc.), we expect that there will be a broader set of criteria that captures some of these more indirect or intangible benefits. Furthermore, TRCA suggests that this set of criteria, and the process for applying for funds from either the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account or the Green Investment Fund be made publicly available so that there is transparency around the use of funds. We have articulated a number of areas where we believe that TRCA can play a role in supporting the Province with the cap- and -trade program. We look forward to having an opportunity to explore these in more detail in the near future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most important environmental policy initiative TRCA looks forwards to working with the Province on the proposed legislation and protocols. Please do not hesitate to contact Ian McVey, Project Manager with the Ontario Climate Consortium Secretariat, TRCA, at 416 -451 -1420 or by email at imcveV(@,trca.on.ca, should you have any further questions regarding our comments. Yo truly, ia�en Aey, Chief Executive Officer 20 RES. #A15116 - DOUBLE - CRESTED CORMORANTS 2014 and 2015 Management Summary and 2016 and 2017 Management Strategy. Review of management strategy results from 2014 and 2015 and review and approval of 2016 and 2017 management strategy for double- crested cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to work with the Cormorant Advisory Group to assist TRCA in addressing management concerns regarding colonial waterbirds at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP); THAT staff be directed to work with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and any other required regulatory agency to seek approval for the 2016 and 2017 management strategy for colonial waterbirds at TTP; THAT staff be directed to implement the proposed management strategy for 2016 and 2017 for colonial waterbirds at TTP; THAT staff be directed to continue to actively participate in local, regional and binational committees /working groups addressing the management and protection of colonial waterbirds; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority bi- annually regarding the management of double- crested cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park or more frequently should the management strategy be significantly changed. CARRIED BACKGROUND Tommy Thompson Park is an urban wilderness park located at the foot of Leslie Street in the City of Toronto. It supports the largest colony of double- crested cormorants in the world, plus diverse communities of bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal and vegetation species. It has been formally designated as a globally significant Important Bird Area (IBA) and an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #120). The Master Plan that guides the development of TTP includes the goal of conserving and managing the natural resources and environmentally significant areas of the park. While the cormorant colony adds to the diversity of the park and is environmentally significant, there are concerns about the impacts of cormorants on tree health and biodiversity at TTP. Cormorants negatively affect tree health through their nesting behaviours and have impacted approximately 25 per cent of the forest communities at TTP. In 2007 TRCA began a process to ensure the TTP Master Plan goals and objectives were upheld and the concerns about cormorants addressed. TRCA initiated the involvement of stakeholders and the public to create a management strategy for cormorants at TTP. The process started in November 2007 with the establishment of the Cormorant Advisory Group, and led to the development of the 2008 Cormorant Management Strategy which was approved by the Authority in 2008. Until 2014 TRCA reported to the Authority annually on the management strategy: In 2009 as per Resolution #A22/09, In 2010 as per Resolution #A23/10, In 2011 as per Resolution #A49/11, and In 2012 as per Resolution #A19/12. 21 At Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014, Resolution #A226/13 was approved, in part, as follows: ... THAT staff report back to the Authority bi- annually regarding the management of Double - crested Cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park or more frequently should the Strategic Approach be significantly changed;... The overall goal of the Double- crested Cormorant Management Strategy, as established by the Cormorant Advisory Group in 2007, is to achieve a balance between the continued existence of a healthy, thriving cormorant colony and the other ecological, educational, scientific and recreational values of TTP. The objectives of the strategy are to increase public knowledge, awareness and appreciation of colonial waterbirds; deter cormorant expansion to Peninsula D; limit further loss of tree canopy on Peninsulas A, B and C; and continue research on colonial waterbirds in an urban wilderness context. To achieve the goals and objectives of the Management Strategy, TRCA employed a suite of management techniques in 2014 and 2015 that included inactive nest removals, pre- nesting deterrents, active nest removals and ground nest enhancements. Results from the annual population monitoring surveys show an increase in the ground nesting colony and a decrease in the tree nesting colonies. These data suggest that the management strategy has been successful in changing the nesting behaviour of cormorants. The "2014 Management Summary Report" and the "2015 Management Summary Report" provides details on management actions and is available upon request. The 2014 and 2015 Management Strategy did not significantly change from previous years. The areas identified as "Cormorant Conservation Zones" on Peninsulas B and C received enhancements to improve the area for ground- nesting cormorants. Ground nesting is a desirable behaviour since cormorants that nest on the ground have far less impact on trees and helps achieve the goal of the continued existence of a healthy, thriving cormorant colony. The areas identified as "Cormorant Deterrent Areas' on Peninsulas B and C received targeted management measures to prevent cormorant expansion into new trees and limit the further loss of forest canopy. Management activities included inactive nest removal where tree nests are removed from strategic areas during the winter months; pre- nesting deterrents where cormorants are discouraged from tree nesting in strategic areas through an escalating scale of measures; and active nest removal that followed the conservative protocol for estimating embryo development prepared by the Humane Society of the United States. Although identified as a management technique in the 2014 and 2015 Management Strategy for Peninsulas B, C and D, post- breeding deterrents were not undertaken as cormorants did not roost in trees in these areas. Public knowledge, awareness and appreciation for colonial waterbirds at TTP continued in 2014 and 2015. Highlights included a viewing blind on Peninsula C with excellent views of cormorants; staff interpretation of the colony at various public events, including Colonial Waterbird Hikes at the TTP Spring Bird Festival; presentations; and park tours. The 2014 Spring Bird Festival also featured the book launch of "The Double- crested Cormorant: Flight of the Feathered Pariah" by renowned cormorant expert Linda Wires who attended the festival. Staff also presented various aspects of TTP cormorant management at the 2015 International Association of Great Lakes Research conference and the 2015 Waterbird Society Annual General Meeting. Overall, the 2014 and 2015 Management Strategy was successful in meeting the objectives of the Management Strategy. 22 • cormorants were effectively deterred from expanding their nesting areas beyond the existing colonies, including onto Peninsula D; • ground nesting continued to increase and now represents 68 per cent of the entire TTP cormorant population (ground nesting represented only 15 per cent of the colony prior to management); • tree nesting decreased on all three Peninsulas; • colonial waterbird research continued through the work of York University; and • public knowledge, awareness and appreciation of colonial waterbirds continued through various methods including the website, presentations, tours and hikes. Cormorants nest on three of the park's four peninsulas. In 2014 and 2015 the overall cormorant population remained stable numbering 12,409 and 11,908 nests respectively. 2014 represented a population increase of 3.5 percent, while 2015 represented a population decrease of 4 per cent. Most of the cormorant colony now nests on the ground, predominately on Peninsula B with 7,799 nests in 2014 and 7,608 nests in 2015. However, ground nesting on Peninsula A significantly increased in 2015 to 541 nests, up from 10 nests in 2014. Overall, ground nesting has increased a remarkable 708 per cent since management efforts began in 2008. This is a positive trend showing that the management strategy is working to help achieve the goal of the continued existence of a healthy, thriving cormorant colony. Tree nesting populations of cormorants decreased by 8 per cent in 2014 and by 18 per cent in 2015. Due to the decline of the health of forest communities within the tree nesting areas, as well as the movement of tree nesting black- crowned night -heron into new area, cormorants significantly increased pressure to expand into new areas in both 2014 and 2015. Staff successfully limited these expansion attempts, preventing new colonization of forested areas. RATIONALE An extremely high level of concern has been expressed regarding cormorant populations and their management. Concerns have been raised from both sides, on the one hand calling for management and the preservation of forest canopy, and on the other hand for protection of the birds and their nesting colonies. TRCA has an obligation to manage Tommy Thompson Parkas directed by the Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park as approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. To meet the intent of the Master Plan, staff feels that there is a strong rationale for undertaking the management of cormorants at Tommy Thompson Park. Since November 2007, TRCA has involved stakeholders and the public in assessing the need for management and developing a strategy for cormorants at TTP. Generally, throughout the process there has been agreement that some form of management is appropriate, providing that the methods are humane to cormorants and do not affect other wildlife. Based on the 2014 and 2015 results from population monitoring that showed a continued increase in the ground nesting colony and a decline in the tree nesting colonies, it appears that the adaptive management strategy where management is only carried out to prevent nesting expansion into new areas of forest is sufficient to meet the goal and objectives of the Double- crested Cormorant Management Plan at Tommy Thompson Park. As such, TRCA will implement the management strategy as in previous years (Attachment 1 — Table 2). 23 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are available in the Tommy Thompson Park Joint Management account 210 -19 in the approved 2016 and 2017 budgets. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A suite of techniques as shown below will be utilized in an integrated and adaptive approach to help achieve the original goal and objectives of the Double- crested Cormorant Management Strategy from 2008. Attachment 1 — Table 2 provides an overview of the strategy. Increase Public Knowledge, Awareness and Appreciation • Maintain TRCA cormorant webpage, including compelling images of cormorants; • Conduct interpretive tours for school and interest groups, and at TTP special events; • Maintain opportunities to view colonial waterbirds with viewing blinds and platforms; • Present information at conferences and forums; and • Participate in working groups on colonial waterbirds. Inactive Nest Removal • Remove nests from target trees on Peninsulas B and C during the winter, prior to the breeding season. Enhanced Ground Nesting • Avoid daytime disturbance to the ground nesting areas so that cormorants are not deterred from nesting on the ground; • Deploy straw materials to the ground nesting areas at the beginning of the nesting season to encourage nesting. Pre - nesting Deterrents • Utilize the suite of deterrence techniques previously identified on an increasing scale of activity to prevent expansion of tree nesting within the targeted deterrent areas on Peninsulas B and C; • Prevent cormorant nesting on Peninsula D via the operation of the TTP Bird Research Station; • Monitor the effects of deterrent activities on the cormorants to ensure they are effective, and monitor the effects on non - target species to ensure they do not have an adverse impact. Post - breeding Deterrents • Utilize the suite of deterrence techniques previously identified on an increasing scale of activity to prevent cormorant tree roosting in the deterrent areas on Peninsulas B and C, as well as Peninsula D. Monitoring, Research and Reporting • Undertake annual nest census for colonial waterbirds; • Conduct annual tree health surveys on Peninsulas B, C and D; • Continue to collaborate with York University and other interested researchers on colonial waterbird research; 24 Complete annual management summary reports; and Meet with Cormorant Advisory Group to review data and discuss whether changes are required. Report prepared by: Karen McDonald, extension 5248 Emails: kmcdonald @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Karen McDonald, extension 5248; Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: kmcdonald @trca.on.ca, Toninger@trca.on.ca Date: February 18, 2016 Attachments: 1 25 Attachment 1 Table 1: 2014 -2015 Management Matrix Table 2: 2016 -2017 Proposed Management Matrix Peninsula A Peninsula B Peninsula C Peninsula D Inactive Nest Removal (prior to the breeding season Enhanced Ground Nesting Pre - nesting Deterrents Post - breeding Deterrents Table 2: 2016 -2017 Proposed Management Matrix 26 Peninsula A Peninsula B Peninsula C Peninsula D Inactive Nest Removal (prior to the breeding season Enhanced Ground Nesting Pre - nesting Deterrents Post - breeding Deterrents 26 RESMA16 116 - BOLTON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRACT MANAGEMENT PLAN Final approval of the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow WHEREAS the draft Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan dated July 2013 was approved in principle at Authority Meeting #6/13, held on July 26, 2013, by Resolution #A120/13; AND WHEREAS the draft Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan dated July 2013 was endorsed by the Town of Caledon and supported by Region of Peel staff; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan be approved; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to conduct any further studies or plans needed to implement the plan; THAT TRCA staff work with the Region of Peel, Town of Caledon and the surrounding community to foster an integrated stewardship approach on the property; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Bolton Resource Management Tract (BRMT) Management Plan was generated to protect, conserve and restore the valuable ecological features and functions of the site, while guiding the current and potential future public uses of the area. The BRMT property is approximately 973 hectares in size, including the most recent acquisitions of Bolton Camp and Campbell properties. The acquisition of the BRMT property began as a result of the Flood Control and Water Conservation plan (1961); aimed to resolve the need for flood protection following Hurricane Hazel in 1954. The BRMT Management Plan study area is located in the Town of Caledon, Region of Peel within the Humber River watershed. The northern half of the property lies within the boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) with its rolling terrain and loosely defined river valley. In this section, wetlands and kettle lakes are much more evident. The landscape of the BRMT includes 6.8 hectares of bluff and barren lands, 372 hectares of forested lands and 98 hectares of wetlands. This combination of unique habitats within BRMT has also qualified sections to be identified as significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Following the approval in principle of the BRMT Management Plan, the Plan was presented to the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel with the purpose of obtaining endorsement and support. On July 8, 2014, TRCA staff provided a presentation regarding the endorsement of the BRMT Management Plan to the Town of Caledon. On September 9, 2014, Resolution 2014 -326 was approved as follows: Whereas the Bolton Resource Management Tract (BRMT) includes over 900 hectares of green space within the Humber River watershed located in the Town of Caledon, Region of Peel, and 27 Whereas the (BRMT) Management Plan was generated to protect, conserve and restore the valuable ecological features and functions of the site, while guiding the current and potential future public uses of the area; and Whereas the vision for the BRMT was created in consultation with the Advisory Committee including staff from the Town of Caledon, Region of Peel, Town of Mono and Township of Adjala- Tosorontio; and Whereas the TRCA Board approved the plan in principle in July 2013 and is seeking endorsement from the Town of Caledon; Now therefore be it resolved that the Town of Caledon endorse the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan approved in principle by the TRCA Board in July 2013. On July 16, 2015 TRCA received correspondence from the Region of Peel in response to a December 4, 2014 TRCA request to endorse the BRMT Management Plan. The letter from Region of Peel senior staff congratulated TRCA on the completion of the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan and made the letter and plan available to Regional staff for support and consideration in Regional projects, plans and policies. Since the endorsement in principle of the BRMT Management Plan by the Authority, TRCA staff has made significant progress in completing important projects that create and maintain unique outdoor experiences in Peel Region. Since 2013, several large sections of trail have been established, including 2km of trail within Bolton Camp. The chart below details work completed since 2013: Table 1: BRMT Work Completed Since 2013 Work Completed Amount Year Completed Double Track Trail Construction 2430 m 2015 Hazard Tree Removals 196 trees 2015 Boardwalk 215 m 2015 Bolton Camp Trail 2350 m 2015 Bolton Camp Boardwalk 60 m 2015 Bolton Camp Cleanup 600 kg 2015 Structure Repair and Securement 5 buildings 2015 Bolton Camp Cleanup 100 kg 2014 Works Yard Trail 1500 m 2014 Bolton Camp Trail 2000 m 2014 Well Decommissioning 1 2013 Barn Demolishing 2 2013 Garbage Removal 90 kg 2013 i RATIONALE TRCA has obtained endorsement in principle of the BRMT Management Plan from the Town of Caledon and staff support from the Region of Peel. Through the Plan process, TRCA has been able to create a strong network of community and stakeholder advocates who are passionate and supportive about the Plan and property. Many aspects of the Plan share similar goals and objectives as TRCA's municipal partners. Consequently, there is a great opportunity for TRCA to work with the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel in finding shared opportunities and efficiencies for achieving recommendations within this Plan. The Management Plan will also help to implement several objectives of TRCA's 10 -Year Strategic Plan, most notably, 'rethinking greenspace to maximize its value'. This Plan will continue to expand the network of greenspace for the Toronto region that maximizes community well -being and protection of our local ecosystems. This includes helping people become healthier and happier by promoting appropriate access to existing nature and by creating new green infrastructure in urban areas. The BRMT forms a critical greenspace link between Albion Hills Conservation Area in the Headwaters of the Humber River watershed, south into the community of Bolton, which then connects to the Nashville Conservation Reserve in York Region. Given that urban development continues to expand around BRMT, there is still a need for the community to become more cognizant of these lands and how they benefit their community. Through the implementation of this Plan, visitors to BRMT and neighbours in the surrounding area will have a better understanding of the value of large greenspaces, such as flood protection, health benefits and recreational opportunities. The successful stewardship of this valuable greenspace is crucial to the health of the Humber River watershed and as such, it is recommended that the Authority approve the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan and continue to invest in urban and near -urban greenspaces. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The successful implementation of the BRMT Management Plan will require the efforts of TRCA and its partners. The following planning actions will be taken by TRCA: • report back to the municipalities with a letter that outlines the successful endorsement of the Plan from all partners; • undertake detailed work plans for future recommended implementation projects; and • seek additional funds for plan and project implementation. The following is a list of implementation projects that will be started in 2016: Table 2: 2016 Implementation Projects Type of Project Amount Year Boardwalk 60 m 2016 Multi -Use Trail Construction 950 m 2016 Bridge Construction 1 2016 Bridge Foundations Design 2 2016 Staircase Construction 1 2016 A map of the BRMT Trail Plan has been included as Attachment 1 29 FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of trails, related infrastructure, and the protection and enhancement of BRMT is a large scale project that will be developed in multiple phases over a period of approximately 10 years (2013 - 2023). The total cost to implement the major recommendations of the management plan was projected to cost $683,250 (in 2013 dollars). In addition, there is a forecasted amount of $75,000 (in 2013 dollars) for ongoing stewardship and maintenance costs associated with plan implementation. TRCA's Peel Region Land Care Program has budgeted $92,745 to cover the cost of implementation projects in 2016. A majority of this amount has been assigned to trail projects. These funds have been made available in Peel Land Care account 440 -01. Report prepared by: Adam Dembe, extension 5939 Emails: adembe @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Matt Kenel, extension 5325; Mike Bender, extension 5287 Emails: mkenel @trca.on.ca, mbender @trca.on.ca Date: January 15, 2016 Attachments: 1 30 ILI Won ervat7on �]� q 1 for The Living City �t Bolton Resource Management Tract Trail Plan licy ��o Legend o V * Trailhead 1 HVHT - Existing Hiking Trail /\ f �•� Conceptual Hiking —Only Trails Proposed Multi- Use Trail Proposed Shared a' `` Multi- Use /HVHT f� 1,1 Peel Multi -Use �1 Connection / ��— '1.1� a BAR 4... �1 BRMTBoundary/ z0ip �. OHT Owned t� Lands �q. / / /.z ^� �•t BRMT Boundary/ ,� sue` r OTRCA Owned 'x \\ ! Lands z • \. r`. z v�.. 31 RESMA17116 - WILLIAMSON PARK RAVINE — SLOPE STABILIZATION AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF TORONTO Award of Contract #10001325. To award Contract #10001325 for the implementation of slope stabilization and pedestrian access improvements at Williamson Park Ravine, City of Toronto. Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Contract #10001325 for supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for the stabilization of the ravine slope and the construction of pedestrian access improvements at Williamson Park Ravine, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $312,972.00 plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractors, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Williamson Park Ravine is part of a series of parks and greenspaces that traverse along what was once known as Small's Creek. Small's Creek once ran through the east end of Toronto, originating near Danforth Avenue and Woodbine Avenue and emptying into Small's Pond in what is now Orchard Park. Although over time much of the watercourse has been buried, Williamson Park Ravine is one of four distinct pockets along the former route of Small's Creek that still exist as naturalized parkland surrounded by intensive urban residential development. There are two official entrances to the park — on the west side of the ravine a metal- framed staircase adjacent to #328 Gainsborough Road and via a wooden staircase at the south end of the ravine located at #1680 Gerrard Street East. There is no official entrance at Wildwood Crescent, however, an informal trail runs down the slope in this location, which has resulted in significant erosion (to a depth of 60cm in some places) of the sandy slope and the soil around a significant oak tree. This informal access is connected to the staircase at Gainsborough via an informal trail and a wooden water crossing. A poorly defined informal trail runs from this trail south to the staircase at Gerrard Street East. In 2010, the City of Toronto undertook a conceptual plan exercise for pedestrian and environmental improvements in Williamson Ravine. The report noted that the heaviest use of the ravine is from pedestrians crossing the ravine between the Gainsborough Road staircase and the informal Wildwood access. It recommended formalizing the pedestrian use in this area with a new metal stair structure with deep foundations at Wildwood Crescent. 32 In October 2014, TRCA Permit #C- 140733 was issued to enable the work to be implemented. Subsequent concern regarding the impact to ravine vegetation by the placement of a fill buttress within the Williamson Park Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) resulted in the City requesting TRCA's expertise and assistance to revisit and modify the design of the slope stabilization portion of the project. The revised engineered design solution includes soil nailing to eliminate the fill placement and address the slope instability in order to support a pedestrian boardwalk and staircase connection in this location, thereby providing safe and environmentally beneficial access for users. In early 2016, a revision to Permit #C- 140733 was issued allowing TRCA to proceed with the tendering and construction of the revised work program as requested by City staff. RATIONALE This project is aligned with leadership strategy number three in TRCA's strategic plan. Through thoughtful planning and action this project will contribute to healthy and resilient landscapes through the construction of green infrastructure. Tender #10001325 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http: / /www.biddingo.com /) on Tuesday, February 09, 2016. Tender documents were viewed and /or taken by 51 prospective bidders. A mandatory site inspection and tender briefing meeting was held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, with 20 prospective contractors in attendance as follows: • Alpeza General Contracting; • CSL Group Ltd.; • DeMan Construction Corp; • EBS Geostructural Inc; • Esposito Bros. Construction; • Euro Landscape Professionals Inc.; • Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. • Four Seasons Site Development Ltd; • GeoSoly Design /Build Inc; • Greco Construction; • Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd.; • Hobden Construction.; • J.Lipani & Son Sod Farms Ltd; • Landtar Construction Inc.; • Metric Contracting Services Corporation.; • Midome Construction Services Ltd.; • Pacific Paving Ltd; • Sunshine Landscape Design & Construction; • Trisan Construction • Ultimate Construction. Four sealed tender bids were received by the tender closing time at TRCA's Head Office on February 29, 2016. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on February 29, 2016 with the following results: 33 Tender #10001325 Williamson Park Ravine — Slope Stabilization and Pedestrian Access Improvements BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT Plus HST CSL Group Ltd. $519,262.50 Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. $312,972.00 Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd. $527,691.50 J. Li ani Turf Group Ltd. $558,164.84 Restoration and Infrastructure staff and our project consulting team of Schollen & Company (project design lead) and GeoTerre Ltd. (geotechnical subconsultant), have reviewed the bid received from Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. against the cost estimates provided by our design consultant team and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. TRCA staff and the design team interviewed Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. on March 8, 2016, to query the bid and determine that that the price submitted fairly represents the scope of work and details contained therein. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc.'s experience and ability to undertake this project was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. be awarded Contract #10001325 for the supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for the construction the Williamson Park Ravine — Slope Stabilization and Pedestrian Access Improvements, City of Toronto, for a total amount of $312,972.00 plus HST, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. The 20% contingency allowance is to cover any additional construction costs based on approved changes necessitated by unforeseen site conditions or changes to the approved scope of work. The higher contingency percentage is recommended as a precautionary measure to address unknown subsurface and geotechnical issues that may arise during the slope stabilization component of this work. This award is subject to the City of Toronto's Fair Wage Office confirming that Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. and their named subcontractors are in compliance with the City's requirements for Fair Wage and labour trade contractual obligations in this regard. FINANCIAL DETAILS All project expenditures and fees are 100% recoverable from City of Toronto 2016 capital funds. Eligible project expenditures will be assigned to project account 117 -63. Report prepared by: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 Emails: drogalsky @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Dave Rogalsky, extension 5378 Emails: drogalsky @trca.on.ca Date: March 9, 2016 34 RES. #A18116 - ONTARIO CLIMATE RESILIENT FUND Request for Letter of Support. Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change Chair and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority board member, Councilor Jack Ballinger has requested a letter in support of an Ontario Climate Resilience Fund proposal to the Province of Ontario. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been involved in leading collaborative action on climate change for over two decades, working closely with conservation authorities, government agencies, municipal partners, academic institutions, private sector and non - government organizations; AND WHEREAS in April 2008, TRCA approved "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: TRCA Action Plan for The Living City," that calls for TRCA's continued commitment and leadership to support communities and partners in dealing with the climate change issues; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change Proposal for an Ontario Climate Resilience Fund, as outlined in Attachment 1 be received; AND FURTHER THAT a letter be sent to the Premier of Ontario in support of dedicated funding for climate adaptation and resilience of our communities, economy, built and green infrastructure. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA delivers technical support and climate change programs for our partner municipalities to address extreme weather risks and vulnerabilities to communities, infrastructure and natural systems. TRCA also leverages a network of connections with academic researchers and scientists in order to produce rigorous and defensible climate information. Currently this work is spearheaded through a distributed collective of scientists, researchers and practitioners from across Ontario working under the umbrella of Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC). Services of OCC are designed to help municipal and industry decision makers formulate strategic, coordinated and scientifically- informed responses to extreme weather. A range of climate resilience initiatives are currently underway across TRCA's jurisdiction. Some examples of these are: • climate analysis, qualitative risk assessments and resilience strategies for infrastructure assets, natural heritage and the agricultural sector; • detailed assessment of flood risk clusters including identification of flood vulnerable structures, people at risk and potential property damage; • enhanced two dimensional modelling to identify flood risks and undertake flood protection plans; • erosion control and remedial work to protect municipal assets from impacts of extreme weather; 35 on the ground implementation of green infrastructure and low impact development technologies (LID) through TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), Sustainable Neighborhood Retrofit Action Program (SNAP), and Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone; improved flood warning and forecasting capabilities; and enhanced tools for monitoring and predicting rainfall effects. This type of proactive climate resilience work has only been possible where TRCA's partner municipalities have been able to financially support it and TRCA staff has been able to leverage municipal support through non - traditional funding sources. Extreme weather events have already resulted in infrastructure damage worth millions of dollars in TRCA's jurisdiction. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the July 2013 storm caused more than one billion dollars of damages, making it the costliest extreme weather event in Ontario's history and the third most costly in Canadian history. While local and regional government agencies continue to deal with extreme weather issues in a piecemeal and retroactive manner, a huge gap currently exists in fully understanding and mitigating current and future extreme weather risks to our infrastructure, economy, communities and natural systems. This requires a more coordinated and robust approach with appropriate investments. In response to the provincial Climate Change Discussion Paper (February 2015), TRCA staff recommended enhanced investment in risk and resilience planning, standardized climate information, pilot demonstration of best practices, and knowledge dissemination to municipal governments to advance the goal of low- carbon, resilient communities. There are 15 Special Policy Areas, 42 Flood Vulnerable Area Clusters and 10 Urban Growth Areas within TRCA's jurisdiction where significant infrastructure and asset updates are required to flood proof communities and infrastructure from future extreme weather. In response to the coordinated review of provincial land use plans (May 27, 2015), TRCA has recommended that a "sustainable funding model is needed to support implementation of policies of the Growth Plan with multi -party investment in the maintenance, renewal and improvement of green infrastructure and other flood mitigation measures." Proposal for Ontario Climate Resilient Fund The proposal for an Ontario Climate Resilience Fund (Attachment 1), prepared by Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change is complementary to the TRCA staff position that critical investments are required across Ontario and specifically, in the urban regions of southern Ontario where communities may experience the most devastating impacts of extreme weather. At the time of writing this proposal, it was generally assumed that a portion of approximately $1.9 billion annual revenue from the cap and trade program could be invested in resilience and adaptation initiatives. Recent communications from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) indicate that proceeds generated from the cap and trade program can only be used for a range of initiatives that lead to greenhouse gas reductions. Staff hopes that the forthcoming climate action plan considers a broader approach addressing both adaptation and mitigation. Notwithstanding, investment in climate resilient infrastructure and adaptation planning is a critical need of conservation authorities and municipalities and it must be addressed as a government priority in Ontario's 2017 budget. TRCA staff support the intent of Durham Region Climate Change Roundtable's proposal and seek Authority approval to provide a letter in support of an Ontario climate resilience fund. 36 At the time of writing this TRCA report, the Durham Region Roundtable staff provided the following status update on this proposal: • Durham Region Council approved the proposal on December 16, 2015; • Durham Region sent a letter on December 18, 2015 to the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Ontario with copies to Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO), Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Clean Air Council, MOECC, local municipalities, MPPs and MPs; • a letter was sent to John Tory January 19, 2016 requesting Toronto Council's support; • letters were sent to AMO and FCM January 28, 2016 requesting they endorse and encourage members to support the proposal; and • Council reports currently being prepared by Guelph, Oakville and Mississauga. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following approval of this report, staff will prepare a letter to be sent to the Premier by TRCA. Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: csharma @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: csharma @trca.on.ca Date: March 21, 2016 Attachments: 1 37 Attachment 1 Proposal for an Ontario Climate Resilience Fund 1. Introduction This preliminary paper outlines a proposed Ontario Climate Resilience Fund designed to assist municipalities to make critical investments in the infrastructure and programs necessary to protect their communities against the extreme weather associated with the changing climate in Ontario. Rationale The global climate is being altered and in Ontario this generally means warmer, wetter and wilder weather that will exceed the capacity of our current community infrastructure and programs to cope. Indeed, this is already happening as demonstrated by recent events in Ontario. The costs of adaptation to this "new normal" are significant and well beyond the ability of the municipal property tax base alone to fund. Moreover, this "climate deficit" is on top of the current "infrastructure deficit" which municipalities are already suffering as a result of aging and neglected infrastructure. An important part of the Province's forthcoming Climate Action Plan could be a new, dedicated Climate Resilience Fund designed to strategically direct and financially assist municipalities to make the necessary investments in new and retrofitted physical infrastructure and new programs to monitor, respond to and prevent climate - related damage. 3. The Concept The Ontario Climate Resilience Fund could be a major element of the Ontario Climate Action Plan intended to promote, prioritize and financially support meaningful investment of funds into programs by municipal governments to protect infrastructure and citizens against the impacts of a changing climate. It should be designed as a matching grant fund to which local governments make applications which meet prescribed criteria demonstrating proactive climate adaptation planning and local co- funding. Such a Fund would be a very tangible example of investing Cap and Trade Program revenues into measures which bring direct benefit to citizens and taxpayers. 4. Sources of Funding This program could be self- funded from the sale of allowances under the Ontario Cap and Trade Program. Indeed, roughly half of the revenues from Cap and Trade Program could be allocated to adaptation programs to protect Ontario's infrastructure and its citizens from the inevitable effects of climate change. The other half could be invested in GHG mitigation programs. Ontario municipalities would be expected to match provincial funding. Note that under the current situation, municipalities are essentially responsible for 100% of climate adaptation costs. The new Federal government should be requested to contribute an amount equal to the Province's share. The insurance industry could also be approached at the right time to also contribute an appropriate share. For the insurance companies, prevention should be less costly than pay -outs. EOJLOJ Ultimately, a 3:1 leverage proposition should be attractive to the four major contributors. (See Financial Projections in Table 1) S. Eligible Applicants and Participants This Fund should be directed exclusively to municipal investments in: • Municipal, utility and conservation authority infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, culverts, stormwater management systems, water supply and wastewater treatment, electrical service, dams, weirs etc.); • Municipal or conservation authority programs to help affected citizens prevent or manage the impacts of changing climate (health programs, food security, cooling centres, improved building standards and upgrades, natural environment protection etc.). The Fund should be mostly for capital investments but maintenance and program design and operating costs should also be eligible (with certain restrictions). In order to promote cost - effective investments, a prerequisite for application to the fund should be the completion and adoption (by municipal council) of a comprehensive Community Climate Adaptation Plan which identifies climate trends, the resulting risks, adaptive measures and programs to implement the appropriate actions. The government should set out the model for an acceptable Adaptation Plan as a requirement for application to the Climate Resilience Fund. The funding sought by applicants should relate to the high priority programs and actions identified in their Adaptation Plans and should be matched by municipal / /utility funds. 6. Timing and Size of the Fund The Ontario Climate Resilience Fund could be announced in the fall of 2015 as a major element of the Ontario Climate Action Plan. Further details could be revealed in the 2016 Ontario Budget together with the linkage to the Cap and Trade Program as the major source of funding. The Fund should be launched on January 1, 2017 with an initial Provincial contribution of $500 million. The Provincial contribution should be ramped up each year by about $200 Million. By 2020 the Fund should reach its designed maximum Provincial contribution of $1 billion /year and remain flat at that level until 2025. The rationale, operations, effectiveness and size of the fund should be thoroughly evaluated in 2024 with possible revision and renewal in 2025 and 5 -year increments thereafter. See Financial Projections in Table 1 7. Positioning In order to maximize the chances of success (increased resilience to extreme weather in Ontario), it will be necessary to position the Fund as: • a "Made in Ontario" initiative in response to the growing recognition of the "climate deficit" in the province; • a significant element of the Provincial Climate Action Plan; 39 • funded by provincial revenues from the sale of allowances under the Cap and Trade Program; • a cost - shared program with the municipalities; • a program calling for an equal federal contribution from the new Federal Government; • a program that will request a significant annual contribution from the insurance industry; • A fund dedicated exclusively to climate resilience investments by municipalities in Ontario; • A fund requiring up -front analysis and planning by municipalities in order to optimize the results of the investments. Table 1: Financial Projections Proposal for an Ontario Climate Resilience Fund Provincial Municipal Federal Insurance Year Contribution Matching Contribution Industry Total Fund Funds Contribution 2017 $500M $500M $500M $500M $2.013 2018 $700M $700M $700M $700M $2.813 2019 $900M $900M $900M $900M $3.613 2020 $113 $113 $113 $113 $4.013 2021 and beyond $113 $113 $113 $113 $4.013 RES. #A19116 - SUPPLY OF OPERATED HEAVY CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT Extension of Contract #10000235. Extension of Contract #10000235 for the supply of operated heavy construction and specialty equipment, for the period April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10000235 for the Supply of Operated Heavy Construction and Specialty Equipment, awarded in 2015 to Sartor Environmental Group (formerly known as Sartor and Susin Ltd.) and TMI Contracting Ltd., be extended from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, subject to terms, conditions and performance satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, at an estimated total cost of $4,000,000, plus HST, for the total contract period, including the extension. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27th, 2015, Resolution #A44/15 was approved as follows: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require the utilization of operated heavy and specialty construction equipment; AND WHEREAS in January 2015, TRCA pre - qualified seven contractors through a publicly advertised process based on experience with a range of environmental construction and restoration works; AND WHEREAS the pre - qualified contractors were invited to submit tenders for various pieces of heavy construction and specialty equipment that was subsequently evaluated based on price, availability of equipment, key personnel and relevant experience; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Sartor Environmental Group and TMI Contracting Limited be recognized as the primary and secondary supplier, respectively, for operated heavy construction equipment during the contract period, being the two highest ranking suppliers meeting TRCA's requirements; THAT where the primary and secondary suppliers of record are not available, staff be authorized to use the next highest ranked suppliers; THAT specialty operated equipment in Schedule B be awarded on an as— needed basis when required, beginning with the most competitively priced first; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. In preparation of the original tender documents, staff included a provision whereby the successful bidder could request a one year extension to the contract at a specific maximum percent increase or decrease to the unit prices bid. 41 Sartor Environmental Group has agreed to a contract extension and has submitted, in writing, a request for an increase of 3% to all unit rates to cover increases in their operating costs should the contract be extended on April 1, 2016. TMI Contracting Ltd. has agreed to a contract extension and has submitted, in writing, a request for 0% increase should the contract be extended on April 1, 2016. RATIONALE Sartor Environmental Group has completed numerous successful environmental projects with TRCA over the past 40 years, and staff is confident in their ability to supply skilled operators and equipment for the remainder of TRCA's needs during the contract extension period. Staff has reviewed the proposed new rate structure and performance over the past year for Sartor Environmental Group and TMI Contracting Ltd., and is satisfied that the requested 3% increase for Sartor Environmental Group is indicative of overall industry operating cost increases and is warranted. TMI Contracting Ltd. has likewise completed numerous projects successfully with TRCA, and has demonstrated that they possess the skills and equipment to meet the remainder of TRCA's needs during the contract extension period, at very competitive rates with no increase requested. Therefore staff recommends extending Contract #10000235 to Sartor Environmental Group and TMI Contracting Ltd. from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 with the respective increase to the original unit rates for Sartor Environmental Group, and at the current unit rates for TMI Contracting Ltd. In the event that the aforementioned suppliers cannot provide all of the specified equipment required for daily construction operations, staff will solicit services from the next lowest bidder. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be approximately $4,000,000 based upon a review of planned implementation projects during the contract extension period. For the first year of Contract #10000235 Sartor Environmental Group provided approximately $1,700,000 plus HST in operated heavy and specialty equipment; and TMI Contracting Ltd. provided approximately $570,000 plus HST in operated heavy and specialty equipment. Based on each of the suppliers updated unit rates which are approximately on average within 13% of each other, and, given their past performance, staff is comfortable utilizing either on any of TRCA's projects. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All pre - qualified suppliers understand both the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The operated equipment is rented on an 'as required' basis with no minimum hours guaranteed. 42 Funds for the contract are identified in TRCA's 2016 and 2017 capital budgets. Report prepared by: Jordan Budway, 416 - 392 -9721; Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: jbudway @trca.on.ca, mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brook Piotrowski, 647 - 405 -0239; Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: bpiotrowski @trca.on.ca, mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2016 43 RES. #A20/16 - SOUTH MIMICO TRAIL LINK — PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSINGS Award of Contract #10001837. Award of preferred source Contract #10001837 for feasibility study and detailed design for the relocation of proposed bridge. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10001837 to complete a feasibility study and detailed design for the relocation of proposed bridge Crossing 3 for the South Mimico Trail Link project be awarded to AECOM on a preferred source basis for a total cost not to exceed $109,750.00 plus 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA and City of Toronto staff are working together to coordinate the design and construction of the Mimico Creek Trail system link to the waterfront. The project is also being coordinated with the proposed Bonar Creek Stormwater Management Facility along Legion Road, north of Lake Shore Boulevard. Recent developments with respect to the re- zoning and development of properties in the project area along the Mimico Creek has further opened up opportunities and need for a multi - purpose trail in this area. Staff and the local Councillor have worked with area developers to negotiate public land acquisition and securement of Section 37 funding toward the construction of this trail link. The proposed trail link is approximately 800 metres in length and will include three pedestrian span crossings which will provide a key function to the area, linking northern trails and open spaces to the developing neighborhoods and parklands along Lake Shore Boulevard and the expanding waterfront. In June of 2011, AECOM was awarded Contract W -S -VD -00016 through a competitive procurement process as per TRCA's Purchasing Policy in the amount of $93,534.10, plus a 10% contingency and HST to conduct a site analysis, geotechnical investigations, and develop detailed structural design drawings and cost estimates for three low maintenance pedestrian crossings over the Mimico Creek. The pedestrian bridge crossings over the Mimico Creek had to be designed to connect to the proposed trail link, allow pedestrians safe access to both sides of the creek and support light duty vehicles required for trail maintenance. Due to the complexity and required technical approvals associated with designing the proposed bridge (Crossing 2) underneath the Metrolinx overpass, the consultation process was extended to accommodate the requirements of Metrolinx and other regulatory agencies leading to significant project delay. Staff also explored the opportunity to integrate this design with the Bonar Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Legion Road Extension Environmental Assessment. The complexity of the land uses associated with the Environmental Assessment and the surrounding area resulted in further delays. E u After extensive consultations a final draft was prepared by the consultant for approval of City and TRCA staff in 2014. Around the same time as the completion of the final draft of the design, the Province of Ontario announced improvements to the nearby Mimico Go Station. As a result of this announcement the local Councillor was approached by the community to facilitate improved pedestrian access to the GO Station from the adjacent developments along Park Lawn Road and Lake Shore Boulevard. RATIONALE In 2015 TRCA and City staff along with the local Councillor, met with Metrolinx representatives to discuss GO station access and trail extension. As a result of these discussions, it was agreed that proposed bridge (Crossing 3) be relocated to allow for a new trail connection to the GO Station south and parallel to the existing Metrolinx tracks. Discussion has also been initiated with Metrolinx regarding financial contributions to this project. To ensure consistency, the project team requested an estimate from AECOM in 2015 to conduct a feasibility study and prepare detail design for the relocation of proposed bridge (Crossing 3) located north of Lake Shore Boulevard to immediately south of the railway tracks, and to design an additional section of trail which will connect the relocated bridge to the Mimico GO Train station and design lighting features along the entire trail link. The work is to include: a) feasibility study for the relocation and reconfigured design for proposed bridge (Crossing 3); b) design for additional section of trail to connect the relocated proposed bridge (Crossing 3) to the Mimico GO Train Station; and c) design lighting features along the entire trail link. Following a review of AECOM's estimate by the project team, staff is confident in AECOM's knowledge of the project and the site, their expertise and ability to complete the work within the project timelines. In order to complete the additional work, TRCA staff recommend that Contract #10001837 be awarded to AECOM on a preferred source for a total cost of $109,750, plus a $10,975.00 contingency, plus HST. FINANCIAL DETAILS The upset limit for Contract #10001837 is $120,725.00 including the recommended contingency, plus HST. Funding for this study will be made available through a City of Toronto commitment of $400,000 from Section 37 Development Charges for South Mimico Trail. Report prepared by: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Vince D'Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia @trca.on.ca Date: March 16, 2016 Attachments: 1 45 Attachment 1 TRAIL CONCEPT PLAN q m E £ e n a P C d � F 1 Y C ` 1Vi � l 0,1 Cl) im be a m Cl) rn — Wa O 9 vdi � w a m a ^-s ✓sue m '. # ��� �i RES. #A21/16 - BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITH ENERLIFE CONSULTING INC. Renewal of agreement with Enerlife Consulting Inc. for the development and delivery of energy management programs. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the agreement for the development and delivery of sector based energy management programs with Enerlife Consulting Inc. be renewed for the period, April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the agreement including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) began working with Enerlife Consulting in 2002 when they were contracted to assist in the development of programs for The Living City Campus. Between 2002 and 2007, TRCA staff worked closely with Enerlife Consulting to develop a new approach to achieving deep savings in energy conservation for buildings. At Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A145/07 was approved to initiate a formal public - private partnership with Enerlife. Following TRCA approval, staff entered into a business agreement with Enerlife Consulting in 2007 to deliver sector based energy programs. Further details on high level performance of these programs are provided below: Mayors' Megawatt Challenge engages 10 municipalities from across the GTA including eight from with TRCA's jurisdiction. The program was very successful in 2015 with 2,000 tonnes of GHG emission reductions, 48,000 GJ of energy savings and $900,000 in cost savings ($750,000 of these savings were for municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction). Municipal members include the City of Toronto, Region of Peel, cities of Brampton and Mississauga, Markham, Oshawa, Barrie, and the towns of Caledon and Richmond Hill. The program is looking to engage additional municipalities in the GTA for 2016. The Greening Health Care program continues to be national in scope with 42 member hospitals within Ontario and an additional 13 hospitals from Alberta. The program was very successful in 2015 with nearly 10,000 tonnes of GHG emission reductions, 155,000 GJ energy savings and $2.6 million in cost savings ($1.6 million of these savings were from hospitals in TRCA's jurisdiction). In addition, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has requested that Greening Health Care develop a proposal to engage all hospitals across Ontario. The Sustainable Schools program has continued to benchmark energy intensity in schools. In 2015 the program was expanded to benchmark the energy performance of 45 school boards in Ontario. The Ministry of Education is actively promoting participation in the program and as a result energy data for 72 school boards will be analyzed and reported in 2016. A number of school boards including Peel District School Board have contacted the program to begin working on their energy savings. RATIONALE Each year the business relationship with Enerlife is reviewed to ensure that the relationship is continuing to achieve the objectives of The Living City and more specifically, achieve measurable change in the sustainability of the city region. 47 The programs continue to align with TRCA's corporate strategic direction, in particular Strategy 1 Green the Toronto region's economy; Strategy 7: Build partnerships and new business models; and Strategy 12: Facilitate a region -wide approach to sustainability. Overall the business partnership with Enerlife Consulting has continued to produce measurable impacts on communities. Since inception, Mayor's Megawatt Challenge and Greening Health Care programs have helped hospitals and municipalities reduce energy use by 1.8 million GJ, and reduce GHG emissions by 93,000 tonnes for a total cost savings of $32.9 million. 2015 was the biggest year of savings in the history of these programs. The programs continue to help communities in TRCA's jurisdiction achieve measurable savings in energy, GHG emissions and operating costs. These programs also support local and regional municipal GHG emissions reductions targets in line with the requirements pending from the cap- and -trade program and the implementation of community energy plans. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The current agreement expires on March 31, 2016. With Authority direction, staff will renew the agreement for an additional year. Staff continues to discuss opportunities to leverage these programs for future provincial cap- and -trade revenues. FINANCIAL DETAILS Revenues for the program are derived from membership fees and corporate sponsorships. TRCA manages the program while Enerlife provides the technical content and support. Under the agreement, Enerlife can only bill for a specific proportion of the program revenues received. Thus if revenue projections are not met, Enerlife billing would be reduced accordingly. TRCA keeps a portion of the revenue to defray program marketing and management expenses. A small portion of capital levy is used for staff costs to enhance engagement activities. 2015 programs revenues were approximately $300,000. Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca Date: March 15, 2016 RES. #A22/16 - 2016 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL Recommends approval of the 2016 operating and capital budget. (SAAB Res. #C4 116) Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, in establishing its annual levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the Lieutenant - Governor -in- Council: (i) all participating municipalities be designated as benefitting for programs included in the 2016 Operating Budget; (ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the programs included in the 2016 Operating Budget shall be raised from the participating municipalities as part of the general levy; (iii) the 2016 general levy be apportioned to the participating municipalities in the proportion that the modified current value assessment of the whole is under the jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a project; (iv) appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the participating municipalities, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations made thereunder, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the general levy set forth in the 2016 Operating Budget, including property tax adjustments and non - current value assessment (CVA) levy, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the project and special levy set forth in the 2016 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of TRCA; THAT the 2016 Budget, Operating and Capital, and all projects therein, be adopted; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to amend the 2016 Budget, Operating and Capital to reflect actual 2016 provincial transfer payment allocations in order to set the amount of matching levy required by the CA Act; THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities be included as additional levy to the participating municipalities where the lands are located, excluding the cost of property taxes which are passed on to a third party under a lease or similar agreement; THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide otherwise, TRCA staff be authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organizations, non - governmental organizations or governments and their agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency, including projects that have not been provided for in the approved budget; THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of matching and non - matching levies, be approved by recorded vote; THAT the presentation of 2015 budget comparisons and related actuals be amended to conform to the presentation adopted in the 2016 budget document; i • AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as may be necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining approvals and the signing and execution of documents. RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MOTION WAS CARRIED RES. #A23/16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT 2016 -2020 Flood Plain Conservation Component, Highland Creek Watershed The Orchards of West Hill Inc., CFN 55231. Acquisition of property located north of Lawrence Avenue East and east of Meadowvale Road, municipally known as 35 Acheson Boulevard and 222 Centennial Road, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #83116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 0.598 hectares (1.477 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Lawrence Avenue East and east of Meadowvale Road, municipally known as 35 Acheson Boulevard and 222 Centennial Road in the City of Toronto, said land being Part of Lot 3, Concession 1, designated as Block 21 on Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Lloyd & Parcell Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, Job: 15 -467 be purchased from The Orchards of West Hill Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 50 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A24/16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT 2016 -2020 Flood Plain Conservation Component Humber River Watershed Harbour View Investments Limited, CFN 55227. Acquisition of property located to the east of Mount Pleasant Road and south of Old Church Road in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #84 116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 11.64 hectares (28.77 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Mount Pleasant Road and south of Old Church Road in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, said lands being Lot 20, Concession 9 (Geographic Township of Albion) and designated Parts 1, 2 and 5 on Registered Plan 43R- 36677, be purchased from Harbour View Investments Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 51 RES. #A25 116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT 2016 -2020 Flood Plain Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Stouff Con Eight Developments Limited, CFN 55418. Acquisition of property located to the east of Highway 48 and south of Bethesda Sideroad in the Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res. #85116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 7.27 hectares (17.96 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Highway 48 and south of Bethesda Sideroad in the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed, said lands being West Half Lot 3, Concession 8 and designated Blocks 275 and 276 on the draft plan of subdivision prepared by J.D. Barnes, dated May 15, 2015, ref no. 14 -21- 595- 00- MP595; Block 2 on Plan 65M -4117 and PIN 03719 -0555, be purchased from Stouff Con Eight Developments Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A26 /16 - PHANTOM DEVELOPMENTS AND TORONTO HYDRO Request for Permanent Easements Required for Building Utilities City of Toronto, Lake Ontario Waterfront, CFN 54024. Receipt of a request from Phantom Developments and Toronto Hydro to provide permanent easements for building utilities required for the condominium development located at 2175 Lakeshore Boulevard West, in the City of Toronto, Lake Ontario Waterfront. (Executive Res. #86116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri 52 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Phantom Developments and Toronto Hydro to provide permanent easements for building utilities, located at the rear of 2175 Lakeshore Boulevard West, in the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Phantom Developments and Toronto Hydro in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements be granted in favour of Phantom Developments and Toronto Hydro, said property being described as Part of the Bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot 29, Registered Plan 1176, City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the sum of $20,000.00, in addition to all legal, survey and other costs, be paid by Phantom Developments; THAT Phantom Developments and Toronto Hydro shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of these easements or the carrying out of construction; THAT said easements be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RESMA27 /16 - OAK RIDGES MORAINE LAND TRUST MEMORANDUM OF INTENT CFN 36241. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust have a mutual interest in protecting and preserving significant lands within the jurisdictions of TRCA and ORMLT. As such, there is interest in entering into a Memorandum of Intent to work together in order to further our common objectives. (Executive Res. #87116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Intent with Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust (ORMLT) to further the mutual objectives of both parties. CARRIED 53 RESMA28 116 - PERMIT CONDITIONS — ONTARIO REGULATION 166106, AS AMENDED Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. To endorse a standard list of permit conditions to be applied on all permits approved by TRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended; to allow that list of standard permit conditions to be updated by staff as may be required from time to time; and to allow staff to prepare additional application- specific permit conditions to be considered on individual permit applications before the Executive Committee. (Executive Res. #88116) Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) administers Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended, "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation" under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act; AND WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, enables TRCA to approve permits with or without conditions; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff is committed to working cooperatively with all of TRCA's municipal partners, landowners and stakeholders regarding all aspects of the implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, including permit compliance; AND WHEREAS TRCA, through its Business Excellence objective, is committed to improve and streamline the administration of regulation compliance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Standard Permit Conditions as outlined in this staff report be endorsed and applied to all future permits approved by TRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended; THAT staff be directed to amend the Standard Permit Conditions, in consultation with TRCA's legal counsel, as may be required from time to time to reflect best practices and changing compliance needs; THAT staff be directed to prepare additional Application- Specific Permit Conditions to be considered on individual permit applications before the Executive Committee, as may be required from time to time at the discretion of staff, in consultation with TRCA's legal counsel, depending on the unique circumstances of the individual application; AND FURTHER THAT municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction and Conservation Ontario be so advised by the CEO's Office. CARRIED 54 Section II — Items for Executive Action RES. #A29 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT Section II item 10.2.1 — Waukesha Water Diversion Application, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/16, held on March 11, 2016, be received. CARRIED RES. #A30 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Section II item 10.2.2 — Appointment of Enforcement Officer and Designation as Provincial Offences Officer, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/16, held on March 11, 2016, be received. CARRIED 61 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A31/16 - SENIOR STAFF EXPENSES Summary of senior staff expenses for 2015. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the summary of expense details for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Chief Executive Officer and Directors for January 1 to December 31, 2015, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council on November 29, 30 and approved: December 1, 2011, the following resolution was City Council approve the publication on the City's public website on a semi - annual basis, commencing with the 2011 calendar year, expenses related to business travel, conferences and training, hospitality and protocol for senior staff positions at the Division Head level and above. City Council provide a copy of this Item to the City's major agencies and corporations requesting that they adopt a similar policy for their organization if they have not already done so. In keeping with this request, TRCA staff advised the City of Toronto that TRCA staff will report to the Authority annually on the expenses outlined in the City staff report dated October 19, 2011 - Feasibility of Publishing Expense Details of Senior City Staff on the City's Website, for TRCA's senior staff including the Chief Executive Officer and divisional Directors. This information will be available on the TRCA website as a staff report in the minutes of the meeting. Expenses to be published include the following, and are detailed in Attachment 1: 1. business travel (including kilometrage reimbursement or operating costs when vehicle is provided to the employee); 2. conferences and training (including accommodation, registration and per diem allowance); 3. hospitality or protocol expenses (hosting TRCA events for non - employees at eating establishments or other appropriate locations). Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rachel Holmes, extension 5666 Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca, rholmes&trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2016 Attachments: 1 56 Attachment 1 Senior Staff (Chief Executive Officer & Directors) Expenses January 1 - December 31, 2015 BRIAN DENNEY, Chief Executive Officer Business Travel Parking and Transit 699.26 407 ETR 488.86 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 3,472.50 Travel for CaGBC Industry Advisors Meeting in Vancouver 774.05 Total 5,434.67 . Reimbursed by CaGBC Conferences and Training BILD Luncheon 84.75 Registration for Conservation Authorities, Biennial Tour 725.00 Hotel accommodation for CA Biennial tour in Brantford 266.78 Total 1,076.53 Hospitality and Protocol Learning for a Sustainable Future Gala - ticket 150.00 Accommodation for CaGBC Industry Advisors Meeting in Vancouver 603.46 Ticket for 2015 Progress Gala 150.00 Lunch meeting with Peter Kendall, Earth Rangers 28.59 Total 932.05 " Reimbursed by CaGBC DEREK EDWARDS, Director, Parks and Culture Business Travel 407 ETR 1,163.54 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 9,457.00 Total 10,620.54 Hospitality and Protocol Lunch Meeting with Hills of Headwaters 36.38 Total 36.38 57 NICK SACCONE, Director, Restoration and Infrastructure Business Travel Parking and Transit Parking and Transit 100.00 407 ETR 1,026.11 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 6,563.76 Total T 7,689.87 Hospitality and Protocol Lunch Meeting with Thurber Engineering 41.24 Total 41.24 ROCCO SGAMBELLURI, Chief Financial Officer Business Travel Parking and Transit Parking and Transit 148.25 Travel Allowance 863.00 Total 1,011.25 CAROLYN WOODLAND, Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Business Travel Parking and Transit 493.34 407 ETR 248.90 Travel Allowance 1,336.00 Total 2,078.24 Hospitality and Protocol OPPI Awards Ceremony -Meals 248.90 Vaughan OP- Islington site 119.63 Total 368.53 i CHANDRA SHARMA, Director, Watershed Strategies Business Travel Parking and Transit 468.00 407 ETR 303.32 Travel Allowance 2,718.83 Total 3,490.15 Hospitality and Protocol GTAA meeting $85.02 Meeting with Conservation Ontario $38.43 Two lunches for staff meeting $25.72 Input on engagment report Etobicoke - Mimico Watershead Coalition Chair's mtg $ 35.68 Total 184.85 DARRYL GRAY, Director, Education, Training and Outreach Business Travel Parking and Transit 224.33 407 ETR 864.57 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 9,874.15 Total 10,963.05 Conferences and Training LSF symposium on the green economy 150.00 Social Innovation and Philanthropy Speaker Session - Darryl Gray 90.00 Total 240.00 Hospitality and Protocol Lunch meeting with YMCA GTA during tour of TRCA sites 18.65 Lunch meeting with YMCA GTA re: partnership development 2 3. 66 Lunch meeting with Ontario Eco schools 30.29 Total 72.60 ADELE FREEMAN, Director, Watershed Management (Now Retired) Business Travel Parking and Transit 104.50 Travel Allowance 326.00 Total 430.50 59 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A32 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Section III item 9.2.1 — 2015 Year End Financial Progress Report, contained in Budget /Audit Advisory Board Minutes #1/16, held on April 1, 2016, be received. CARRIED RES. #A33 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Section III item 10.3.1 — Open Voting Procedures, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/16, held on March 11, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/16, As Amended RES. #A34 116 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Section IV item 10.4 — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1116, held on March 11, 2016, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:38 a.m., on Friday, April 1, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks • l Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #3/15 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, April 22, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Mike Mattos Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member F-'1- -Ti :1.1t1 Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Justin Di Ciano Member Rodney Hoinkes Member Colleen Jordan Member Glenn Mason Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Gino Rosati Member RES. #A35/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Jennifer Drake Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/16, held on April 1, 2016, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Kim Krawczyk, Planner, Greenspace Conservation, TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan. 61 RES. #A36 116 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT above -noted presentation (a) be received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter from Eleanor McMahon, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, in regard to the Conservation Authorities Act Review. (b) A letter dated April 14, 2016 from Jane Beecroft, Oshawa, in regard to the Scarborough Waterfront Development Project. RES. #A37 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT above -noted correspondence (a) be received. RES. #A38 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE CARRIED Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: David Barrow THAT above -noted correspondence (b) be received. CARRIED 62 Correspondence 6.1 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Parliamentary Assistant Room 6521, Whitney Block 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto ON M7A 1W3 Tel 416- 314 -6467 Fax 416- 314 -6470 Ministere des Richesses naturelles at des Forets Adjoint Parlementaire Edifice Whitney, bureau 6521 99, rue Wellesley Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1W3 Tel.: 416- 314 -6467 Telec.: 416- 314 -6470 To all Conservation Authorities: • ®► Ontario MNR5805MC- 2016 -454 I am writing to update you on our progress regarding the Conservation Authorities Act review. In doing so, I would like to express my appreciation for all Conservation Authorities who participated in the first phase of the review. Your input helped identify common themes and priority areas for the next step in our review process. For nearly 70 years Ontario and its Conservation Authorities have enjoyed a rich and productive relationship. Conservation Authorities have an impressive record of protecting people, property and communities from water - related weather events and hazards. Our Government appreciates that record and values the achievements of Conservation Authorities in protecting and managing water and other natural resources in the province. I am pleased to share that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) will be starting its second phase of the review process which will include further engagement and input on options for strengthening Conservation Authorities. This next step will build on the initial consultation where we identified five priority areas for improvement: • Stronger oversight and accountability in decision- making; • Increased clarity and consistency in roles and responsibilities, processes and requirements; • Modern funding mechanisms to support conservation authority operations; • Improved collaboration and engagement among all parties involved in resource management; and • Enhanced flexibility for the Province to update the Conservation Authorities Act framework in the future. These priority areas were identified through the review as a result of the responses to the Ministry's discussion paper. In taking this next step we look forward to working closely with you to develop options for changes in these areas. Now that we have heard from you on what our priorities should be, this next step will assist in providing options for how we should proceed. Our next step will include securing feedback via a discussion paper which will capture the aforementioned priority areas. This paper will be posted to the Environmental Registry in the coming weeks. We will also be announcing a working group, comprised of relevant stakeholders, including Conservation Authorities. This working group will provide us with the opportunity to take a detailed look at possible solutions, and together with the Registry feedback will allow us to have the kind of comprehensive overview which can lead to constructive options for change. If you have further questions regarding the Conservation Authorities Act review, please contact Jennifer Keyes, Manager, Water Resources Section, at (705) 755 -5244 or jennifer.keyes(a)ontario.ca. In the meantime, please stay tuned. I look forward to working with all of you, as together we work to modernize and strengthen Conservation Authorities in Ontario. Parliamentary Assistant c: Jennifer Keyes •� Jane Beecroft, O.M.C., EIVE 1278 Cedar Street, St Oshawa, Ontario, LIJ 3S2 7APH 1 8 2016 14 April 2016 'S OFFICE Chair and Board Members, R C A Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 5R6 Dear Readers, Please consider the following points and their implications in the past and for the future. I. The earliest names for Toronto translated as "trees standing in the water "... where are they? 1 The Don River once had several curves and bends, five islands, many old growth trees, and several mouths ... what happened ? 3. The original Ashbridge's Bay shows clearly on old maps ... what happened to it? Why? 4. Where, and how big, was the original Frenchman's Bay? Where was it? 5. What happened to all the original Market Creeks that once Bowed into the harbour? 6. Would anyone ever be able to find the little dirt path that led down a short slope to the lake from the original Fort York? Can you even see the lake from within today's Fort York? 7. Why was an ancient aboriginal village at the Humber selected as the site for a sewage treatment plant? 8. Are there any active fish breeding grounds and wetland habitats for wildlife on the Toronto lakefront? 9. What percentage of the population of Toronto receive any benefit at all from the island airport? 10. Why are resident taxpayers invited to comment upon a plan after it has already been put in place and is being implemented? This letter is about the Scarborough Waterfront Development Project which proposes to wreck a surviving bit of the waterfront containing a remnant of untouched natural heritage. The taxpayers of the GTA are entitled to visit and prize any surviving remnants of what Mother Nature provided in the beginning, and this is not at all the same as visiting a space which has been redeveloped with concrete. What Mother Nature provides is free of charge and for the benefit all ... in contrast with areas which are "developed" or "improved" with constructions which benefit only the developer. Please wake up and recognize that any tower of concrete and glass of any number of storeys is not equal to a single tree, and that any slab of paving in any configuration can never be equal to the benefits conferred by a weedy space home to a bug or bee or butterfly! Stop destroying! Most sincerely, f'p�I �w I.JU.c r�{"' cc Toronto Mayor and Council Editor, Toronto Star some members of the heritage community 65 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A39/16 - ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA MASTER PLAN Approval in Principle. Approval in principle of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS the Authority approved the undertaking of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Public Advisory Committee supports the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Region of Peel provided a letter of support for the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated March 1, 2016; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 be approved in principle; THAT the approved Plan be circulated to the Town of Caledon requesting endorsement of the Plan; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff establish a stewardship committee to guide the implementation of recommendations; THAT following circulation and approval at the municipal level, staff report back to the Authority to confirm final approval of the Plan; THAT TRCA staff proceed to work with project partners to develop an integrated funding strategy according to the budget schedule; AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Peel and the Public Advisory Committee be so advised. I,Lri l �1►1 �Lri1 �1►11 fill, Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff report back on an expansion plan for the Albion Hills Conservation Area, a land acquisition strategy, and future relationships between Albion Hills and nearby TRCA lands and projects; THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS L • CARRIED CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Authority approved the undertaking of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Public Advisory Committee supports the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Region of Peel provided a letter of support for the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated March 1, 2016; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 be approved in principle; THAT the approved Plan be circulated to the Town of Caledon requesting endorsement of the Plan; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff establish a stewardship committee to guide the implementation of recommendations; THAT following circulation and approval at the municipal level, staff report back to the Authority to confirm final approval of the Plan; THAT TRCA staff proceed to work with project partners to develop an integrated funding strategy according to the budget schedule; THAT staff report back on an expansion plan for the Albion Hills Conservation Area, a land acquisition strategy, and future relationships between Albion Hills and nearby TRCA lands and projects; AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Peel and the Public Advisory Committee be so advised. BACKGROUND Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA) is a large nature -based recreation, education and agriculture facility situated on 495 hectares of primarily forested land. The property is located in the headwaters of the heritage Humber River watershed, in the Region of Peel within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Caledon (Attachment 1). The property is situated entirely within the Greenbelt Plan area and is identified as natural core area within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Acquired in 1955, AHCA is the first active use conservation area in the Province of Ontario. Following its acquisition, a Plan of Development that set the initial parameters for use of the facility was established in 1956. This document outlined goals for the property and set the stage for the development of several key pieces of infrastructure that are still in use today such as the internal road network, the Albion dam and a good proportion of the property's site services. Following this initial planning exercise, the property underwent a high level concept plan in 1980 and a trail improvement plan in 2009. 67 Over the past 60 years AHCA has expanded its operations to include a wide variety of recreational opportunities including over 40 kilometres of trails used for mountain biking, hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, education and interpretation. A splash pad and pool were constructed in 2009 after swimming was removed from the lake. The property is recognized as a venue for some of the largest outdoor events in the Toronto region, including the largest 24 hour mountain bike festival in North America. AHCA also offers users overnight accommodations with over 230 campsites and trailer rentals. Two separate educational facilities at AHCA, one operated by the Toronto District School Board and the other by TRCA, offer residential outdoor education programs to school children. In just over 50 years, more than 210,000 participants have become a part of the Albion Hills Field Centre legacy. Also located on the property is the Albion Hills Community Farm, a community -based farm collaborative. In combination with being a premier nature -based recreation and education facility, AHCA contains many different habitats including upland and bottomland forests, old fields and wetlands, making it a key local and regional natural heritage site. AHCA has previously been identified as an area of high potential for archaeological findings. Surveys have been conducted on the property since 1973, with 14 registered find spots ranging from isolated find sites to multiple artifacts recovered. This information coupled with a rich recent history make the property a key cultural heritage site in the Toronto region. Understanding the multiple values that AHCA delivers to TRCA, its partners and the community, and acknowledging that the property has not undergone a comprehensive planning exercise since the original Plan of Development (1956), at Authority Meeting #8/13, held on October 25, 2013, Resolution #A169/13 was approved as follows: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has undertaken several site planning endeavors for the Albion Hills Conservation Area including the 1956 Plan for Development, the 1980 Albion Hills Concept Plan within the Watershed Plan, the 2009 Albion Hills Trail Plan and several facility site plans; AND WHEREAS no comprehensive Master Plan for the property since the 1980 Concept Plan has been undertaken; AND WHEREAS an updated and coordinated vision and plan is needed to protect the natural and cultural heritage value of the property while still allowing for an enhancement to the existing education and recreational facilities on the property, THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff develop an Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; THAT staff establish an Advisory Committee, which would include representatives from the Aboriginal community, the Humber Watershed Alliance, interested community groups and businesses, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and Councillors to assist with the development of the plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input; AND FURTHER THAT the draft Master Plan, as developed with the assistance of the Albion Hills Master Plan Advisory Committee, be submitted to the Authority for approval. Master Plan Process The AHCA Master Plan establishes a vision framework, planning objectives and recommendations that will support the revitalization and enhancement of the property over the next 25 years. The master plan was developed through a collaborative process between TRCA staff, municipal partners, stakeholders and community members. The Plan was undertaken in three phases as detailed in Table 1. Table 1: Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan development phases and major deliverables Planning Phase Deliverables Phase One: • Site Securement and Protection Plan Project Initiation • Advisory committee constituency • Background Report • Vision, goals and objectives Phase Two: • Management zones Component • Trail Plan Development • Public Use Plan Phase Three: • Management recommendations Project Finalization • Implementation schedule and budget • Municipal, partner and TRCA Board endorsement Throughout all three phases, staff worked with: an internal advisory committee consisting of a range of TRCA staff and a public advisory committee made up of 25 members from local businesses, partners, community leaders, municipal staff and elected officials. This was accompanied by an extensive public consultation program that included: • 9,000 information and communication mail outs; • two online surveys; • seven major events participation; • three community presentations; • two public open houses; • two public hikes. The consultation and engagement process helped to ensure that the needs of the community and stakeholders were heard and addressed wherever possible. The information gathered throughout this process informed the direction and creation of the following master plan components. Vision, Goals, Objectives and Management Recommendations The AHCA Master Plan consolidates a number of core themes focused around nature, culture, agriculture, education and recreation, and therefore addresses a wide and diverse range of goals and objectives for the property. The vision for the master plan, as follows, aims to highlight the core features that make AHCA significant, while outlining how the property will continue to evolve in the decades to come: •s This plan is a blueprint for revitalizing Ontario's first Conservation Area to meet the needs of today and tomorrow. Albion Hills is uniquely situated on the Oak Ridges Moraine within one hour's drive of 8.8 million people, where five regional trails and one national trail converge. In expanding the range of options for people to enjoy nature -based adventures in every season, and by safeguarding its significant natural landscape, this plan sets the stage for Albion Hills to be a popular nature destination in the Southern Ontario region for decades to come. The following goals and objectives seek to find balance between protecting the most sensitive natural and cultural assets of the area, while ensuring that the site can continue to serve as an important nature -based recreation and education facility for the Golden Horseshoe region. These goals and objectives were developed under the categories of the four pillars of The Living City vision and TRCA's 10 -year strategic plan: 1. Healthy Rivers and Shorelines Goal: Management of AHCA in a manner that protects and improves the water features on the property. Objectives: a. That removal of the Albion dam and the restoration of the Albion pond will create a re- naturalized Centreville Creek and new public amenity space. b. That programming and activities on the site protect, respect and enhance the property's many water features including Centreville Creek, the Main Humber, and the large number of wetlands on site. c. That the ongoing management of all water resources onsite seeks to address priorities and objectives outlined in existing and future watershed plans and studies. 2. Greenspace and Biodiversity Goal: To protect and maintain the most sensitive natural, cultural and agricultural features of the site to ensure the ongoing health and diversity of native species, habitats, landscapes and ecological functions. Objectives: a. That activities on the property promote and build on the natural, cultural and agricultural heritage of the site and the surrounding area. b. That the property's natural environments and functions continue to be protected as habitat for plant and animal species on site and in the surrounding area. c. That suitable agricultural lands on the property continue to be protected for locally- sourced and healthy food production. d. That site - appropriate restoration activities be implemented to enhance the natural cover, landform and native species of the site and surrounding area. 70 3. Sustainable Communities Goal: Provide an integrated community resource that offers access to a variety of nature -based recreation activities and programs that contribute to the evolving needs of the surrounding area. Objectives: a. That operations within AHCA work with the community to develop and build on a sense of stewardship within the area. b. That programming and activities on the property provide nature -based experiences for a broad number of individuals within the Greater Toronto Area, including those who are new to outdoor experiences and those who have a long standing relationship with the outdoors. c. That programming and activities on the property take into account and adapt to major challenges facing the region including climate change and a shifting and growing demographic. d. That new developments within AHCA take advantage of green building technologies, sustainable infrastructure and site design. 4. Business Excellence, a Green Economy and Responsive Governance Goal: That activities and operations within AHCA are developed within a sustainable business model that builds on partnerships to ensure high value to the community. Objectives: a. That successful partnerships for the ongoing operation and development of AHCA be strengthened and that new partnerships for future programming and operations be investigated. b. That an entrepreneurial approach be developed in the management of the property. c. That programs, facilities and operations on the site are provided with the resources needed to ensure optimal function and ongoing success. Management recommendations were also created to provide instruction and direction on how to accomplish the goals and objectives of the plan. These recommendations have been separated into the following categories: Natural Heritage; Restoration; Culture; Agriculture; Stewardship and Outreach; Partnerships; and Road Improvements. Key management recommendations include the following: • Ensure all management work occurs during appropriate times to minimize impacts on the vegetation, breeding birds, and dispersing or migrating amphibians and reptiles, overwintering and hibernating amphibians and reptiles, and bat nurseries and hibernacula. • Prioritize projects that restore natural succession and improve the quality of headwater drainage features on the properties. 71 • Pursue opportunities to preserve and interpret heritage sites for public education. • Continue to support the growth of healthy local food products within AHCA in accordance with TRCA's Near Urban Agriculture Policy. • Establish a stewardship committee to help TRCA achieve the goals, objectives, and recommendations set out in the Plan. • Seek out additional partnership opportunities to help realize the vision goals and objectives of the master plan. • Investigate the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations at appropriate parking areas within AHCA. • Investigate opportunities to provide alternative bookings within the education centres to fill vacancies. Combined, the vision, goals and management recommendations provide a solid foundation for managing AHCA in a manner that balances the recreational, educational and agricultural needs while protecting the ecological form and function of the area. Public Use Framework The public use framework was established through a combination of stakeholder consultation, research on demographics and recreation trends, and a needs assessment of the property. The framework provides a guiding structure for a majority of the public use and trail- focused recommendations within the master plan. The four main components within the framework include: optimize and restore existing features; create new opportunities in emerging tourism markets; improve capacity as a four season destination; and provide inclusive opportunities to a diverse audience. 1. Optimize and Restore Existing Features Throughout the planning process, multiple stakeholders highlighted the importance of optimizing the large portfolio of existing infrastructure. With a majority of infrastructure dating back to the 1970s, there is strong rationale to update and enhance current features to realize their full potential. A major component of this piece includes the Albion dam which was constructed on Centreville Creek in 1965 as a means for providing parks users with a recreational swimming destination. In 2009, swimming was removed from the lake in response to a number of factors including declining water quality and safety concerns, and replaced with a splash pad and pool. In 2011, as part of TRCA's Dam Safety Program, a Dam Safety Review (DSR) was conducted on the Albion dam. The DSR investigation revealed several deficiencies with the structure which initiated a number of temporary corrective actions to the structure. Following the DSR, TRCA undertook a feasibility study to assess the alternatives for the Albion dam. This study highlighted a number of obstacles related to rebuilding the dam including: • compatibility with the Humber River Watershed Plan and Humber River Fisheries Management Plan; • the difficulty in obtaining TRCA and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry permits; • the ongoing desire to provide an enhanced water -based experience for the public; and • the overall high cost to rebuild the dam. 72 As a result, TRCA undertook the development of a new vision for the renewed Centreville Creek and new amenity area following the decommissioning of the dam. A conceptual site plan and perspective renderings were developed to assist in the communication of this vision as part of this process. The new conceptual site plan includes an enhanced water -based experience with a series of boardwalks, lookout platforms and trails adjacent to the creek. This new infrastructure will encourage public interaction, education and interpretation with the water feature and will highlight themes around natural fisheries, and headwaters function. Additional recommendations within this component of the framework include restoring and optimizing the Albion chalet. This will be achieved through a 50 percent expansion that will result in creating an accessible and renovated community event and gathering space that will remain flexible to meet the needs of the surrounding community. Additionally, through research conducted as part of the planning process, it was also recognized that the existing splash pad and pool needs to be enhanced to continue to meet the evolving community needs. The existing features primarily accommodate a young demographic of users, and in order to enhance the existing infrastructure, an expansion to the existing water play facility and beach centre building is recommended. This will build on the opportunity to improve the current capacity of the existing infrastructure, and attract a larger demographic of users. A number of additional improvements to the existing 40 kilometre trail system, 234 existing campsites, and site servicing upgrades are also recommended to maximize user experience and increase sustainability. 2. Create New Opportunities in Emerging Tourism Markets The second component within the framework seeks to create new opportunities in emerging tourism markets. This piece builds on the desire of TRCA's partners and stakeholders to provide nature -based adventure tourism while creating a regional draw across southern Ontario. As the destination for some of the largest outdoor events in the Toronto region, this plan recognizes the need to build on this existing market and create an enhanced venue space for existing and future events. The removal of the dam and restoration of Centreville Creek provides the opportunity to create a new venue space for both large and small events within the community. This space will be serviced utilizing a flexible stage and naturally graded amphitheatre seating. Another key tourism recommendation includes the construction of a lookout tower to create a major draw in the Toronto region. As highlighted in the consultation process, the tower will provide a unique opportunity to view, interpret and educate the public regarding the most significant landscapes in Ontario. This includes views across the rolling hills of the Oak Ridges Moraine, west to the confluence of the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment, and through the Humber River watershed to the Toronto skyline. The tower also will have the potential to provide opportunities for climate research and information gathering. Identified as a key priority through the engagement process, the Master Plan makes recommendations to build on the existing mountain biking program. This will be achieved through providing a biking area for skills development and additional features for all levels of riders on the existing trail system. 73 3. Improve Capacity as a Four Season Destination As TRCA's only four season conservation area, the third component in the framework aims to increase winter recreation opportunities. This will be achieved through expanding or enhancing existing programming such as fatbiking, skate skiing and snowshoeing opportunities. New winter recreation opportunities will include a skating trail on existing campground roads, and a tubing hill adjacent to the toboggan hill. 4. Provide Inclusive Opportunities to a Diverse Audience Identified as a key theme throughout the consultation process, each of the following recommendations offers flexible and accessible opportunities to accommodate a wide range of users. These recommendations seek to address changes in the demographic profile of the region, including an aging population structure. In order to provide an adventure themed accessible feature that builds on the scenic qualities of the site, research showed a trend around elevated walkways and trails. The Master Plan makes a recommendation to include an accessible canopy trail that will be implemented as a second phase of the lookout tower development. This feature will offer users an accessible viewing area that incorporates an element of adventure. Additional recommendations include providing both accessible campsites and yurts, developing an accessible Green Trail loop, creating an accessible trail link between the two main recreation hubs on the property, and ensuring that the trail system accommodates a wide variety of users and levels of experience. These recommendations build on the knowledge that the population of the Town of Caledon and Region of Peel is aging and that AHCA will need to provide opportunities for all abilities. RATIONALE Located within 100 kilometres or a one hour drive of approximately 8.8 million people, including the City of Toronto, AHCA plays an integral role in providing both rural and urban communities with the opportunity to experience a wide variety of recreation, education and agriculture focused activities. AHCA plays a major role in the community as it is both TRCA's and the Town of Caledon's most visited conservation area with 158,000 visitors. TRCA anticipates that there will be increased demand for greenspace and recreation as the population of the Region of Peel is projected to increase by 52% over the next 25 years, including a 50% increase in the population of the Town of Caledon. In line with this growth, the Region of Peel also forecasts that the population aged 65+ is increasing rapidly, and could triple by the year 2036. These population projections underscore the need to provide opportunities, not only for the current population, but to plan for the future changes in demographics as the Region continues to grow. The AHCA Master Plan builds on TRCA and provincial land use policies and plans, municipal official plans and secondary plans. The Master Plan used the principles laid out in TRCA's 10 -year strategic plan to help guide the recommendations and move TRCA towards its vision for The Living City. By rethinking greenspace to maximize its value, this plan will once again position AHCA as a leader in nature -based recreation and education by creating a variety of activities aimed at engaging more people with nature more often. 74 The AHCA Master Plan was developed in consultation with the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The Region of Peel has been involved in this process and has provided a letter of support for the project dated March 1, 2016 (Attachment 2). This plan provided the opportunity to consult with stakeholders about current needs, address emerging tourism markets, conduct research on demographics and undertake a needs assessment on the property. This process will ensure that AHCA remains positioned as a premier nature -based recreation and education facility in southern Ontario. All members of the Public Advisory Committee had the opportunity to review and comment on all the plan components and recommendations. Additionally, public interest groups and stakeholders have been involved throughout the planning process and have expressed their support for the plan. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total cost to implement the capital development identified in the AHCA Master Plan is estimated at $27,217,000 over 10 years. Each project has been assessed for its priority and phased into the schedule accordingly. A summarized budget for the AHCA Master Plan is shown in Attachment 3. The Master Plan identifies a number of potential funding sources including municipal partners, private partnerships, and recreation and infrastructure grants. Staff will continue working within the capital budget process to allocate funding based on priorities. All cost estimates are preliminary and will be refined as detailed work plans are developed and financial capacity is evaluated. The detailed work plans for each major capital development will include comprehensive business cases, lifecycle costing, and the creation of a tangible asset framework for the Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The successful implementation of the AHCA Master Plan will require the efforts of TRCA and its partners. TRCA will take the following actions: • Circulate the Master Plan with approval in principle by TRCA to the Town of Caledon Council for endorsement (spring 2016). • Circulate the Plan with approval in principle to the Regional Municipality of Peel and Public Advisory Committee (spring 2016). • Request that the Regional Municipality of Peel and Town of Caledon incorporate the Master Plan in the planning and land use policies and practices for its jurisdiction (spring 2016). • Publish the Master Plan and distribute to relevant stakeholders and seek support (summer 2016). • Report back to the Authority to confirm municipal endorsement and partner support, and to receive final approval (fall 2016). • Work with the Public Advisory Committee to establish a stewardship committee to assist in the implementation of recommendations. 75 Continue to work with the TRCA staff Budget Committee to secure the funds necessary to achieve the vision set forth in the Master Plan. Plan and implement projects according to the appropriate project schedule. Report prepared by: Kimberly Krawczyk, 416 - 936 -1335 Emails: kkrawczyk @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kimberly Krawczyk, 416- 936 -1335 or Mike Bender, 416 - 400 -2111 Emails: kkrawczyk @trca.on.ca or mbender @trca.on.ca Date: April 11, 2016 Attachments: 3 76 %¥ may/ �^ 0 » M 0 0 Z � z � ¥ 2 0 Z 0 � Oo » � , 0 > ® X> y ?, g � , o *% y 4-W ° , J yy� : _ �y M / Attachment I : \ \ %¥ may/ �^ 0 » M 0 0 Z � z � ¥ 2 0 Z 0 � Oo » � , 0 > ® X> y ?, g � , o *% y 4-W ° , J yy� : _ �y M : \ \ 03 ". j§3 N ., \ } \� Q --j z /( \( »$ M§ > k / r, »zg r, Cl) 0 � (/ Attachment 2 Region of Peel wekkixq fox you Via Email March 1, 2016 Mr. Mike Bender Associate Director, Master Planning and Greenspace Conservation Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. Bender RE: Toronto and Reaion Conservation Authority - Albion Hills Master Plan Staff from the Integrated Planning Division appreciated the opportunity you provided to update us on the proposed plans for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned and managed Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA) in Caledon. The Albion Hills Conservation Area is located entirely within the Oak Ridges Moraine in the headwaters of the Humber River within the Region of Peel. We know that development of the Master Plan has been an ongoing phased process which has benefitted from the guidance of an advisory committee, made up of representatives from the community, partners and special interest groups. Two phases of the process has been completed and you are now in the third and final phase which includes development of an implementation strategy and budget and seeking partner and subsequent TRCA Board endorsements. With respect to future budgets for implementation and management activities identified in this Master Plan we expect that these requests will continue to be made and approved through the normal TRCA annual budget submissions made to the Region of Peel and will not represent amounts over and above the budget guidelines that the Region's finance department provides on an annual basis to the conservation authorities. Draft Goals were developed under the categories of the 4 'pillars' of the Living City Vision and the recently adopted 10 year TRCA Strategic Plan: Healthy Rivers and Shorelines; Greenspace and Biodiversity; Sustainable Communities; and Business Excellence, and a Green Economy and Responsive Governance. Corporate Services 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Tel: 905-791-7800 www.peelregion.ca 78 TRCA —Albion Hills Master Plan March 1, 2016 Pg. 2 The Master Plan uses an ecosystem approach to determine the most appropriate management recommendations for the site, as well as locations of future activities and nature based public use. This has resulted in the designating of 6 management zones. The purpose of designating a series of 6 management zones in AHCA is to guide the location and type of land uses that are permitted on the property. These zones serve as the foundation upon which all other plan components, such as trail plans and public use plans are developed. The zones are distinguished by different levels of ecological protection, management needs and acceptable levels of public use. The Albion Hills Master Plan will provide long term guidance to protect, conserve and restore the environmental features and functions on this important area of the Region's Greenlands system while managing the property for appropriate public use and activities. More specifically it will address: • protection of both natural and cultural heritage systems; • recommendations for existing and new recreational and educational activities; • recommendations for restoration and agricultural use of the property; and • recommendations regarding site securement and protection of the property. Regional staff supports the principles and objectives of the Albion Hills Master Plan and look forward to it being approved and implemented. Sincerely, Arvin Prasad, MCIP, MPA, RPP Director, Integrated Planning Division Corporate Services Corporate Services 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Tel: 905-791-7800 www.peelregion.ca 79 Attachment 3 Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan Capital Budget Item Cost $ Optimize and Restore Existing Features: • Lakeview Area Public Use • Chalet $11,502,000 • Waterplay Expansion • Trail and Campsite Improvements Create New Opportunities in Emerging Tourism Markets • Venue and Event Space • Lookout Tower $2,654,000 • Bike Skills Area • Technical Trail Features Improve Capacity as a Four Season Destination • Skating trail • Fatbiking $1,218,000 • Tubing Hill • Expand and enhance skate skiing and snowshoein Create Inclusive Opportunities for Diverse Audience • Accessible canopy trail • Accessible trails and links $6,215,000 • Accessible yurts and camping • Feature bypass and novice bike track Capital Infrastructure • Workshop replacement • Road repaving $5,628,000 • Septic improvements • Communication upgrades TOTAL MASTER PLAN $27,217,000 O RES. #A41116 - SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS WEST PROJECT Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering Services. Award of contract for Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering services in support of the Scarborough Bluffs West Project Environmental Assessment. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT Contract #10001645 to provide Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering services in support of the Scarborough Bluffs West Project Environmental Assessment be awarded to Shoreplan Engineering Limited at a total cost not to exceed $248,000.00, plus HST; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND City of Toronto Council, on December 9 and 10, 2015, adopted the following Capital Budget decision: City Council include a Toronto Water Capital contribution towards the following project, identified as a priority restoration project by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and identified as "shovel ready" as part of the 2016 Toronto Water Capital budget, with funds from the Toronto Water Capital reserve as follows: - $2,000,000 for Scarborough Bluffs West Project Environmental Assessment with a total project cost of $2,000, 000 cash flowed over the 2 or 3 year life of the project. The Scarborough Bluffs West Project will explore opportunities to provide multiple benefits to public use and recreation, shoreline protection, aquatic habitat restoration and natural heritage improvements along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Bluffer's Park and R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant, Toronto. An Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) is required by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change because of the scale of work, complexity and potential for significant environmental effects associated with the Project. Following direction from the City of Toronto, the Scarborough Bluffs West Project EA will be formally initiated upon completion of the Scarborough Waterfront Project EA, currently underway in the east. The timeline for this initiation is expected to be early 2017. In 2016 TRCA will work with an internal and external technical team to complete the necessary baseline information studies required to support the EA. In support of the Project, TRCA requires Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering services, as outlined in the Request For Proposal (RFP) #10001645, to undertake the planning of the Scarborough Bluffs West Project as outlined in the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). TRCA will be responsible for managing the successful consultant contract throughout the EA process. i RATIONALE RFP #1000645 for Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering services for the Scarborough Bluffs West Project EA was made publically available to prospective consultants on the procurement website www.biddingo.com on March 11, 2016. A total of 23 firms downloaded the full RFP package. On March 30, 2016 TRCA received three proposals and bids in advance of the RFP submission deadline. Proposals by the following consulting firms were received: • Riggs Engineering Limited; • Shoreplan Engineering Limited; and • Orbit Engineering Limited. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the proposals on March 30, 2016 and deemed that all three proposals met the minimum requirements of the RFP. The proposal bids were as follows: Consulting Firms Fees Plus HST Shoreplan Engineering Limited $248,000.00 Riggs Engineering Limited $356,000.00 Orbit Engineering Limited $570,000.00 Members of the Proposal Selection Committee (Lisa Turnbull, Alexis Moxley, Nancy Gaffney, Maria Zintchenko and Moranne McDonnell) evaluated the proposals using a scoring method consisting of 70% of the total marks based on the technical review of the proposal and the remaining 30% based on the fee proposal. At the Proposal Selection Committee review meeting, it was determined that the technical proposal and fee proposal (valued at $248,000.00, plus HST) submitted by Shoreplan Engineering Limited offered the best combination of service and value. The criteria used to evaluate the submissions included the following: • experience, qualifications, and availability of consultant and its employees /sub - consultants proposed for the services; • consultant's understanding of the services, Project and scope of work; • proposed approach and methodology for the services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them; • proposed schedule, benchmarks, timelines and work plan, and ability to comply with proposed schedule; and • cost of services. Consultant scores were as follows: Criteria Shoreplan Engineering Limited Riggs Engineering Limited Orbit Engineering Limited Conformance with the terms of the RFP (10 %) 10.0% 9.6% 6.0% Experience and qualifications 20% 17.2% 12.6% 2.9% Understanding of scope of work, including proposed approach, methodology, workplan and schedule 25% 25.0% 22.5% 5.0% Ex ertise and availabilit of ersonnel 15% 13.8% 11.4% 4.2% Reasonableness of cost 30% 30.0% 24.8% 9.0% TOTAL 100% 96.0% 80.9% 27.1 % i Shoreplan Engineering Limited demonstrated clearest understanding of the project and presented the best approach and methodology, including anticipation of potential efficiencies (e.g., potential to reduce the number of study area segments and therefore reduce modelling effort). Importantly, Shoreplan Engineering Limited demonstrated the highest amount of applicable experience by highlighting shoreline protection and waterfront development projects undertaken with /under direction of TRCA. Lastly, while Shoreplan Engineering Limited rates were comparable to Riggs Engineering rates, Shoreplan staff hours allocation was more reasonable and therefore their bid was lowest. While Riggs Engineering Limited showed a clear understanding of the project and submitted a thorough approach and methodology, the firm did not demonstrate experience comparable to that of Shoreplan Engineering Limited. In addition, the role and qualifications of their geotechnical sub - consultant was not well - articulated. Orbit Engineering Limited demonstrated the lowest understanding of the project as well as the least clear approach and methodology. Their submission did not include a detailed workplan or staff hours allocation, and their bid was the highest. Based on the above, the Proposal Selection Committee is recommending that the contract be awarded to Shoreplan Engineering Limited. FINANCIAL DETAILS Costs for the Coastal, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Engineering services is $248,000.00, plus 20% contingency, plus HST. Funds are available from the City of Toronto and will be invoiced and tracked through account number 242 -02. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Assess and Characterize Existing Conditions: review existing data and identify information gaps, establish and calibrate the coastal engineering, sediment transport and water quality models, assess the existing shoreline structures and identify potential need for retrofits, and provide technical expertise during public consultation activities. • Develop and Evaluate Shoreline Segment Alternatives: develop shoreline configurations, assess impacts on coastal processes and water quality, undertake technical review of alternatives' impacts, and provide technical expertise during public consultation activities. • Refine and Undertake a Detailed Effects Assessment of the Preferred Alternative: refine alternatives, and provide technical expertise during detailed effects assessment, impact mitigation measures development and public consultation activities. • Develop a Monitoring Program, Implementation Plan and Final Drawings: develop a monitoring program for implementation, modify design drawings as required to assist TRCA in developing habitat mitigation /compensation plans for regulatory approvals, prepare a preliminary implementation plan (construction methodology) and capital cost for each project component, produce final drawings as per regulatory and TRCA requirements, and provide technical expertise during public consultation activities. A comprehensive list of consultant team tasks, roles and responsibilities can be found in RFP #10001645. Report prepared by: Maria Zintchenko, extension 5847 Emails: mzintchenko @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lisa Turnbull, extension 5645 Emails: Iurnbull @trca.on.ca Date: April 4, 2016 Attachments: 1 i Attachment 1 C- I ❑gyp � �� I __ .... • k UL Ul- < x�x ❑ 6' la �. t l f ss s e S� Ik fill!' €, q _ qt_•' _ r lsi .f iz o .. i lli �li fj[ €If r .. Foor !y � rD MIN h !y O N :3 r�F rb H Foor RESMA42 116 - LYME DISEASE AND BLACKLEGGED TICK MONITORING UPDATE Lyme disease status update and overview of 2015 blacklegged tick surveillance activities. Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to incorporate Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) related information into the TRCA Employee Health and Safety training and ensure TRCA field staff has access to tick removal tools; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to make information on Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks available at field centres, conservation areas and other TRCA facilities in order to increase the awareness of visitors; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to facilitate tick surveillance activities conducted by public health agencies and academic institutes, also to liaise with regional public health units in the regions of Peel, Durham and York, and the City of Toronto to receive up -to -date information and share surveillance data regarding Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to identifying ticks found on TRCA properties, and to submit any blacklegged ticks found to regional public health units to be further tested for the Lyme disease causing bacterium (Borrelia burgdorferi). CARRIED BACKGROUND Lyme disease is one of the most common vector -borne diseases in North America. The disease is named after the Town of Lyme (Connecticut, USA), where a number of cases were identified in 1975. Lyme disease causing bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, is typically transmitted by certain ticks to a wide range of birds, reptiles and mammals including dogs and humans. The primary transmitter of Lyme disease in Ontario is blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis), commonly known as deer ticks. Blacklegged ticks prefer wooded, brushy areas that provide the humidity they need to survive. Exposure to ticks may be greatest in the woods (especially along trails) and the fringe area between the woods and the edge of the forest. Ticks usually search for a host from the tips of low -lying vegetation and shrubs. Ticks do not jump or fly; they grab onto their animal hosts that brush against vegetation, and then they crawl around to find a place to bite. In 2009, Lyme disease became a nationally reportable disease in Canada. This means that all health care professionals should report cases of Lyme disease to the Public Health Agency of Canada. The annual incidence of reported human Lyme disease cases has increased markedly in Canada since 2009 (Attachment 1). In about 80% of cases, early Lyme disease is characterized by a skin lesion, which expands to a diameter of more than 5 cm from the site of the tick bite. The signs and symptoms of early Lyme disease also include fever, headache, muscle /joint pain and fatigue. If left untreated, the disease can progress to swelling of the joints from arthritis in one or more joints, problems with the nervous system, and persistent weakness and fatigue. Though rare, Lyme disease can be fatal. r.yq Recent studies suggest that the incidence of Lyme disease in Canada is increasing as populations of blacklegged ticks are spreading north. This northward movement may be driven by movement of mammal hosts and by adventitious introductions from attachment to bird hosts. As global climate continues to warm, researchers predicted that the distribution and intensities of ticks and tick -borne infections will increase as well. At Authority Meeting #5/15, held on May 29, 2015, Resolution #A82/15 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THAT TRCA continue to facilitate tick surveillance activities conducted by public health agencies and academic institutes, also to liaise with regional public health units in the regions of Peel, Durham and York, and the City of Toronto to receive up -to -date information and share surveillance data regarding Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks; ... This document is intended to provide the Authority with an update on the results of tick surveillance activities carried out last year. Surveillance Results - 2015 Passive surveillance involves the voluntary submission of ticks found on humans and domestic animals, by the public, veterinarians and healthcare professionals for further testing. TRCA's public health unit partners only accept tick specimens found on humans, not domestic animals. All TRCA's public health partners reported that the number of ticks submitted annually has increased steadily since 2010. Active tick surveillance, also known as tick dragging, is conducted by a team of staff dragging strips of white cloth, mounted on poles behind them through habitats that are suspected of harbouring ticks. Tick dragging is considered the most effective method of harvesting wild ticks. In the fall of 2014, eleven blacklegged ticks were found for the first time during active tick surveillance conducted by the City of Toronto Public Health, Durham Region Public Health and York Region Public Health in the Rouge Valley. As the result, several of these ticks tested positive for Borrelia burgdorferi. In 2015, blacklegged ticks continued to be found in the Rouge Valley, and several collected ticks tested positive for Borrelia burgdorferi. A map of Lyme disease risk areas (Attachment 2) has been developed by Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario) to reflect the results of active tick surveillance in the Rouge Valley. Public Health Ontario declared the Rouge Valley and surrounding areas as an "estimated Lyme risk area ". The City of Toronto Public Health Unit has also collected blacklegged ticks from two additional locations including Algonquin Island (Central Toronto Islands), and Morningside Park (Scarborough). Researchers from University of Guelph also conducted active tick surveillance activities in four locations on TRCA properties in the summer of 2015. No ticks were found during these surveys. Since blacklegged ticks will also feed on, and be transported by migratory birds, it should also be noted that there is a chance of encountering a blacklegged tick almost anywhere within TRCA's jurisdiction. RATIONALE TRCA takes the apparently increasing incidence of Lyme disease seriously, and recognizes that there are direct implications to the organization, as follows: • TRCA one of the largest landowners in the Toronto region, and its properties include large areas of natural lands; • many TRCA staff work in the field, therefore these staff might have increased exposure to ticks, and ultimately Lyme disease; • many visitors use and enjoy TRCA facilities such as conservation areas, field centres and resource tracts, thus their potential exposure to ticks increases; • TRCA has been recognized as a leader in assessing and promoting climate change issues; • communication with the vector -borne disease divisions of regional public health units had been established through TRCA's West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance Program and these staff are now incorporating Lyme disease into their various communication approaches. FINANCIAL DETAILS The future cost implication of this issue to the organization is not clear at this time. Most of the awareness activities can be undertaken within the scope of TRCA's existing health and safety, and facility management approaches. Additional costs associated with monitoring (if determined necessary), property management, tick control activities or updates to signage used at TRCA properties or facilities, will need to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. The cost associated with the identification of any ticks found and submitted by staff or the public from TRCA lands during the 2016 field season is expected to be minimal (i.e. <$1,000) and will be covered through the West Nile Surveillance and Monitoring Project (account 124 -34). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to include the issue of ticks and Lyme disease in TRCA's health and safety training to raise awareness of all employees, and in particular those that will be working in the field. Tick -safe work procedures continue to be circulated. TRCA is not the expert on Lyme disease or the ticks that carry/transmit it, and as such it is expected that TRCA should use the most up -to -date information that is available from the health agencies that are on the front line of existing and emerging health issues in the Province of Ontario. In addition, TRCA will ensure that a tick removal kit is readily available for all field staff. TRCA staff will continue to cooperate with Parks Canada, public health units and other stakeholders to share up -to -date surveillance results and resources. Staff in the Environmental Monitoring and Data Management section has the capacity to identify adult ticks to species and will identify tick(s) found on TRCA properties. If blacklegged ticks are found, the specimens will be forwarded to the National Microbiology Laboratory for further testing; if nymphs (immature stage) are found, only the ones belonging to the genus Ixodes will be submitted for further identification. Ticks submitted by the general public will not be accepted, the inquiries will be re- directed to the appropriate public health unit. Blanket Permission to Enter (PTE) agreements from TRCA were issued in 2015 to regional public health unit partners to facilitate active surveillance purposes on TRCA properties. It is expected that regional public health units have TRCA's cooperation and support in 2016 and to receive another PTE in the spring. i Signage on TRCA properties incorporating information on the potential presence of ticks and the Lyme disease issue has been posted in York Region, and the City of Toronto will post signage in the Rouge Valley, Morningside Park and Algonquin Island by May of this year. Lastly, staff will continue to respond to public inquiries regarding blacklegged ticks and Lyme disease. Staff that is presently involved with TRCA's West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance Program will use the various regional health department committees as sources of information on the Lyme disease issue, and will communicate important updates to other staff. Report prepared by: Jessica Fang, 289 - 268 -3947 Emai Is: Ifang(aitrca.on.ca For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, 289 - 268 -3941; Jessica Fang, 289 - 268 -3947 Emails: siarvie(a)trca.on.ca; jfana(ZDtrca.on.ca Date: March 29, 2016 Attachments: 2 r- y-1 Attachment 1 The numbers of reported Lyme disease cases by province in Canada in 2013. (Source: National Lyme Disease Surveillance in Canada 2013: Web Report. http: / /www. healthycanad ians.gc.ca /pu blications/ diseases -cond itions- maladies- affections /Ivme- surveillance- 2013 /index - enq.php) 11"M a Probable 700 - 0 Confirmed *]/' M15. v n 0 400 e� C 3 L WX 200 100 0 .. ® - CM BC AB SK MB ON • 6 CIC NB NS CA Attachment 2 Public lic Sappn [e pp Ontarkah 0 h[aiil6�@ im I RESMA43 116 - WEST NILE VIRUS MONITORING UPDATE Summary of the 2015 West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance Program and receipt of the annual report - West Nile Virus Vector Larval Mosquito Monitoring Report - 2015. Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT the annual report "West Nile Virus Vector Larval Mosquito Monitoring Report - 2015" be received; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to circulate the annual report to the public health units of the regional municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to participate in the Regional West Nile Virus Advisory Committees in the regional municipalities of Durham and York; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA -owned land in the summer of 2016. CARRIED BACKGROUND West Nile virus (WNV) is a virus transmitted through mosquitoes to birds and incidentally to humans. In Ontario, the first outbreak happened in 2002 and more recently a significant outbreak occurred in 2012. The annual level of WNV activity and risk of exposure depends on the number of infected bird hosts and the number of adult mosquitos carrying the virus in a given year. WNV outbreaks are difficult to predict, therefore WNV management is focused on prevention and control, which is collectively undertaken by the provincial, regional and municipal health agencies in Ontario. At Authority Meeting #4/15, held on April 24, 2015, Resolution #A65/15 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue West Nile virus larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA -owned land during the 2015 summer season. As per Authority Resolution, WNV surveillance and monitoring activities were implemented in the summer of 2015. The following summarizes these activities and results: Summary of WNV Monitoring Program Activities in 2015 TRCA's program continued to implement a "three- pronged" approach including public education, collaboration with regional public health units, and larval mosquito monitoring and surveillance on TRCA properties. Public education activities focused on updating WNV website link on TRCA's website, and the distribution of WNV related information to conservation areas and TRCA offices. Collaboration with regional health units required TRCA staff to attend regional WNV Advisory Committees meetings, share collected data and notify the regions of any sites with high potential risk of WNV. TRCA received an Order on April 12, 2015 from the Medical Officer of Peel Regional Health under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 to assist with the implementation of control measures to reduce the number of mosquito larvae in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex in Brampton. It is anticipated that TRCA will receive a similar Order from the Peel Regional Medical Officer in 2016. 91 Mosquito larvae monitoring was undertaken at 47 monitoring sites including 41 wetlands (two new sites added in 2015) and six stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) across the TRCA jurisdiction from June 1 to August 29, 2015. Each site was visited five times at approximately two -week intervals. Data collected were used to determine potential WNV risk, and appropriate control measures were taken in deemed necessary. Summary of Monitoring Results The 2015 sampling season yielded a total of 7,563 mosquito larvae from wetlands and 355 mosquito larvae from SWMPs. Unlike the monitoring results obtained from previous years, the monitoring data in 2015 showed that more than half (53 %) of the larvae collected in wetlands were mosquito species that are capable of transmitting WNV to humans. The predominant mosquito species that is capable of transmitting WNV was Aedes vexans (19 %) in 2015 as opposed to Culex pipiens. The high numbers of Aedes vexans could be attributed to the amount of precipitation received early in the season, noting that in 2010, a similar trend showed that higher precipitation in the month of June caused higher abundance of Aedes vexans (Attachment 1 — Figure 1). However, monitoring results showed that most wetlands (33 out of 41) posed minimal risk for harbouring WNV vector mosquitoes. Most mosquitoes were collected from a few localized hot spots. Eight hot spots were identified in 2015: Glen Haffy Conservation Area, Grenadier Pond in High Park, Eglinton Flats, Claireville Conservation Area, Albion Hills Conservation Area, Evergreen Brick Works, and two unnamed wetlands in Vaughan. Each of these sites received larvicide (Bh) treatments by the regional health units as proactive measures to address WNV concerns. It should be noted that these identified sites do not pose any immediate threat to the public; the designation of a "hot spot' only implies that the larval mosquitos found are of the variety that have been known to transmit the virus to humans once they have emerged as adults and have first bitten an infected bird. The proactive nature of this monitoring program and the subsequent action is designed to control and reduce the number of the adult mosquitos available to transmit the virus, thus reducing the potential exposure to humans. Similar to the findings in the previous years, 75 % of mosquito species collected in SWMPs were the ones capable of transmitting WNV to humans. None of the SWMPs monitored were identified as hot spots in 2015. Compared to 2014, a moderate increase in the WNV infection rate in humans was observed in Ontario (Attachment 1 — Figure 2), with 33 reported human cases. It is difficult to predict the annual level of WNV activity, however in general temperature is the major influencing factor. Since the past winter had been mild, Ontario could experience a higher year of WNV activity in the summer of 2016. This is because with the mild winter conditions, more hibernating Culex pipiens and Culex restuans, which over - winter as adult females, are expected to survive, and emerge in the spring. The ability to detect hot spots, and subsequently take appropriate control measures continue to highlight the importance of regular and continuous seasonal monitoring of mosquito abundance on TRCA lands. A copy of the Annual Report: "West Nile Virus Vector Larval Mosquito Monitoring Report - 2015" will be available on the TRCA website at http: / /trca.on.ca /dotAsseV221540.pdf for reference. Copies will be provided to Members upon request. 92 RATIONALE As a major owner of greenspace, including substantial wetland areas, TRCA has had an interest in the WNV issue. As a measure of due diligence and at the request of regional health units, TRCA has been routinely monitoring larval mosquitoes in TRCA's natural wetlands and selected SWMPs since 2003. The objectives of this monitoring program has been to identify preferred breeding sites of mosquitoes, assess the level of WNV risk, and reduce human exposure to the virus by taking appropriate measures such as housekeeping activities (grading small depressions, garbage removal) and if necessary the application of larvicide. TRCA's program activities include public education, collaborating with the regional health units and conducting larval mosquito monitoring on TRCA -owned lands. The data collected over the years has been beneficial in guiding management decisions related to wetland protection and creation, land management planning and has assisted the public health agencies with their public education and outreach campaigns. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2016 WNV surveillance and monitoring activities is available under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program with capital funding support from the regions of York, Peel and Durham, and the City of Toronto. A small amount of revenue is generated (up to $ 3,000) by the program on an annual basis through the provision of mosquito larvae identification training for regional health staff. Overall this funding will be sufficient to support the 2016 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the regional health units and to respond to standing water complaints. The funding is not however expected to cover any costs associated with control measures if deemed necessary. If larviciding or site remediation is required as a control measure, the associated costs will be covered through TRCA Land Management funding. In the past three years, TRCA partnered with the various regional health departments in order to have sites treated with larvicide in a timely manner and at no cost to TRCA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue surveillance activities at approximately 47 sites on TRCA -owned lands. Staff will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in WNV advisory committees throughout the 2016 field season and will continue to respond to public inquiries on WNV and reports of standing water on TRCA property, in addition to providing general information for both the public and staff on WNV. Standing water complaints will be reviewed and addressed following the established Standing Water Complaint Procedure. Staff will continue to identify sites of concern on TRCA property through larval monitoring and advise other TRCA departments on maintenance or management duties required to reduce the number of potential breeding sites for mosquitoes. In addition, TRCA will be providing data to researchers at York University to support the development of a statistical model to predict the potential future distribution and development of the mosquito species Aedes aegypti in southern Ontario - the main species associated with the transmission of the Zikka virus, dengue fever and the chikungunya virus. Although this species is not currently present, it is of interest to researchers as a potential effect of changing climate in southern Ontario. Report prepared by: Jessica Fang, 289 - 268 -3947 Emails: jfang0trca.on.ca For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, 289 - 268 -3941; Jessica Fang, 289 - 268 -3947 Emails: siarviedtrca.on.ca; jfang(&trca.on.ca Date: March 29, 2016 Attachments: 1 93 Attachment 1 Figure 1: Summer Precipitation and Aedes vexans abundance, 2009 -2015 Figure 2: Human West Nile virus cases in Ontario and in Canada, 2002 — 2015 • A RES. #A44116 - FOREST HEALTH AND EMERALD ASH BORER Annual Update. To provide an update on the status of significant or new forest health pests /threats for 2014 within the TRCA jurisdiction, and an update on the TRCA management to address the threat posed by the emerald ash borer to ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages numerous forests and conservation areas and is engaged in numerous forest management initiatives on both private lands and TRCA -owned lands; AND WHEREAS emerald ash borer (EAB) is an invasive insect species that poses a serious threat to all ash (Fraxinus spp) trees within the TRCA jurisdiction, affecting forest biodiversity, public safety and TRCA operations; AND WHEREAS TRCA has the ability and responsibility to lessen the impact from forest pests and invasive species including EAB by developing effective management approaches; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff continue to work with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats; THAT staff continue to integrate an appropriate EAB management approach into all relevant TRCA actions and initiatives; THAT staff continue to engage with TRCA's partners in the coordinated and effective management of EAB, including providing expertise and advice to TRCA's municipal partners and neighbouring conservation authorities (CA) as they develop and implement their respective EAB management plans; AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, including EAB, their implications and recommended responses. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015, Resolution #A39/15 was approved as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, including EAB, their implications and recommended responses. The TRCA Forest Health Working Group was established in January 2010 to monitor forest health issues, facilitate coordination and improve efficiencies between internal departments and programs. The objectives of this report are to provide: 1) a summary of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) Silvicultural Forest Health Report, which outlines the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2015; 2) a status report on TRCA's EAB management activities. 95 2015 Silvicultural Forest Health Report The OMNRF, with the assistance of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and local agencies, monitors potentially harmful forest pest populations and forest damage caused by pest outbreaks and abiotic disturbances across Ontario. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) works to prevent the initial introduction and spread of non - native forest pests and diseases such as EAB and Asian long- horned beetle (ALHB). This report is intended to update the Authority on the newest and most pressing pest and disease concerns; it is not intended to provide a comprehensive summary of these concerns. In general, 2015 showed continuing declines in most forest pests, as was the case in the previous three years. • Larch casebearer continues to be found in relatively low numbers throughout Ontario. The infestations are very spotty and should have very little impact on TRCA forest health if the pest does arrive in the GTA. Stand health, composition and distribution all help decrease the potential impact of this forest pest. • Gypsy moth populations continue to decline with only very light levels of defoliation occurring in the Toronto area. • Forest tent caterpillar populations are also declining but could see an outbreak in the next few years. Past outbreaks have generally occurred approximately every 10 years. • Beech bark disease continues to spread and is found in virtually all of TRCAs jurisdiction. Tree mortality is very high with only a small percentage able to survive the fungal attack. Large surviving specimens may be resistant to the disease while small saplings or trunk sprouts are often disfigured or of poor form as a result of the infection. • Biological control measures continue for dog strangling vine (DSV) with results looking favourable. While it is unlikely the plant will ever be fully eradicated in Ontario, it is hoped that in time it will attain the same rare status as in its native range in the Ukraine. • There have been no further findings of hemlock wooly adelgid in Ontario. TRCA staff continues to work with partners to monitor for any possible findings in the GTA. Asian Long- horned Beetle (ALHB) The current status of ALHB in Toronto remains unchanged from 2015. This infestation was first reported in August, 2013 prompting the CFIA to impose a 46 square kilometre Regulation Area in an attempt to eradicate the beetles. By May 2014, 7,500 potential host trees had been removed in an area within 800 metres of the initial find. Monitoring for additional ALHB continues with none found to date. The regulated area will be lifted and the infestation declared eradicated if no additional insects are detected through 2018. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Update EAB continues to be the current single largest threat to forest health in the GTA. The cumulative Ontario mortality to the fall of 2015 was estimated at 237,000 combined hectares. The infestation continues to expand outward from Toronto with a total increase for 2014 of approximately 45,000 hectares. The impacts of the pest are visible throughout TRCA's jurisdiction, with the infestation confirmed south from north of Highway 9 in the west to the Glen Major area in the east. To date all of the ash trees removed have been located on properties where the EAB has been confirmed through the presence of extensive galleries on the Ash trees sampled. • e Regional Watershed Monitoring Update As part of TRCA's Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, TRCA's Terrestrial Fixed Plot Monitoring is one of the tools used to monitor forest health. This program was initiated in 2008 to detect spatial and temporal trends in the vegetation, breeding bird, amphibian and red -back salamander communities in select areas within the TRCA jurisdiction. Findings to date suggest that regionally, forest communities are relatively healthy, but that urbanization is having negative effects on both flora and fauna. Urban forests have more invasive plant species, fewer sensitive plant species and fewer sensitive forest birds than rural forests. Temporal analysis is showing that forest birds are declining in rural zones, which is a signal of emerging problems in our rural forests. TRCA continues to monitor these trends and report back annually on any significant findings. Work Completed to the End of 2015 Inventory of ash trees which had the potential to be hazardous on TRCA- owned /managed land was completed in 2012/2013. Surveys located 29,213 Ash trees along trails, adjacent to infrastructure, near public use areas and adjacent to private property. Abatements of these trees are continuing on schedule in both Peel and York regions, with removals totaling 2,550 and 2,500 respectively. Ash removal operations will be completed at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area and the Kortright Centre for Conservation early in 2016. Any material that can be salvaged will be sold to help offset management costs. Non - merchantable material is being made available within the TRCA to support habitat creation projects. TreeAzin injection treatments continue on 428 high value ash trees. A small number of previously treated trees were damaged in the ice storm of 2014 to such an extent that further treatment was determined to be inappropriate. FINANCIAL DETAILS It is estimated that TRCA's 2016 proposed EAB management implementation activities excluding the Rouge National Urban Park will cost in the order of $1,071,000 as follows: FUNDING PARTNER (Region/Agency) 2016 EAB Budget Estimate 2016 Approved Funding Peel $358,000 $360,000 York $152,000 $150,000 Durham $561,000 $0 Toronto $0 $0 Rouge Park/Parks Canada $310,000 pending (1) Head Office and Black Creek Pioneer Village costs are being covered through facility operating budgets, with the remainder of TRCA owned ash in Toronto being managed by City staff. (2) Rouge National Urban Park figures cover ash trees in York and Durham regions and exclude costs within the City of Toronto. It is anticipated that those costs would be carried by the City of Toronto under the current land management agreement with TRCA/Parks Canada. (3) Durham EAB budget reflects the budget estimates through to 2016 minus the Durham funding which was re- directed for 2015. Staff continue to investigate funding opportunities as they relate to potential future ash management options. The above costs reflect the relative distribution of ash tree assets on TRCA -owned and managed properties and are predicated on assumptions of ash tree mortality rates and associated abatements. Funding is allocated within the 2016 capital budget from the regions of Peel and York to address TRCA's approved EAB management approach. To date EAB abatements have received no additional funding from Durham Region, and have only been completed through the re- direction of funds from other lower priority projects. 97 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff continues to work collaboratively with partners to monitor for the presence of any new or anticipated invasive pests. Through efforts with the University of Toronto, location opportunities are being investigated for the possible release of the hypena moth which has been shown effective in the battle against dog strangling vine. The hemlock wooly adelgid working group has been working with partners to teach effective monitoring techniques in hopes of locating any infestations before they are able to become firmly established. The TRCA nursery continues to treat ash seed trees to ensure the future supply of nursery stock for potential species reestablishment. In order to ensure effective implementation, management plans have been finalized that help to relate and incorporate the approved EAB management approach into existing forest health initiatives undertaken by TRCA. Significant steps have been taken by TRCA toward developing and implementing an effective plan for the management of EAB. While it is unknown how long TreeAzin treatments will be required to protect selected Ash trees, removals have been continuing either on or ahead of schedule in both York and Peel regions. The removal of identified ash trees in York will be completed in 2017 with Peel being completed the following year. The regional municipalities of Peel and York have supported TRCA's requests for additional budget allocations to address EAB management on TRCA -owned and managed lands within their respective regions for 2016. Staff will continue to liaise with municipal staff on the progress of TRCA's efforts, and to discuss the availability of funding for future management options. Significant funding challenges still remain in Durham Region where the infested ash trees are expected to start failing, putting trails and private property at risk. Through ongoing Managed Forest Program activities and the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, staff will continue monitoring forest insects and pests, and implementing projects aimed to limit the impact of these agents on forest health and habitat. Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379 Emails: thildebrand @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379. Emails: thildebrand @trca.on.ca Date: March 31, 2016 • twkej RES. #A45/16 - BOYD CENTRE STORAGE FACILITY Contract #10001094 - Design, Supply and Installation of Boyd Office Storage Facility. Award of Contract #10001094 for the design, supply and installation of an equipment storage facility at the Boyd Centre. Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10001094 for the design, supply and installation of an equipment storage facility at the Boyd Centre be awarded to DeMan Construction Corp. at a total cost not to exceed $203,706.60, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the total cost of the contract as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Two Restoration and Infrastructure groups operate out of the Workshop Facility at the Boyd Centre: the Restoration Projects group and the Monitoring and Data Management group. Together, they share space, equipment and vehicles. In the past decade, operations out of the Boyd Workshop Facility have significantly expanded, and retrofits to accommodate this growth have included the construction of a storage and work shop building as well as parking lot and roadway expansions (Attachment 1). In addition, new equipment was purchased to account for increased capital works. In total, 61 corporate equipment pieces are stored at Boyd. Of those, 25 were purchased in the last five years, marking a 70% increase in inventory. The equipment inventory stored at the Boyd Workshop Facility is estimated at $420,000. The existing Workshop Facility was constructed in 2009 and has already reached maximum capacity. The expanded equipment inventory has made it so that the current facility is no longer adequate to handle the increased activity, placing undo strain on the building and impacting daily operations. Moreover, equipment and supplies have had to be stored outdoors, leaving it at risk of theft, damage and premature weathering. Therefore, further expansion is required to address the operational needs at the Boyd Centre. To this end, TRCA requires the services of qualified contractors to design and construct a second storage facility. This storage facility would be constructed near the current Boyd Workshop Facility. RATIONALE • The workshop and new storage facility will support restoration and monitoring projects. Their activities are integral to many projects and programs throughout the Toronto region. Similar to previous years, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation projects group will work on numerous programs and projects accounting for over $11 million dollars of capital expenditure. Some of these works and projects include: • fish community monitoring; • • rwrWA • shoreline restoration; • Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) Master Plan implementation: • Cell Two: coastal wetland creation; • colonial bird management and monitoring; • TTP Turtle Characterization Study. • Ashbridges Bay Environmental Assessment; • Canada Goose Management Program. • Petticoat Conservation Area, Ajax Waterfront — meadow creation. • Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fisheries research. • Durham waterfront aquatic /fish monitoring. • Etobicoke/ Mimico /Humber/ Don/ Waterfront habitat implementation plans: • wildlife boxes (bat, bird, fisher, etc.); • habitat structures (log tangles, perching poles, hibernacula, etc.). • Stormwater management oond maintenance and retrofits: • L'Amoreaux Community Recreation Centre in Scarborough; • Lower Duck Pond in High Park, Toronto. • Gatineau Hydro Corridor Meadow creation: • ongoing meadow creation and management; • habitat structure (song bird and pollinator box) installation. • Integrated restoration planning and implementation in the Rouge watershed: • Wetland; • stream restoration; • plantings; • Rouge National Urban Park support. Proposal The Request for Proposal (RFP) described the need for a new storage facility to be constructed to service the program needs of the two groups and to accommodate future growth projections. Bidders were asked to propose design options with the following specifications: • approximately 15 m x 30 m in size; • at least 1 m concrete side wall perimeter; • 3 m minimum clearance within the structure (free span structure); • two 14'x14' overhead doors (garage doors) to allow for a work truck to drive through the building; • two man doors; • indoor electrical access, including lighting and outlets; • exterior lighting around doorways; • options for commercial grade concrete and /or gravel flooring; • water /weather resistant cover or building envelop. RFP #10001094 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website www.biddingo.com on November 24, 2015 and closed on January 14, 2016, and were opened that day by the Procurement Opening Committee. The scope of work for this assignment includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the provision of design /engineering services including all permits and approvals from governing agencies to supply all labour and materials to deliver and install a storage facility for heavy equipment and supplies at the Boyd Workshop Facility. A total of 83 companies reviewed the documents on -line and 15 companies attended the mandatory tender briefing on December 1, 2015 in accordance with the requirements of the RFP 100 Two addenda were issued to respond to questions posed and to assist bidders in preparing their bid submissions. Four bid proposals were received. The Selection Committee of TRCA staff (John DiRocco, Ryan Bolton, Natalie Racette) reviewed the proposals. The criteria used to evaluate and select the recommended consultant /contractor were based on qualifications and experience, quality of the proposal, design /structural details, as well as reasonability of cost. A summary of the received fee proposals and the scoring of the bidders by the Selection Committee is as follows, with more detail provided in Attachment 2. Contract #10001094 - Design /Build Boyd Office Storage Facility Bidder Quote Total Weighted Score Out of 100 DeMan Construction Corp. $203,706.60 86.66% R -Chad General Contracting Inc. $160,000.00 41.85% MN Dynamic Construction Ltd. $246,331.50 74.66% Berkim Construction Inc. $239,195.00 80.22% Based on the Selection Committee's review of the proposals and upon calling references, DeMan Construction Corp. was evaluated the highest by the committee. Therefore, staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to DeMan Construction Corp at a total upset cost not to exceed $203,706.60, plus HST, plus a contingency allowance of 25 percent if deemed necessary by TRCA staff. FINANCIAL DETAILS Contract cost is to be charged to the Restoration Services account 429 -10 for the Boyd Workshop Yard Improvement. In accordance with the approved project capital funding model, it is expected that the capital budget deficit will be treated as a receivable in anticipation of deficit retirement over subsequent five years through the application of project revenues and other reserves. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails nracette @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: roninger @trca.on.ca Date: April 5, 2016 Attachments: 2 101 Attachment 2 Contract # 10001094 - Boyd Office Yard Retrofits - Design /build Storage Building 103 c o C O C U N C + ++ 7 U J 7 E _ d C w V N C Q N C R O C iw -O U O 0 C O r- U— % G w U C m E Z c LY U Y O d U � 00 MAX POINTS Section 1 Submission Format and Content Complete (resumes, methodology, schedule, attachments 0 1 1 1 1 1 &2 Required Disciplines (section 7 of RFP) 1 1 1 0.67 1 Schedule 0.67 1 1 1 1 1 References 0.83 1 0.83 1 1 Project Budget 0.83 1 0.83 0.83 1 Attachments 1& 2 submitted (Responding Invited 0.83 1 1 1 1 Proponents Certificate and Fee Proposal) Weighted Score (10 %) 6.94% 10.00% 9.44% 9.17% Section 2 db Years in business 9.33 10 9.67 7 10 Number of projects similar to budget 1.67 5.67 8 5 10 Number of projects similar scope 2.33 13.67 16.67 11 20 Project Manager years with company 3.33 7.67 9.33 6.33 10 Weighted Score (20 %) 6.67% 14.80% 17.4% 11.73% Section 3 Approach and Methodology 1.67 10 8.67 8.33 10 Weighted Score (25 %) 4.17% 25.00% 21.67% 120.83% Section 4 Staff identified 0 3.67 4 1 4 1 4 Resume of project team members 1 8.33 9.67 1 9 1 10 Weighted Score (15 %) 1.07% 12.86% 14.64% 113.93% Section 5 Unit rate, per diem rates, disbursements, etc. 7.67 8 5.67 1 6.33 10 Weighted Score (30 %) 23.00% 24.00% 17.00% 1 19.00% TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE (out of 100) 41.85% 86.66% 80.22% 174.66% 103 RES. #A46116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Highway 27 Langstaff GP Limited and Central Carpentry Limited, CFN 55531. Acquisition of property located north of Langstaff Road and west of Regional Road 27, municipally known as 8682 Regional Road 27, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #818/16) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 1.8551 hectares (4.584 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Langstaff Road and west of Regional Road 27, said land being Part of Lot 9, Concession 9 and designated as Part 2 on Registered Plan 65R- 36070, municipally know as 8682 Regional Road 27 in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Highway 27 Langstaff GP Limited and Central Carpentry Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A47116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Lake Ontario Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector George Lazarevski and Robert Sterijevski, CFN 55363. Acquisition of property located south of Kingston Road and east of McCowan Road, municipally known as 13 Pine Ridge Drive, Scarborough, Ontario, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Lake Ontario Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector. (Executive Res. #819/16) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Chris Fonseca 104 THAT 0.703 hectares (1.737 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Kingston Road and east of McCowan Road, municipally known as 13 Pine Ridge Drive, Toronto, said land being Part of Lots 139, 140, 141, 154, 155, 156, and 157 on registered Plan M -440 and designated as Part 6 on draft reference plan, prepared by Ertl Surveyors, Ontario Land Surveyors, dated March 30, 2014, be purchased from George Lazarevski and Robert Sterijevski; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A48/16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Edeltrudy Marie Kraker, CFN 53719. Purchase of a property located north of Highway 9 and east of Airport Road, Township of Adjala - Tosorontio, County of Simcoe, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #820116) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 4.10 hectares (10.14 acres), more or less, located north of Highway 9 and east of Airport Road, being Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, Township of Adjala - Tosorontio, County of Simcoe, be purchased from Edeltrudy Marie Kraker; THAT the purchase price be $37,300.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 105 RES. #A49 116 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for Permanent Easement City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 55530. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for a new storm sewer adjacent to 75 Topcliff Avenue, located east of Jane Street and south of Finch Avenue, in the City of Toronto, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #821116) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Chris Fonseca WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement required for a new storm sewer, located east of Jane Street, south of Finch Avenue, in the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.067 hectares (0.166 acres), more or less, be granted in favour of the City of Toronto, said lands being Block E of Registered Plan M -945, City of Toronto, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Registered Plan 66R- 28493; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A50 /16 - MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS Vendors of Record. Award of Contract #10001104 for the supply of mechanical and electrical related goods and services from May 1, 2016 to May 1, 2017. (Executive Res. #822116) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Chris Fonseca 106 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of several properties that require on -call mechanical and electrical services; AND WHEREAS in December 2015, TRCA pre - qualified nine contractors through a publicly advertised process based on experience, certifications and a good standing Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) certificate related to mechanical and electrical services; AND WHEREAS the successful pre - qualified contractors were invited to submit unit pricing for a variety of on -call services that was evaluated based on price and relevant experience; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with three electrical contractors and three mechanical contractors for the supply of on -call services less than $10,000 per occurrence for the period of May 1, 2016 to May 1, 2017; THAT the vendors be ranked based on price and where the primary supplier is not available, staff be authorized to use the next highest ranked supplier; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A51/16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Section II items 10.2.1 — 10.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/16, held on April 8, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section II Items ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES (Executive Res. #B23 116) ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES (Executive Res. #B24 116) CLEANING SUPPLIES 2016 -2018 (Executive Res. #B25 116) SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING (Executive Res. #B26 116) REMOVAL SERVICES 2016 -2018 107 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A52 /16 - TRCA DAMS AND FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE Report on the Ecological Impact and Mitigation. To report on the ecological impact of TRCA -owned flood infrastructure on the surrounding environment and the existing strategies to mitigate these impacts. The potential for, and challenges to, environmental improvement measures are also identified. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: David Barrow THAT item 8.1 — TRCA Dams and Flood Control Infrastructure be deferred to a future Authority meeting. CARRIED RES. #A53 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT Section III item Summary of Procurements, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/16, held on April 8, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A54 /16 - SECTION IV — ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended, item 10.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/16, held on April 8, 2016, be received. CARRIED ME; TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:53 a.m., on Friday, April 22, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 109 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #4/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, May 27, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Justin Di Ciano Member Maria Kelleher Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member RES. #A55/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/16, held on April 22, 2016, be received. CARRIED CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET /AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Ronald Chopowick was nominated by Jack Heath. 110 RES. #A56/16 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representative on the Budget /Audit Advisory Board be closed. CARRIED Ronald Chopowick was declared elected by acclamation as the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/17. DELEGATIONS 5.1 A delegation by Martin Medeiros, Regional Councillor, City of Brampton, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.2 A delegation by Andrew deGroot, One Brampton, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.3 A delegation by Michael Faye, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.4 A delegation by Christopher Bejnar, Co- Chair, CFBB (Citizens For a Better Brampton), in regard to item 8.3- Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.5 A delegation by Sony Rai, Director, Sustainable Vaughan, in regard to item 8.3- Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.6 A delegation by Eloa Doner, resident, in regard to item 8.3- Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.7 A delegation by Natalia Korneeva, resident, in regard to item 8.3- Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.8 A delegation by Charles A. Brooks, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.9 A delegation by Micheal Perrault, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.10 A delegation by Sheila Morris, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 5.11 A delegation by Coco Papoi, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lillian lacobelli). 111 5.12 A delegation by Furio Liberatore, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 5.13 A delegation by Frank Huo, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lillian lacobelli). 5.14 A delegation by Richard Lorello, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 5.15 A delegation by Connie Zheng, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). RES. #A57/16 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT above -noted delegations 5.1 — 5.10 be heard and received. DELEGATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT above -noted delegations 5.11 — 5.15 be heard and received. CARRIED CARRIED 6.1 A presentation by John Coyne, Vice - President, Unilever Canada and Hillary Marshall, Vice - President, GTAA, in regard to item 8.2, Partners in Project Green 2015 Results. 6.2 A presentation by Beth Williston, Associate Director, Planning, Greenspace & Communication, TRCA, in regard to item 8.3, City of Brampton Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit. PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT above -noted presentation 6.1 be received. CARRIED 112 RES. #A60/16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT above -noted presentation 6.2 be received. 7.1 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Wenyue Li and Xue Zhou in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.2 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Marina Dykhtan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.3 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Serguei Lifchits in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.4 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Frank Huo in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.5 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Susan Poch in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.6 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Elham Shekarabi Ahari in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.7 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Winnie Chan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli) 7.8 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Shaul Wisebourt in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.9 A letter dated May 25, 2016 from Mayor Linda Jeffrey, City of Brampton, in regard to item 8.3, Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT). 7.10 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Joe and Sandra D'Addio in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 113 7.11 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Frances Chan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.12 An email dated May 25, 2016 from Connie Zheng in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.13 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Nello DiCostanzo in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.14 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Anthony Percaccio in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.15 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Furio Liberatore in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.16 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Giovanni Senisi in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). 7.17 An email dated May 26, 2016 from Salvatore Mirasola in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian lacobelli). RES. #A61/16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT above -noted correspondence 7.1 — 7.17 be received. CARRIED 114 CORRESPONDENCE 7.1 ZhouR <> 25/05/2016 11:33 AM To "kstranks @trca.on.ca" <kstranks @trca.on.ca >, cc Subject Object to the proposed development plan at 230 Grand Trunk Ave, Vaughan ON 75 Maverick Crescent Vaughan ON L6A 41-1 May 25, 2016 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 101 Exchange Ave Vaughan ON L4K 5R6 Email: Kstranks @trca.on.ca For the attention of Kathy Stranks Dear Sir or Madam, RE: Dufferin Vistas Ltd 230 Grand Trunk Avenue File No.: 19T- 16V001 PAC No.: PAC.15.125 (the "Proposed Development Plan ") OMB Case No. PL111184 — VOP2010 Appellant 21 We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that we have with regard to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON (the "Open Space Lands "). As an immediate neighbor to the site of the Proposed Development Plan, we are of the view that the Proposed Development Plan will have a serious impact on our standard of living and does not comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, and Vaughan City Plan Policies. 1. Protection of valuable open space under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001: " The decisions of provincial ministers, ministries and agencies made under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, are required to conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 establishes the following objectives for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: (a) protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area..." The Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally sensitive and geological landform. One of the goals of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is to protect and restore natural and open space connections under the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Open Space Lands are located in an area which is protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and also were designated by Vaughan City as Valley /Open Space Lands. 115 The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the objectives of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area; to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green space and loss of open space connections required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Open Space Lands located within the Oak Ridges Moraine provide important groundwater recharge and habitat to species that require open areas to complete their life cycles. 2. Non - compliance with the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement The Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014, 1.1.3 : "It is in the interest of all communities to use land and resources wisely, to promote efficient development patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces..." Green open space is in scarce supply in our area and this woodland site and the trees on it provide a valuable contribution to the neighborhood scene and adjoining neighborhood park and are an amenity for local residents. A lot of trees are so close to the Open Space Lands, so the Proposed Development Plan would damage the root system of trees. The trees concerned and the Open Space Lands are a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and significantly to the amenity of our area. The Proposed Development Plan is a direct contravention of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement. 3. Detrimental impact upon residential amenities City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 — Volume 1 Policies, 9.1.2.1 : "That new development will respect and reinforce the existing and planned context within which it is situated. More specifically, the built form of new developments will be designed to achieve the following general objectives: a. in Community Areas, new development will be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the established neighborhood within which it is located..." The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the character of the surroundings. The layout and design of the surroundings close to the Open Space Lands are detached two- garage houses (i.e., 40 ft. Lot Homes). The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect local context, because the Proposed Development Plan intends to build townhouses which will be much smaller than the neighboring properties. In addition, the Proposed Development Plan will be in the middle of two areas having existing 40 ft. Lot detached homes. Therefore, the Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the character and amenity of adjoining residential properties. We wish TRCA to support sustainable development in our city. We would be grateful if TRCA would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application. Yours sincerely, Wenyue Li and Xue Zhou 116 CORRESPONDENCE 7.2 Marina Dykhtan to <> 25/05/201611:36 AM To "kstranks @trca.on.ca" <kstranks @trca.on.ca >, cc Subject 230 Grand Trunk- hearing Friday May 27, 2016 Dear Kathy Stranks, My name is Marina Dykhtan, I reside at 43 Princess Isabella Court, Vaughan, the property adjacent to 230 Grand Trunk, and on behalf of myself and my husband Sergey Polak, we are writing to you to express our opposition to this development. We want for the TRCA to rule that the City follows the Vaughan Official Plan in regards to this development. We have great concerns that the City did not keep the residents (us)informed and the City were not transparent. Sincerely, Marina Dykhtan Sergey Polak 43 Princess Isabella Court, Vaughan 117 CORRESPONDENCE 7.3 <> 25/05/2016 11:41 ff AM Please respond to <> To <kstranks @trca.on.ca >, cc Subject 230 Grand Trank Development I, Serguei Lifchits, my wife Fatima Lifchits and my son Anton Lifchits, residents of Maverick Cres, Maple, ON, L6A 4L1 are oppose development at 230 Grant Trunk and would like for the TRCA to rule that the city follows. the Vaughan official plan in regards to this development. Regards, Serguei Lifchits Fatima Lifchits Anton Lifchits 118 CORRESPONDENCE 7.4 tofrank huo 25/05/2016 12:36 PM Dear TRCA, To kstranks @trca.on.ca, cc Subject strongly oppose the new development for 230 Grand Trunk, Maple I and my family strongly oppose this new development on 230 Grand trunk, Maple. this piece of land was been protected as woodland for last 10 -20 years, now suddenly it changed to be low residential house area, why and what happen ? this land have hundreds of mature trees and many animals live there and should keep it as nature heritage as before thanks Frank Huo 19 Princess Isabella crt Maple, ON L6A 4133 119 CORRESPONDENCE 7.5 Susan Poch <> 25/05/2016 12:51 PM NW Dear Ms. Stranks, To kstranks @trca.on.ca, cc Subject Dufferin Vistas Hearing May 27, 2016 We live at 25 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, and back onto the Dufferin Vista lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue that the TRCA has determined are eligible for redevelopment, pending further study. We vehemently oppose this development. It has been shown in the past, and agreed to by the TRCA, that there are endangered species on this land, and that there is a protected water course running under the land. Why would more studies need to be done to undo something that has already been proven? We fear that the developer's land use planners will overlook these important environmental elements, all in favour of his clients' best interests. Please look at this issue carefully and ensure that your decision follows the Vaughan Official Plan before you finalize this decision at the hearing on May 27th. Thank you. Susan Poch, Mel Raskin, Robert Raskin and Michael Raskin 25 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario 120 CORRESPONDENCE 7.6 toElham Shekarabi <> 25/05/2016 12:43 PM To "kstranks @trca.on.ca" <kstranks @trca.on.ca >, cc Babak Kheiltash <> Subject Opposition to 230 Grand Trunk development plan Hi Kathy, My names is Elham Shekarabi and I my husband, Babak Kheiltash, are the owners of 91 Maverick Crescent, Vaughan located at west south of 230 Grand Trunk. I am writing to you behalf of myself and my husband to inform you about our opposition to 230 Grand Trunck develment plan. Currently, this area is a greenland and natural habitat for different animals. As I know one of your objectives is to protect , manage and restore woodland and natural habitats so I hope you would support us to stop this development. Regards, Elham Shekarabi Ahari And Babak Kheiltash 121 CORRESPONDENCE 7.7 From: "Winne Chan" H Sent: 05/25/2016 09:22 PM AST To: Kathy Stranks Subject: TRCA agenda for Friday May 27th Dear Ms Stranks, Our family lives at 11 Princess Isabella Court. Our house backs onto the Dufferin Visa development at 230 Grand Trunk. TRCA has decided this piece of land is suitable for development (in fact, building 105 town homes) We STRONGLY oppose this development. TRCA has a strong history of watershed management and protection of our environment. This decision totally goes against TRCA's vision of building a greener, cleaner and healthier place to live. How can I explain to my granddaughters that the beautiful natural habitat with trees and bushes and birds and wildlife suddenly become rows of town houses? "TRCA let them do it" is not an answer. Before more damage is done, please reflect and take action. Stop this development. Your expertise is to restore natural areas, not to destroy them. Your vision is to keep nature's beauty and diversity, not to replace it with human invasion. Stand up and do what you have been doing so well all along. Stop the development and let nature be nature. If you don't it. nobody can! Regards, Winnie Chan 11 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario. 122 CORRESPONDENCE 7.8 From: "Shaul Wisebourt" [j Sent: 05/25/2016 11:14 PM AST To: Kathy Stranks Subject: Designation of lands from natural conservation area to low -rise residential at 230 Grand Trunk in Vaughan Dear Ms. Stranks, We became aware of the upcoming TRCA hearing regarding designation of 230 Grand Trunk in Vaughan. We strongly oppose any residential development on the subject lands. We hope that TRCA will do what's necessary to protect these lands from any development. Please note that we were not aware of the earlier hearings on the subject (e.g. at the OMB), and therefore were not able to express our concerns at an earlier date. Thanks, Shaul Wisebourt and Margarita Makovenko, residents of 79 Maverick Crescent in Vaughan 123 CORRESPONDENCE 7.9 Mayor Linda Jeffrey or Lgi;�0�0— May 25, 2016 Dear Brian: Re: 8.3 Hurontario -Main Light Rail Transit (LRT) - Proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley Alignment I understand that on Friday morning at the regularly scheduled TRCA meeting Board Members will be considering a staff report on the issue of the Hurontario -Main Street LRT proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley Alignment. I am reaching out to you and Board Members on behalf of a number of concerned residents in Brampton to offer my full support for TRCA's staff position which does NOT support this alignment. I am strongly opposed to any alignment route which would require an LRT to travel through the Etobicoke Creek valley from north of Nanwood Drive to Queen Street and the Brampton Downtown GO Station. In the report, staff indicate that there is increased risk to life, property and infrastructure should an LRT alignment be permitted within the valley and which is not supported by TRCA's policies - I concur. This proposed route would have significant impacts on a regulatory floodplain and is contrary to the policies of the TRCA, the Government of Ontario, and more specifically the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. TRCA staff has indicated that if the City of Brampton were to proceed with considering this option, that an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) would need to be completed, and the IEA would be subject to approval by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. In my opinion, any further study of this proposed route, would be unwise and ultimately a waste of taxpayer dollars. I respectfully request that you share this correspondence with all Board Members. Regards, e4�� 7 Linda Jeffrey Mayor ® The Corporation of the City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West Brampton, ON 124 L6Y 4R2 905.874.2600 mayorjeffrey@brampton.ca TTY: 905.874.2130 cc. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Minister of Transportation Chair of Metrolinx KII The Corporation of the City of Brampton 905.874.2600 mayorjeffrey@bran 2 Wellington Street West TTY: 905.874.2130 Brampton, ON1 25 L6Y 4R2 CORRESPONDENCE 7.10 Dear Kathy Stranks, I am writing to you on behalf of myself Sandra D'Addio and my husband Joe D'Addio, we live at 47 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, and back onto the Dufferin Vista lands at 230 Grand Trunk Ave. We are opposed to this development that the TRCA has determined eligible for redevelopment, pending further study. It has been shown in the past and agreed to by the TRCA, that there are endangered species on this land, and that there is a protected water course running under the land. I am in question as to why more studies are needed if this has already been proven. We would would like you to please look at this issue very carefully in hopes that the TRCA rule that the City follows the Vaughan's official plan in regards to this development. Thank You, Sincerely, Joe & Sandra D'Addio 126 CORRESPONDENCE 7.11 Francis Chan <> 26/05/2016 12:01 PM Dear Ms Stranks, To kstranks @trca.on.ca, cc Subject Item 9.2 - Dufferin Vistas Ltd - 230 Grand Trunk Townhouse developemnt Our family lives at 11 Princess Isabella Court. Our house backs onto the Dufferin Vistas development at 230 Grand Trunk. TRCA has decided this land is suitable for Townhouse development. We STRONGLY oppose this development. Our major concern is that this development destroys wetlands and wildlife habitats intentionally. The developer had identified the presence of wetlands, potential fish habitat, potential significant wildlife habitat (amphibian breeding habitat) and an intermittent stream in the eastern section of the townhouse development. The developer proposed to cover these wetlands and habitats with over 10 metres of fill in these locations, and construct a retaining wall at the end of the cul -de -sac to obtain a grade separation of 11 metres above the existing wetland, to enhance the east wetland size and functions to compensate for the wetland removals and impacts within the proposed development area. In general the proposed grade of the development will be above the surrounding OS5 zones and the existing residential areas. • New wetlands have uncertain environmental outcomes when they are used to replace healthy natural wetlands. They do not replace what is lost in terms of biodiversity and other key functions compared to natural wetlands • The noise, pollution and vibration from the construction and fill compaction will permanently destroy the wildlife habitats in the proposed Townhouse area and in the adjacent environmental protection zones. Wildlife habitat compensations are not feasible. • The tall retaining wall will have a negative impact to the wildlife and environment. These eastern areas are connected upstream hydrologically to existing storm water management facilities and existing development. 127 • The developer proposed to construct a storm water outfall at the retaining wall. The water flow from a major storm will turn the existing OS5 wetland into storm water retention pond and will have a negative impact to the wildlife habitats and vegetation. • Construction works should not be allowed in the OS5. TRCA should not grant permission for the low rise residential development in these areas. The control of flooding, erosion, pollution, change and interfere with wetlands are affected by this development. Thank you for your consideration. Francis Chan 11 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario. L6A 4133 128 CORRESPONDENCE 7.12 zheng Connie <> To kstranks trca.on.ca <kstranks 25/05/2016 11:26 PM " " trca.on.ca >, � �° Please respond to cc zheng Connie <> Subject Strong objection to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON Dear Ms. Stranks, We wish to make you aware of our strong objections regard to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON (the "Open Space Lands "). We are the resident at 103 Maverick Cres. As an immediate neighbor to the site of the Proposed Development Plan, we are of the view that the Proposed Development Plan will have a serious impact on our standard of living. And it also does not obviously comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, and Vaughan City Plan Policies. First, according to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001: " The decisions of provincial ministers, ministries and agencies made under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, are required to conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 establishes the following objectives for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: (.)protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area..." The Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally sensitive and geological landform. One of the goals of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is to protect and restore natural and open space connections under the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Open Space Lands are located in an area which is protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and also were designated by Vaughan City as Valley /Open Space Lands. The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the objectives of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area; to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green space and loss of open space connections required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Open Space Lands located within the Oak Ridges Moraine provide important groundwater recharge and habitat to species that require open areas to complete their life cycles. Second, according to the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014, 1.1.3 : "It is in the interest of all communities to use land and resources wisely, to promote efficient development patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces..." Green open space is in scarce supply in our area and this woodland site and the trees on it provide a valuable contribution to the neighborhood scene and adjoining neighborhood park and are an amenity for local residents. A lot of trees are so close to the Open Space Lands, so the Proposed Development Plan would damage the root system of trees. The trees concerned and the Open Space Lands are a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and significantly to the amenity of 129 our area. The Proposed Development Plan is a direct contravention of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement. Third, according to City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 — Volume 1 Policies, 9.1.2.1 "That new development will respect and reinforce the existing and planned context within which it is situated. More specifically, the built form of new developments will be designed to achieve the following general objectives: a. in Community Areas, new development will be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the established neighborhood within which it is located..." The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the character of the surroundings. The layout and design of the surroundings close to the Open Space Lands are detached two- garage houses (i.e., 40 ft. Lot Homes). The Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect local context, because the Proposed Development Plan intends to build townhouses which will be much smaller than the neighboring properties. In addition, the Proposed Development Plan will be in the middle of two areas having existing 40 ft. Lot detached homes. Therefore, the Proposed Development Plan doesn't respect the character and amenity of adjoining residential properties. We wish TRCA to support sustainable development in our city. We would be grateful if TRCA would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application. Yours sincerely, Connie Zheng & Raymond Su 130 AM' 7:7 MI6PI5]:1►[el 4VAK From: Nello DiCostanzo [] Sent: 05/26/2016 04:01 PM AST To: Kathy Stranks Subject: My Family Strongly Opposes the. Development of 230 Grand Trunk Blvd Dea r TRCA, I have been living at 33 Princess Isabella Court for the last 7 years, with my family. One of the reasons we bought our home is that the natural green forested areas behind our house was part of a protected are under the Oak Ridges Moraine act and we were told by the builder this area behind our home would never be developed. We paid a premium dollar amount for our home because it backed onto this green space. Throughout the years we have seen numerous wildlife, including deer, owls, turtles and birds. I also spoke with officials at the TRCA over the last year and they always stated that they were in opposition to any development of these lands on the proposed 230 Grand Trunk development. Why and when did the TRCA change their minds on the development of these lands? Did someone influence the TRCA's decision. This does not make sense to all of the residents of Princess Isabella and surrounding area. We strongly oppose the development of 230 Grand Trunk as we believe this will not only destroy this natural habitat but also destroy the equity value of our homes. Sincerely, Nello DiCostanzo and Family 131 =101191 L411740[40iEI Good afternoon Kathy, My name is Anthony Percaccio of 12 Princess Isabella Crt Maple ON L6A 4133. As I am unable to attend in person, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and wish to have my statement below added on record as a deputation in opposition to Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27th at 9:30am regarding: PUBLIC RECORD DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road City of Vaughan, York Region I strongly oppose the re- designation of these lands and the proposed development. The residents of Princess Isabella Crt, Maverick Cres, Lady Bianca Crt and Grand Trunk Ave have had a terrible, negative and extremely confusing experience with the majority of our City Councilors and some City Staff regarding the re- designation of the subject lands. We feel that we have been kept in the dark and misrepresented regarding this PL111184 OMB Case. Most of the details and recommendations made by the majority of the City Councilors were brought into close sessions and thus we feel a great lack of transparency. I wish to note, however, that our local Councilor, Sandra Yeung Racco, has been fighting on behalf of the residents. As a resident, I find it very odd that 3 levels of government, in this case, the City of Vaughan, York Region and the Province of Ontario choose not to participate in the protection of the natural features of these lands during this case, when in the past they were at the forefront to preserve them. From what we understand, the City for many years has apparently attempted to purchase the subject lands to extend Grand Trunk Ave and at the same time preserve these eco- sensitive lands and the corridor that is provides for the wild life that habitats it. How has this suddenly changed? The residence have collectively submitted an option to the City that can make this "win -win" scenario by exercising various land securement tools such as a "Land Exchange" or perhaps " Conservation Easement Agreements" that the City states in their Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014) . The following is an excerpt from the City of Vaughan Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014): "Landowners who own property within a valley system, flood plain, or environmentally sensitive feature may exchange their parcel with a less environmentally sensitive area, usually within the higher, drier tableland. These arrangements may bring funds, which can be used to acquire additional conservation lands. While these transactions traditionally consist of the exchange of fee simple interests, they can consist of any combination of property interests. Note that land exchanges are not necessarily acre for acre. Any exchange would be based on appraised value as valley lands would not be valued the some as developable tableland ." I would like to note and applaud the TRCA's Vision: The quality of life on Earth is being created in rapidly expanding city regions. Our vision is for a new kind of community "The Living City" where human settlement can flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity, as well 132 as its Mission: To work with our partners to ensure that "The Living City" is built upon a natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities . Under this Vision and Mission, TRCA's mandate it is to further the conservation and restoration of the Humber and Don watersheds in Vaughan. Given this, the TRCA should have through its mandate and ongoing advocacy, restored the natural environment and the ecological services that the previous owner unfortunately altered through deforestation of the subject lands. We ask that the TRCA Board and its staff continue their due diligence with the technical studies review and not to compromise their core values and to use their power through regulation, reviews and comments, prevention, elimination or reduction of the risk of life and property, public safety and advocacy with the City. I would also like to bring to your attention a former precedent case with the same developer that the TRCA was involved in: 611428 Ontario Limited v. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (February 11th, 1994). Perhaps this case should be reviewed as it may relate to the subject lands case in terms of the "conservation of an ecosystem ". The TRCA is one of our last hopes in regards to having this re- designation addressed and we hope that this case turns into a Good News Story agenda item at your next meeting. Thank you for your consideration to contribute to "The Living City "! Anthony Percaccio 133 CORRESPONDENCE 7.15 From: furio [] Sent: 05/26/2016 03:58 PM AST To: Kathy Stranks Cc: furio home liberatore o; Richard Lorello o; councillor_ augimeri@toronto.ca Subject: 230 Grand Trunk Ave. Formerly 9500 Dufferin Street. Good Morning, My name is Furio Liberatore. I reside at 7 Princess Isabella Crt which is adjacent to 230 Grand Trunk Ave. We strongly oppose the re- designation of these lands and the proposed development plan file 19T- 16V001 submitted by Dufferin Vista Ltd to the City of Vaughan. The residents of Princess Isabella Crt, Maverick Cres, Lady Bianca Crt and Grand Trunk Ave have had a negative, confusing, and dis- heartening experience with our City Councilors and City Staff regarding the re- designation of the subject lands. We feel that we have been kept in the dark and misrepresented regarding this PL111184 OMB Case. Most of the details and recommendations made by City Councilors were brought into close sessions and thus we feel a great lack of transparency. As a resident, I find it odd that the City, the Region and the Province choose not to participate in the protection of the natural features of these lands, when in the past they were front ant centre to preserve them. The City for many years has attempted to purchase the subject lands to extend Grand Trunk Ave and at the same time preserve these eco- sensitive lands and the corridor that is provides for the wild life that habitats it. The residence have collectively submitted an option to the City that can make this "win -win" scenario by exercising a land securement tool via a "Land Exchange" that the City states in their Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014). The following is an excerpt from the City of Vaughan Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014): "Landowners who own property within a valley system, flood plain, or environmentally sensitive feature may exchange their parcel with a less environmentally sensitive area, usually within the higher, drier tableland. These arrangements may bring funds, which can be used to acquire additional conservation lands. While these transactions traditionally consist of the exchange of fee simple interests, they can consist of any combination of property interests. Note that land exchanges are not necessarily acre for acre. Any exchange would be based on appraised value as valley lands would not be valued the some as developable tableland ." Part of the TRCA's mandate it is to further the conservation and restoration of the Humber and Don watersheds in Vaughan. Given this, the TRCA should have through its mandate, restored the natural environment and the ecological services that the previous owner unfortunately altered through deforestation. We ask that the TRCA Board and its staff continue their due diligence with the technical studies review and not to compromise their core values. The TRCA is our last hope in regards to having this re- designation shed an ounce of true transparency. Thank You. Furio Liberatore 134 CORRESPONDENCE 7.16 From: Giovanni Senisi <> Date: May 26, 2016 at 11:01:55 PM EDT To: "kstranksktrca.on.ca" <kstranksktrca.on.ca> Cc: "councillor augimeri i�toronto.ca" <councillor augimeriC�toronto.ca> Subject: Re: Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27 at 9:30am Reply -To: Good evening Kathy, My name is John Senisi of 99 Maverick Crescent. Since I am unable to attend in- person I would like the statement below to go on record as my deputation in opposition to Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27th at 9:30am regarding: PUBLIC RECORD DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road City of Vaughan, York Region My family and I strongly oppose the re- designation of these lands and the proposed development. The lands in question are an integral part of a patch- corridor matrix - it is effectively the 'keystone' holding three of them together. This tract of land is a wildlife corridor between four forested areas, two large ones and two smaller ones. This strip of forest and grassland connects to one Vaughan's largest forests that is east of Peter Rupert Avenue, and the wider green spaces of the MacMillan Nature Reserve east of Dufferin and eventually joining the Don River ravine system. Neither of the three forests west of Dufferin can sustain large mammal populations like deer without this corridor - without the ability to access other populations during breeding season they will inevitably die off as a result of inbreeding. The corridor is used by an impressive array of wildlife considering it's suburban position. The Wood- Peewee (listed as "Endangered" by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) is a known inhabitant. The Barred Owl, Cooper's Hawk, Cardinal, Blue Jay, Titmouse, Dove, Junco, Chickadee, Northern Flicker, various Woodpeckers, Hummingbird, American Goldfinch, Sparrow, Indigo Bunting, Wild Turkey, Deer, Coyote, Gopher, Rabbit, Gray Treefrog, and the American Toad have all been witnessed using this land by my neighbours and I. Indigo Buntings dwell among old growth - their presence here is remarkable. The Barred Owl is not known to live in this part of Ontario yet it's one of our regulars. According to Frog Watch Ontario this is one of very few spots in the GTA with a vibrant population of Gray Treefrog; indeed they use the treeline running along the length of this property to get from one body of water to the next each spring - a migration crucial to their survival. Not only is this the location of an aquifer fulfilling its part of the Oak Ridges Moraine System but it's higher areas also serve to filter the groundwater that 135 partly maintains the two bodies of water used by the Treefrog and other wildlife - one at the easternmost end of the property and the other just west of Peter Rupert surrounded by forest. The reasons for maintaining protection of this space in the past were as plentiful as they are now and it is misguided to consider degrading it any further than it already has been. Open grasslands are a habitat that has become greatly needed to ensure the continued survival of several species - this property's unique combination of features and important functions made it an obvious part of Vaughan's Natural Heritage Network ... a network that deserves to be preserved for future generations. Thank -you, John Senisi 136 CORRESPONDENCE 7.17 From: salvatore mirasola <> Date: May 26, 2016 at 10:32:09 PM EDT To: 'councillor_ au¢imeri@toronto.ca" < councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca> Subject: Re: email to TRCA Sam and Enza Mirasola Our family lives at 30 Princess Isabella Court. TRCA has decided this land is suitable for Townhouse development. We STRONGLY oppose this development. To Whom it may concern As community residents we are extremely concerned about the changes to land use sanctioned by the OMB and TRCA. It's evident from the numerous written submissions and community indignation that the vast majority of residents bordering the Dufferin Vistas Lands disagreed with key aspects of the changes to land use. Our consensus is that the resolution was expedited in haste and without community involvement. Like my fellow residents I am resentful of the duplicitous aura of the decision and bitter by the inadequate governance for the maintenance and enhancement of environmental protection. Needless to say, the community has spoken by raising concerns. The recurring and consistent themes in the residents submissions have been: 1. Poor quality of public consultation 2. Poor quality of research. 3. Bias nature of information provided. A. Concern about harm to the natural environment 5. Concern about the workability of the development proposed 6. Loss of trust in local government and lack of transparency A more responsive system of Governance must put quality decision making as a higher priority. Do the right thing! 137 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A62/16 - APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY City of Toronto. The Secretary- Treasurer advises that two new appointees to TRCA, representing the City of Toronto, have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority until the 2017 annual meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority Meeting for 2017 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 will be confirmed, unless a successor is appointed. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti THAT Councillor Frances Nunziata be recognized as a City of Toronto Member of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until December 31, 2016 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a Member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1117, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017, or until her successor is appointed; THAT Ronald Chopowick be recognized as a City of Toronto Member of TRCA until July 9, 2018, and until a successor is appointed, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a Member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/17, or until his successor is appointed; AND FURTHER THAT Councillor Rob Ford's service to TRCA be acknowledged, and Rodney Hoinkes be thanked for his service to TRCA. CARRIED BACKGROUND In December 2014, the City of Toronto Council approved the nine Council appointees to TRCA for a term of office expiring on December 31, 2016 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards. In July 2015, City of Toronto Council approved the five citizen appointments to TRCA until July 9, 2018, and until successors are appointed. Two of these positions became vacant due to the passing of Councillor Rob Ford and the resignation of Rodney Hoinkes due to job requirements out of country. As a result of these vacancies, at Toronto City Council meeting held on May 3 -5, 2016, Council approved appointment of Councillor Frances Nunziata and Ronald Chopowick to TRCA. Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary- Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as Members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such advisement needs to be provided at the May 27, 2016 meeting, to be effective until Annual Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017, or until their successors are appointed. As a result, the Secretary- Treasurer is advising that Frances Nunziata and Ronald Chopowick are duly appointed to sit as Members of the Authority, effective May 27, 2016. For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca Date: May 6, 2016 138 RES. #A63/16 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: A PEARSON ECO- BUSINESS ZONE 2015 Annual Report. Overview of Partners in Project Green's 2015 accomplishments in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report Highlights be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report be provided to TRCA's local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green. CARRIED BACKGROUND Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco - Business Zone was developed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 2008 in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), the Region of Peel, and cities of Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga, to build and activate the largest eco- business community in the world. Partners in Project Green actively supports Building The Living City, TRCA's 2013 — 2022 Strategic Plan through Leadership Strategy #1: Green the Toronto region's Economy by helping the business community transform the way it operates and instill lasting change in the Etobicoke - Mimico and Humber watersheds through long -term renovation, retrofit and redevelopment in the region's major employment lands. Partners in Project Green's 2015 Annual Report captures the achievements and results of Partners in Project Green activities in 2015, and includes a variety of impressive energy, water and waste reduction achievements throughout the Pearson Eco- Business community. The report also profiles members of Partners in Project Green Executive Management Committee and Performance Area Committees. Partners in Project Green's results for 2015 speak to a simple truth: we are all stronger, we are more effective and we can achieve so much more when we choose to work together. The full report can be found online at http:// ar2015 .partnersinproiectgreen.com /. Annual Report Highlights The following are highlights from the annual report: • 38,330 tonnes eCOZ reduced 300% increase with respect to 20141 Target: 10,170 t by 2015 • 4,262 tonnes avoided from 26 materials exchanges 500% increase with respect to 20141 Target: 2,000 t by 2015 • 212.4 million litres of water footprint offset 16% increase with respect to 20141 Target: 172AM by 2015 • Collective impact — 80 networked electric vehicle charging stations installed 15 participating companies and 6.5 tonnes of GHG emissions reductions. 139 • Revenue diversification — 20.8% of total budget from self - generated revenue sources 11.8% increase with respect to 2014 1 Target: 25% by 2015 • In -kind support — $125,857 in -kind community support • 100 Active Members 31 % increase with respect to 2014 1 Target: 120 by 2015 • 1,432 event participants 26.7% increase with respect to 2014 1 Target: 1,400 participants FINANCIAL DETAILS Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone (Account 413 -01) is funded by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Peel and the City of Toronto. In addition, the project self - generated 20.8% of its total revenue sources in 2015.Additional PPG financial details can be found at http:// ar2013 .partnersinproiectgreen.com /results - financial /. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Present Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report to TRCA local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green. Report prepared by: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316 Emails: adumesle @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316 Emails: adumesle @trca.on.ca Date: May 2, 2016 140 RESMA64 116 - HURONTARIO -MAIN STREET LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) Proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley Alignment. Request from Brampton City Council for a TRCA opinion on a proposed alignment of the Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) system through the Etobicoke Creek valley from just north of Nanwood Drive to Queen Street and the Brampton Downtown GO Station. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the City of Brampton letter (attached) requesting that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide formal response to Brampton City Council's proposal of locating a section of the proposed Hurontario -Main Light Rail Transit (LRT) within the Etobicoke Creek Valley Corridor, be received; THAT TRCA staff recommend to the Authority that an LRT alignment through the Etobicoke Creek Valley not be supported based on TRCA's policies, permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06, our delegated role to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards, previously approved work with the Province and City of Brampton on risk reduction within Downtown Brampton and the increased risk to life, property and infrastructure that an LRT would pose within the valley; THAT TRCA does not support a surface, tunnel or elevated LRT route within the Etobicoke Creek valley, on land which is owned by TRCA, which is subject to significant risk from flooding and erosion, and which provides one of the few contiguous natural heritage corridors within the City; THAT should the City of Brampton proceed with further investigations for an LRT alignment through Etobicoke Creek Valley, despite TRCA's recommendations to the contrary, an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) be completed due to the scope and level of work that will need to take place to ensure an integrated study between this transit initiative, flood remediation efforts, hazard risks and land use planning /growth implications, and that the IEA be subject to approval by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change as is provided for in the legislation; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Brampton, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Minister of Transportation, and the Chair of Metrolinx, be so advised. AMENDMENT Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT item 8.3 - Hurontario -Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) be referred to Brampton staff until an Individual Environmental Assessment is complete. THE AMENDMENT WAS 141 WITHDRAWN RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Frances Nunziata Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2008, the City of Mississauga and City of Brampton, in consultation with TRCA staff and other interested stakeholders, initiated the Master Plan for the future proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) system from Port Credit in the City of Mississauga to the Downtown GO Station in the City of Brampton. The Master Plan recommended a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system along Hurontario -Main Street between downtown Brampton and the Port Credit waterfront. The recommendation included a one way loop in Downtown Brampton that would turn west on Wellington Street then north on George Street and pass through a new tunnel under the CN rail corridor /GO tracks to the downtown Brampton GO station. The LRT would then turn south on Main Street north of the rail corridor and continue south on Main - Hurontario Street into Mississauga. Anew LRT maintenance and storage facility was also identified on the southeast corner of Hurontario Street and Highway 407 in the City of Brampton. In 2014, the City of Mississauga, City of Brampton and Metrolinx in consultation with TRCA staff and other interested stakeholders completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). Through further refinement of the 2008 alignment, the TPAP identified the preferred LRT alignment along Hurontario -Main Street to the downtown Brampton GO station. A Notice to Proceed was issued by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on August 25, 2014 allowing the Hurontario -Main Street LRT to proceed to the implementation phase of work from Port Credit GO to Brampton GO. 142 Prior to TPAP approval, Brampton City Council advised that it had concerns with the option of the LRT along Hurontario -Main Street north of Steeles Avenue, and asked City of Brampton staff to develop their own assessment of possible alignments including investigation of an alignment through the Etobicoke Valley Corridor. During 2014 and 2015, TRCA staff provided detailed comments on the considerable deviation of this option from our policies, permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06, our delegated role to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards and previously approved work with the Province and City of Brampton on risk reduction within Downtown Brampton. In addition, TRCA staff advised that construction of an LRT within the flood plain, paralleling the main Etobicoke Creek would increase risk to life, property and infrastructure as outlined in this report, to both staff and council, including a presentation to council on July 8, 2015. On October 27, 2015, Brampton City Council only approved the Hurontario -Main LRT from Brampton's southern boundary to the Gateway Terminal at Steeles Avenue, and permanently removed the LRT surface alignment on Main Street from further consideration north of Etobicoke Creek through Downtown Brampton. On March 9, 2016, Brampton City Council directed Brampton staff to examine three alternatives, including the Etobicoke Valley option (Route 3), "...with the purpose of the study being to recommend to Council a route that will provide the most intensification opportunities in the central area and the most economic benefit to the City of Brampton ". Council also directed Brampton staff to "...work with Toronto Region Conservation staff to come to an agreement on Route 3 — Etobicoke Creek Valley, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter be brought forward to the Toronto Region Conservation Board of Directors." TRCA and City of Brampton staff met on April 28, 2016 to further discuss a potential alignment through the valley. On May 5, 2016, TRCA staff received a request from the City of Brampton to proceed with a report to the Authority for a formal position on the Etobicoke Creek valley alignment. RATIONALE TRCA staff has significant concerns related to construction of a transit system through a valley corridor. This includes flood plain, flood control and natural heritage management, as well as provincial and TRCA policy implications. Furthermore, as the Downtown Brampton SPA update did not assess the implications of risk to life and property as a result of the introduction of new transit infrastructure through the valley corridor, there are potential limitations to future development and flood remediation opportunities in downtown Brampton. J1011J Ik,11OIT121- 3: 7_1 j4I31101 L,1 »_1ZIZI111141Z11111 /_1%11VA *: Special Policy Areas Portions of the City of Brampton (Downtown Brampton and Bram East) are located within the flood plain and Special Policy Area (SPA) of the Etobicoke Creek (Figure 1). SPAs are planning mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that exist within flood vulnerable areas to allow for continued social and economic viability and revitalization of these areas. Any changes to the boundaries or official plan policies of SPAs must be approved by both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry because they reflect a relaxation of provincial natural hazard policies for flood - related events, where this is deemed appropriate. 143 Downtown Brampton SPA Updates On April 30, 2014, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approved the Downtown Brampton Special Policy Area: Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis. The SPA update was a collaborative effort between the City of Brampton, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and TRCA. It resulted in updates to the land use permissions, policies and boundary of the Downtown Brampton SPA through amendments to the City of Brampton's Secondary Plan and Zoning By -Law adopted by City of Brampton Council. The Authority also endorsed the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -law Amendment to implement the updated SPA policies and boundaries on January 31, 2014 (RES. #A224/13). These site specific SPA policies are used by TRCA staff to inform and guide TRCA's regulatory permitting responsibilities under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act. The comprehensive SPA update was premised on a strategy to reduce the risk to life, property and infrastructure. The following is a summary of some of the key outcomes of the SPA update, • a clear vision for the rehabilitation and revitalization of Downtown Brampton • a comprehensive analysis of land use and current flood risk characterization based on technical updates by TRCA • a reduction in overall risk through strategic planning of new development and strategic redistribution of permitted development to areas with lower flood risk and emergency access • a comprehensive set of technical requirements to support flood risk management in conjunction with development approvals • no increase in development permissions above what is currently allowed within the SPA • no substantial increase to the costs associated with potential flood damages • a plan for addressing flood mitigation for the Regulatory Storm These updates allow Brampton Council to approve development applications that conform to the revised Secondary Plan and Zoning By -law without the need for further Provincial review and approval within the SPA. The update does not allow for increased intensification above what is already permitted within the revised Secondary Plan and will not allow further intensification until such time as studies to further reduce the flood risk have been completed. Further, the update incorporates the City's original Transportation Master Plan which does not recognize the valley as a key transit spine and intensification corridor, but rather Queen Street and Hurontario -Main Street. It also did not assess the implications of risk to life and property with the introduction of new transit infrastructure through the valley corridor. Bram East SPA Comprehensive Update The City of Brampton is currently undertaking a similar comprehensive update to the Bram East SPA (Figure 1) in collaboration with MMAH, MNRF and TRCA. As per provincial requirements, all opportunities to reduce the risk to life, property and infrastructure will need to be explored through this review process. Flood Remediation Work and Future Intensification TRCA is working with the City of Brampton on Phase 2: Integrated Riverine and Urban Flood Risk Analysis and Urban Drainage Study, which was informed by the SPA update and is a technical review of flood remediation alternatives for the Downtown Brampton SPA. The City's long term vision for revitalization and intensification of the historic downtown hinges on engineering studies already undertaken through the SPA update which did not account for an LRT within the valley, and potential uninterrupted conveyance of flows through the Etobicoke Creek valley. The Downtown Etobicoke Creek Flood Mitigation and Revitalization project is a major initiative in the 144 City of Brampton to provide long term solutions to flooding issues while creating new public space and amenities and enable revitalization of a designated urban growth centre. An LRT through this corridor may limit the viability and flood remediation options currently being studied to further reduce the flood risk from adjacent lands within Downtown Brampton. TRCA AND PROVINCIAL POLICIES The Conservation Authorities Act provides the legal basis for TRCA's mandate to undertake watershed planning and management programs that prevent, eliminate, or reduce the risk to life and property from flood hazards and erosion hazards, as well as encourage the conservation and restoration of natural resources. TRCA also has a delegated responsibility to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards under Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014. An LRT through the Etobicoke Creek valley contradicts TRCA's infrastructure policies as identified within TRCA's The Living City Policies, as approved by the Authority on November 28, 2014 (RES #A186/14). In addition, provincial and TRCA policies for natural hazards do not allow for new development and site alteration within a floodway. Construction of an LRT through the Etobicoke Creek valley would be contrary to TRCA policies and the tests under Ontario Regulation 166/06 for natural hazards, intrusion into and losses to the natural heritage system and safety standards relating to flood depths, velocities and emergency access into the valley during times of natural hazards. TRCA is a commenting agency under both the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, and a regulatory agency under the Conservation Authorities Act. In cases where land use approvals under the Planning Act require coordination with infrastructure approvals under the Environmental Assessment Act, an integration of the planning processes and approvals under both Acts may take place, provided the intent and requirements of both Acts are met as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). TRCA also has a responsibility as a regulatory agency to provide comments to agencies in the planning and EA process where it involves a TRCA regulated area, given that development, infrastructure and site alteration within regulated areas requires a TRCA permit. Should an LRT through the valley be pursued, an integrated approach will be required in order to ensure that both the land use planning and infrastructure approvals meet Provincial and TRCA policies and requirements as noted above. EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE There are currently two (2) critical pieces of flood control infrastructure within the City: the Brampton by -pass channel (Etobicoke Creek) and the Brampton flood protection berm located in the Bram East SPA and within the Etobicoke Creek valley. The by -pass channel is a major flood conveyance system which has the capacity to convey flows for up to the 350 -year storm event. Preliminary assessment of the flood protection berm located downstream of Downtown Brampton, but within the Bram East SPA and valley indicates that it serves to hold back flood waters close to the 350 year storm event. Currently, as part of on -going flood remediation work, TRCA and City staff are completing engineering studies on the function of the berm. Not only would an LRT within this system present an increased risk to human life, but it would also put any existing or new infrastructure at risk due to significant flood and erosion hazards. As the owner and operator of the LRT, the City would in part be held accountable for any damage to life, property or infrastructure occurring as a result of these hazards. 145 The PPS and TRCA's Living City Policies both identify climate change as a potential increased risk associated with natural hazards. The severity and frequency of storm events within the Greater Toronto Area should not be overlooked but rather incorporated into development and infrastructure planning to reduce risks to life and property associated with these types of natural hazards. Given our experience with adverse impacts to historic infrastructure within valley corridors through flooding, erosion and risk to human life, the City should be examining ways to reduce these risks rather than bringing people and infrastructure into a major flood conveyance channel, particularly when there are alternate locations for an LRT system. TRCA LANDS AND THE NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM The valley system associated with this subject area is a part of TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and is recognized as a significant valleyland /watercourse corridor within the City of Brampton. This land is owned by TRCA, under management agreement with the City of Brampton, and provides one of the few contiguous natural heritage corridors within the City. Construction of an LRT would not only result in degradation to the ecological function of this system, but also undermine public investments in community -based restoration projects that are established and /or planned within this valley system. As identified in the City of Brampton's Official Plan (Section 4.5.7 — Valleylands and Watercourse Corridors): "It is the responsibility of the City, in consultation with the Region of Peel and the area Conservation Authorities to ensure that the natural heritage features, functions, linkages and hazards associated with the valleylands and watercourse corridors are respected" It is also noted that: "Public ownership of the valleylands and watercourse corridors will permit the long term protection of these important components of the natural heritage system to ensure environmental, economic and social values that will improve the quality of life in the City" and that "Lands designated as Valleylands/watercourses Corridors... are intended primarily for the preservation and conservation of the natural features, functions and linkages': Public ownership of these valley systems ensures that they are protected over the long -term, restored and enhanced and available for conveyance of flood waters during storm events to protect development areas. These lands are also made available to the public to foster the inter - dependent relationship between humans and the natural environment and are integral in forming complete communities. Construction of an LRT through this valley system and parkland will have an impact to public enjoyment of the parkland and cannot be constructed without disturbance to natural features and ecological functions within the valley corridor. TRCA POSITION Revitalization of the Downtown Etobicoke Creek is a major initiative in the City of Brampton to provide long -term solutions to flooding issues while creating new public space and amenities, and enable revitalization of a designated Urban Growth Centre. An LRT through this corridor may limit the viability and flood remediation options currently being studied to further reduce the flood risk from adjacent lands within Downtown Brampton. The SPA update and resultant Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis introduces policies that refine the distribution of growth strategically to reduce risk to life, property and infrastructure and fulfill the City's vision for residential and employment growth contributing to a vibrant downtown, as identified in the City of Brampton's Official Plan. MR The City of Brampton is one of the first municipalities to receive Provincial approval of modifications to its SPA since the new Provincial guidelines were released in 2009. There has been a significant level of work already completed by the City, Province and TRCA to study the downtown core, update the SPA and develop a revitalization and risk management strategy. The decision to move forward with a study to locate an LRT within the Etobicoke Creek Valley would be contrary to previous approvals and investment both in time and money from the City, Province and TRCA. In addition, because the SPA update did not include the presence of an LRT within the valley, significant additional engineering work would be required to reassess the impacts to Downtown Brampton, flooding in current neighbourhoods, and the extent of potential changes to all of the previous provincially, TRCA and City- approved studies. TRCA is not supportive of an LRT route through the Etobicoke Creek Valley for all of the reasons noted above. Should the City of Brampton decide to move forward with further studies for an LRT alignment through Etobicoke Creek Valley, despite our recommendations to the contrary, it is suggested that: • an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) be completed due to the scope and scale of work that will need to be completed • the IEA integrates the land use planning needs as it relates to flood risk, emergency management, flood remediation, redevelopment and intensification objectives of the City • the City incorporates and updates as part of the study the land use permissions, policies, boundary of the Downtown Brampton SPA and amendments to the City of Brampton's Secondary Plan and Zoning By -Law, as adopted by City of Brampton Council, based on the implications of the proposed LRT The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is required to approve the Terms of Reference for any IEA. Should the Minister approve the Terms of Reference, the development of an IEA is a lengthy and expensive process, requiring detailed technical studies and extensive public consultation generally involving a technical advisory committee and a separate stakeholder advisory committee. An IEA would require a comprehensive review of public policy issues and would need to involve a number of provincial ministries to obtain their feedback regarding their opinion and support for this alignment. As such, the Ministries of Natural Resources and Forestry (as related to provincial hazard management policies, SPA designations and natural heritage); Municipal Affairs and Housing (as related to SPA and secondary plan designations), Environment and Climate Change (as related to the environmental assessment process), Ministry of Transportation (as related to provincial transportation policies), and Metrolinx (as related to provincial transit policies), will need to be engaged. Once the IEA document is complete, it is submitted for approval by the Minister. The Minister has options to approve, approve with conditions or refuse the IEA. The Minister may also make the decision to refer the IEA to mediation or to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing. TRCA staff is concerned that the level of effort and funding required to both study this option, and provide opportunity for meaningful consultation with the public, as well as provincial agencies and TRCA, has not been thoroughly considered. It is TRCA staff opinion that the required studies must be done as part of an integrated approach to planning through provisions in both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act, that an update to the Downtown SPA will be required and that current strategies for growth in the downtown core will require re- examination. Consideration should also be given to the fact that approval under Ontario Regulation 166/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act must be obtained, and it must be recognized that this project is not supported by TRCA. 147 NEXT STEPS This report will be provided to City of Brampton staff, City of Brampton Council, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Transportation, and the Chair of Metrolinx. Report prepared by: Sharon Lingertat, extension 5717 Emails: slingertat @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Emails: bwilliston(cDtrca.on.ca Date: May 17, 2016 Attachments: 2 MFOO B RAM PTO N bramptan.ca Flower City May 5, 2016 Brian Denney Chief Executive Officer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1 S4 Dear Mr. Denney, Planning and Infrastructure Services RE: LRT Alternatives (Gateway Terminal to Brampton GO) Etobicoke Creek Valley Options At its meeting of March 9, 2016, Brampton Council directed city staff to: "... work with Toronto Region Conservation staff to come to an agreement on Route 3 — Etobicoke Creek Valley, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter be brought forward to the Toronto Region Conservation Board of Directors ". Further to our meeting with you on April 28, 2016, TRCA staff still has significant concerns with a LRT route within the Etobicoke Creek valley including the following options: surface, elevated and tunnel. Based on our discussions, TRCA staff does not support these options as they are contrary to the policies of TRCA and the Province. As a result, we are requesting that TRCA staff bring forward a report to the TRCA Authority (Board) for a formal position on this matter as soon as possible as requested by Brampton Council. Please let us know if you need any further information for your report to the TRCA Authority. Sincerely, Chris Duyvestyn, P. Eng. Director, Transportation Special Projects City of Brampton Cc: Beth Williston, Associate Director, Environmental Assessment Planning, TRCA Joe Pitushka, Acting Chief, Planning & Infrastructure Services, City of Brampton The Corporation of The City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West, Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 149 GO Stat NA I. Downtown Bramaton SPA Flood Protection Berm Legend Proposed LRT Alignment R ,r, 0 100 200 400 m RES. #A65/16 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 2016 Transportation Master Plan. The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP, has removed Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage, has included a potential linkage of Pine Valley Drive within the Boyd Conservation Area, and does not have adequate provisions linking implementation objectives and actions between the draft 2016 TMP and the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP). Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Gino Rosati WHEREAS the draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP, has removed the objectives, policies and actions regarding the natural environment, proposes new road crossings of the natural heritage system (NHS), including through the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance, and provides no policy direction on climate change adaptation; AND WHEREAS the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road contains provincially significant environmental resources, a prominent valley feature, cultural resources for which the Huron - Wendat First Nation has expressed a desire to protect, was closed and declared surplus by the City of Vaughan, and was conveyed by the City of Vaughan to TRCA in 2009 to be managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the draft 2016 TMP, to include a summary of the key NHS policies of the ROP in the TMP, and to re- instate those policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage, that are not clearly incorporated within the ROP and also not included in the draft 2016 TMP, and consider including those same policies and actions in the ROP when it is updated in the future; THAT York Region be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) does not support the connection of Pine Valley Drive between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road through TRCA Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts on the natural environment, as well as the importance of the area's cultural heritage; THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to remove all explicit references to the Pine Valley Drive connection between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road from the text and schedules; THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS, including Teston Road between Keele and Dufferin Street, as well as Kirby Road between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street, and 15`h Sideroad between Keele Street and Highway 400, given that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region for study, each be required to undertake environmental assessments that include a detailed network study to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions; 151 THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to add a policy that all new crossings of the NHS be designed using innovative approaches for mitigation of impacts to the NHS, inclusive of a strong commitment to restoration and compensation for losses of the NHS; THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly support climate change adaptation measures through objectives, policies, or actions; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and the Huron - Wendat First Nation be so advised. AMENDMENT RES. #A66/16 Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT the third paragraph of the main motion be amended to read: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the draft 2016 TMP and consider including the policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage and green infrastructure solutions, in the ROP, when it is updated in the future; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP, has removed the objectives, policies and actions regarding the natural environment, proposes new road crossings of the natural heritage system (NHS), including through the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance, and provides no policy direction on climate change adaptation; AND WHEREAS the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road contains provincially significant environmental resources, a prominent valley feature, cultural resources for which the Huron - Wendat First Nation has expressed a desire to protect, was closed and declared surplus by the City of Vaughan, and was conveyed by the City of Vaughan to TRCA in 2009 to be managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the draft 2016 TMP and consider including the policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage and green infrastructure solutions, in the ROP, when it is updated in the future; 152 THAT York Region be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) does not support the connection of Pine Valley Drive between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road through TRCA Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts on the natural environment, as well as the importance of the area's cultural heritage; THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to remove all explicit references to the Pine Valley Drive connection between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road from the text and schedules; THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS, including Teston Road between Keele and Dufferin Street, as well as Kirby Road between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street, and 15`h Sideroad between Keele Street and Highway 400, given that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region for study, each be required to undertake environmental assessments that include a detailed network study to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions; THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to add a policy that all new crossings of the NHS be designed using innovative approaches for mitigation of impacts to the NHS, inclusive of a strong commitment to restoration and compensation for losses of the NHS; THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly support climate change adaptation measures through objectives, policies, or actions; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and the Huron - Wendat First Nation be so advised. BACKGROUND The 2009 TMP 2009 was based on the sustainability principles of healthy communities, sustainable natural environment, and economic vitality, each with principles, goals, and performance measures, with Principle 3 being to "protect and enhance natural and cultural environment ", including detailed policies and action items. TRCA was very supportive of this document, and advised York Region at Authority Meeting #7/09, (Res. #A151/09) in part, as follows: AND WHEREAS TRCA recognizes that overall, the Region's draft TMP is comprehensive, forward thinking, innovative and in particular, the sustainability principles are reflective of TRCA's objectives for The Living City; THEREFORE LET /T BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA fully supports the Region's draft TMP commitment to exceeding the requirements of the environmental assessment process by ensuring local and adjacent municipalities minimize infrastructure needs while enhancing natural heritage and environmental features; The draft 2016 TMP includes both an update to the 2009 TMP as well as the 2008 Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan. The draft 2016 TMP was initiated in 2013 and is part of the Region's Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process that also includes a review of the Growth Management Strategy, specific Regional Official Plan policies, and the Water and Wastewater Master Plan. As part of the update to the TMP, TRCA staff has participated in four Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The draft 2016 TMP was sent to TRCA staff on April 27, 2016 for comment. TRCA staff is aware that York Region staff is preparing a report to Regional 153 Council that will request endorsement of the draft document in June of this year, and as such an expedited review and comment process was requested. The draft 2016 TMP is based on current and detailed transportation modelling studies and provides detailed schedules of road, transit and active transportation infrastructure needs through the year 2041. The five objectives of the draft 2016 TMP are: create a world class transit system; develop a road network fit for the future; integrate active transportation in urban areas; maximize the potential of employment areas; and making the last mile work. The Regional approach of the triple bottom line of requiring gains to each of the social, economic and natural environments for all projects was first introduced in the 2007 Sustainability Strategy. Climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts support each of the three environments of the triple bottom -line approach. York Region and TRCA have been working together and separately since 2009 on several projects to advance climate change "mitigation — actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - and adaptation — actions to cope with the potential effects of climate change" (LCP, 40). York Region prepared a draft Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan that was received by Regional Council November 17, 2011. TRCA, through the Ontario Climate Consortium, completed a project with York Region to advance the climate change adaptation action planning in York Region. Vision 2051 contains actions and the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) contains objectives, policies and actions, specific to climate change mitigation and adaptation. RATIONALE The system of linear transportation infrastructure impacts, and is impacted by, the various natural systems. The objectives, policies and actions of a Transportation Master Plan provide an opportunity to implement the vision of a municipality regarding how they will manage the interactions between linear transportation infrastructure, green infrastructure and natural systems. Triple Bottom Line The draft 2016 TMP is framed around only social and economic goals, and does not bring forward the triple bottom -line (TBL) approach. The TBL requires gains to each of the social, economic and natural environments. This approach was the basis for not only the 2009 TMP, but also the 2010 ROP, Vision 2051, and it supports various objectives and policies of the TRCA Living City Policies. TRCA staff recommends that the draft 2016 TMP be revised to be clearly framed around the triple bottom line approach. 2010 Regional Official Plan (previous Provincial and municipal decisions) The ROP is foundational to the draft 2016 TMP and contains policies applicable to transportation infrastructure projects. Based upon discussions with York Region staff, staff has been advised that the objectives, policies and actions regarding the NHS were not included in the draft 2016 TMP because of reliance on the 2010 ROP. The 2010 ROP states that: • "infrastructure design and construction be sensitive to the features and functions of the greenlands system" (s.1.10 (12)) and • "that the planning, design and construction of infrastructure within the Regional Greenlands System shall enhance the Regional Greenlands System" (2.1.10 (13)). 154 These two broad policies are the main commitments in the ROP related to roads infrastructure, and similar policies were also included in the 2009 TMP. TRCA staff, in its letter response to York Region dated May 16, 2016, has requested that: 1. York Region clearly re -state the two above noted policies from the 2010 OP into the 2016 TMP to provide consistency with the 2009 TMP, and to ensure there is clear direction for all Environmental Assessments (EAs) for projects identified in the 2016 TMP. 2. The draft 2016 TMP be revised to clearly state the relationship of the 2010 ROP policies to the 2016 TMP and all EAs that follow on from the draft 2016 TMP. The 2010 ROP and the 2009 TMP both contain environmentally -based transportation planning objectives, policies, and actions. However, they are inconsistently applied in Environmental Assessments for transportation infrastructure. Most of the environmentally -based transportation objectives, policies, and actions from the 2009 TMP have not been integrated in the 2010 ROP. Missing are specific policies for infrastructure regarding avoiding significant natural heritage features, where possible; consideration of stormwater management and water balance; and the enhancement of natural heritage and environmental features and functions through consideration of eco- passages, minimizing impacts, development of best management practices, other measures to reduce vehicular - animal interaction, directional lighting, and consideration of seasonal speed signs in high wildlife mortality zones. As such, TRCA staff has recommended to York Region in its letter response that the 2016 TMP re- integrates those policies and actions from the 2009 TMP into the 2016 TMP. Additionally, staff has recommended York Region add an action item to the 2016 TMP to investigate and provide opportunity to include green infrastructure best management practices as they are developed and as appropriate. Under the immediate actions of 0 -2 years for the 2009 TMP are the goals of avoiding or enhancing the natural environment for all road projects, and taking the opportunity to improve environmental functions and habitat connectivity through upgrades to existing crossing structures. In the medium (5 -10) year term are the goals to "monitor natural heritage and environmental feature impacts resulting from transportation projects and publish a bi- annual report card" and to design transportation infrastructure to celebrate the environment. TRCA staff in its letter response advised that it supports these goals, noted that they are not part of the 2010 ROP or draft 2016 TMP, and requested that they be re- stated in the 2016 TMP through its letter response. Climate Change Adaptation Given the large capital expense to design, construct and maintain transportation infrastructure, and that the life -span of infrastructure built today faces the uncertainty of a changing climate, TRCA staff recommends that it is in the best interests of York Region to reduce their exposure to the associated economic, social and environmental risks. Based on evidence from other jurisdictions on the significant damage to transportation infrastructure York Region is vulnerable to increased flood and erosion risks that may affect transportation infrastructure, including bridges, culverts and roads. Risks can be reduced through improving the resiliency of transportation and natural systems. TRCA staff recommends that the 2016 TMP be revised to include objectives, policies and actions that support climate change adaptation measures. Pine Valley Drive Special Study Area The former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance crosses the Pine Valley Forest Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) in Boyd Conservation Area. The ESA contains high quality habitat, a distinctive valley, and areas of groundwater recharge and discharge, and it functions as a regional corridor for terrestrial and aquatic life. The Pine Valley forest is also designated as a Provincially Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest 155 (ANSI). Significant cultural resources in the vicinity suggest a high likelihood that significant cultural resources exist within the former unopened road allowance. The Huron - Wendat First Nation has expressed concerns for potential impacts on cultural resources in the area from a connection of Pine Valley Drive. The connection of Pine Valley Drive through the unopened road allowance was considered through a Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment by the City of Vaughan, initiated in 2002. However, the Minister of the Environment prevented the filing (completing) of the EA and required that the City of Vaughan undertake a more comprehensive Individual EA (known as a part 2 order). The City of Vaughan and York Region subsequently initiated the West Vaughan Transportation Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment (West Vaughan IEA), which examined transportation solutions for a much broader road network in the City of Vaughan. The first step in an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) is preparation of a Terms of Reference (TOR) outlining how the study will proceed, which must be approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (formerly the Minister of the Environment). The Minister of the Environment, in their approval of the TOR in 2006, removed consideration of the connection of Pine Valley through the unopened road allowance. Subsequently, the City of Vaughan declared the Pine Valley Drive road allowance between Rutherford Road and Club House Road surplus in 2007 and authorized the conveyance of those lands to TRCA for the express purpose of the protection and enhancement of the surrounding natural environment, and authorized the stop up and closure of the unopened road allowance. The conveyance was completed August 29, 2009. It is the recommendation of TRCA staff that the Authority respectfully requests that York Region remove all references to the Pine Valley Drive extension from the text, schedules and project sheets of the 2016 TMP, and furthermore that text be added that states that the Pine Valley Drive connection through Boyd Conservation Area not be considered due to unmitigable impacts to significant natural and cultural resources It should further be recognized in the text of the 2016 TMP that the land is in the ownership of TRCA and managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area. New Crossings of the Natural Heritage System TRCA staff note that ecological impacts were not generally considered when much of the existing road network was designed and built, and using the existing condition from which to measure impacts will not be adequate to achieve the shared goal of TRCA and York Region for the long -term sustainability of our natural systems, and may play a major role in the continued decline in the health and resiliency of our natural systems. Water quality and quantity, stream channel processes and dynamics, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality and connectivity are key elements that will need to be identified and improved as we strive to accommodate urban growth across the region while maintaining biodiversity and healthy natural systems and communities, especially under the exacerbating stress of climate change. TRCA staff recommends that the 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS each be required to undertake an environmental assessment that includes a detailed network study to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions. Further details on specific new crossings are outlined here: Teston Road The Teston Road unopened road allowance is proposed in the 2016 TMP to be opened between 2022 and 2026. The extension is within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Area, and will have significant impacts on the form and function of the existing NHS. 156 At Authority Meeting #7/09, held on September 25, 2009, Resolution #A151 /09 was approved as follows: THAT the Region be requested to amend the TMP to include the recommendation that an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) that includes a comprehensive network analysis and an environmental impact assessment be completed to determine a preferred transportation strategy for the area, was committed to in the Region's recommendations for the final 2003 Teston Road Class EA; TRCA notes that York Region is preparing a TOR for the IEA for the area of the Teston Road unopened road allowance. TRCA staff anticipates extensive involvement throughout the EA. It is the recommendation of TRCA staff that York Region revise the text of the 2016 TMP to require that the study of the Teston Road unopened road includes a detailed network study to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions. Kirby Road and 15th Sideroad The Kirby Road unopened road allowance is proposed in the 2016 TMP to be opened between 2027 and 2031 and the 15`h Sideroad unopened road allowance is proposed to be opened by 2041. Both roads are currently under the jurisdiction of the local municipality, and both are being considered for uploading to York Region. Regardless of the proponent, a connection of either of the unopened road allowances could have significant impacts on the form and function of the existing NHS. TRCA staff anticipates extensive involvement throughout each EA. It is the recommendation of TRCA staff that York Region revise the text of the 2016 TMP to require study of the Kirby Road and 15`h Sideroad unopened road allowances, given that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region and that the projects be studied through separate EAs that include detailed network studies to support analysis of the need for each project and analysis of alternative solutions to the problem. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA staff will continue to liaise with York Region staff to finalize the 2016 TMP. • TRCA staff, through the Environmental Assessment Planning section, will participate in the EAs for projects included in the 2016 TMP that potentially impact the Programs and Policies of TRCA. • TRCA staff, through the Planning and Policy section, will participate in the review of the update to the 2010 Regional Official Plan. Report prepared by: Scott Smith, extension 5758 Emails: ssmith @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Beth Williston, 416 - 388 -7460 Emails: bwilliston @trca.on.ca Date: May 17, 2016 157 RESMA67116 - SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETROFIT ACTION PLAN (SNAP) PROGRAM FUTURE DIRECTIONS Report on Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan program achievements and future program directions. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Building The Living City, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2013 Strategic Plan, identified the expansion of sustainable community building and market transformation programs, including the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) program, as a key action to achieve regional sustainability within TRCA's watersheds; WHEREAS SNAP projects deliver on multiple objectives including those identified as priorities by federal, provincial and municipal governments, such as climate action, grey and green infrastructure renewal, human health, building community capacity and resilience, and the strategic objectives of the watershed plans; AND WHEREAS TRCA's SNAP projects have been recognized and supported by a broad spectrum of partners as being an effective neighbourhood -based model for facilitating integrated urban retrofits for greater impact; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the future SNAP program, as outlined in the staff report, be endorsed as the framework for advancing implementation of neighbourhood -scale sustainability actions within TRCA's watersheds; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to work with municipalities and other neighbourhood partners toward the successful development and implementation of SNAP plans and knowledge sharing; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on an annual basis. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA introduced the SNAP projects in 2009 to accelerate sustainable community building through urban retrofit opportunities in close collaboration with municipal and community partners. The SNAP projects bring an innovative neighbourhood -based approach to sustainable urban renewal, providing place -based solutions and directions for achieving greater impact. The projects consist of integrated neighbourhood action plans and strategic implementation projects, programs and events. SNAPs contribute measureable outcomes toward the implementation of bigger picture plans and strategies. Guided by locally established targets and retrofit strategies, the SNAPs contribute to: • renewing grey and green infrastructure; • reducing energy and greenhouse gases; • restoring watershed, Great Lakes and human health; and • building community capacity and resilience for a changing climate. The SNAPs are also finding ways to overcome challenges to implementation. Individual neighbourhood SNAP pilots generate lessons learned and prototypes that can be more broadly applied. The SNAP model is effective because it: 158 • delivers on multiple objectives; • coordinates private and public realm actions; • leverages planned capital projects for greater value; • engages communities through local networks using guidance from market research; • demonstrates and tests innovative approaches; and • fosters delivery partnerships and innovation. Within the first six years of the SNAP program, action plans have been completed and implementation projects underway in five pilot neighbourhoods in Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Richmond Hill and Markham. Innovative SNAP projects have achieved the following: • Reimagined public infrastructure renewal projects, to achieve multiple sustainability objectives by taking an integrated neighbourhood scale approach and raising innovative funding to support implementation. More than a half dozen major park, road and stormwater pond projects are complete or underway, including Brampton's boulevard bioswale and Upper Nine Stormwater Pond retrofit and golf course irrigation concept, and Markham's Glencrest Park renewal. • Reached hard -to- engage homeowners and increased participation in undertaking green home renovation, harvest and skills sharing and landscaping actions through locally tailored programs. These programs have seen double the rate of uptake of mass marketed programs and established relationships with over 1,000 homeowners to date, representing channels to market for additional sustainability products and services. • Demonstrated new partnerships for privately -owned public space renewal. Partnerships with private commercial and multi -unit residential landowners, community social enterprise and tenants have resulted in a de -pave project at the Russet Housing Cooperative (Mississauga) and numerous revitalization initiatives as part of the San Romanoway Revival Project (Toronto). • Generated socio- economic benefits, alongside environmental outcomes, including skills training, income opportunities for residents, active living and other health benefits, community connections and food sharing, among others. • Leveraged municipal capital budgets to raise over $2 million dollars for SNAP program development and implementation. • Engaged 4,000 people in over 100 programs and events, and formed over 140 partnerships. These activities have brought people of diverse cultures and age's together and helped people connect with nature and each other, quite possibly in sustained ways. In 2014, TRCA staff conducted a Five Year Program Review with input from a wide spectrum of partners, and confirmed strong partner support with good feedback for future SNAP work. Results of the Program Review are summarized in the report: SNAP Five Year Program Review 2009 -2014, Transforming Neighbourhoods — Place -based solutions and directions for greater impact (TRCA, 2014). Report and video of innovation highlights are available on www. sustainableneighbourhoods.ca /wp /publications /. The recommendations arising from the Review provided directions for a refined planning model, scaling up residential programs, scaling up lessons from public infrastructure renewal concepts, sharing knowledge and identification of future SNAPs in association with municipal infrastructure priorities. At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A40/14 approved recommendations from the Program Review and directed staff to continue to work with partners toward the implementation of SNAP plans and development of new retrofit plans. Since 2014, the recommendations of the Program Review have been incorporated into ongoing work and identified as part of future program activities. 159 Attachment 1 contains a full summary of the many key achievements since 2014 and planned activities within each of the SNAP neighbourhood projects. Learnings, Gaps and Barriers The SNAP model has had some great successes, however there are still challenges to the implementation of even common urban retrofits, let alone innovative sustainability projects. These challenges have been identified by project teams and during the Program Review. Key challenges include: • Integrated approaches, collaborative arrangements and behaviour change take time, therefore longer timeframes are needed to measure outcomes. • Perceived cost and effort of multi- objective designs relative to single - purpose quick fixes, for which cost is often still a barrier. This suggests that new methods of measuring and reporting are needed that can evaluate and rationalize cost sharing for the overall project benefits for a range of partner programs (e.g. socio- economic as well as environmental). • Misalignment of various departmental workplans and budgets can limit the ability to take advantage of timely opportunities for integrated projects and fall short of realizing full potential outcomes. Integrated project opportunities need to be identified earlier in the capital works planning cycle. • Need for new approaches to access additional innovative thinkers and secure partner commitment to create the space and culture for experimentation. Context for the Future SNAP Program Direction Based on partner feedback during the Five Year Program Review in 2014 and further project experience and consultations during 2015, strategic directions and key program areas have been defined to guide future SNAP Program activities. This turning point marks a shift from a series of pilot projects to a longer term program commitment by TRCA. Approval of the future SNAP program will confirm support for the growth of the program, its strategic directions and areas of focus. This will enable staff to respond effectively and appropriately to interest expressed by prospective partners. The program will also clearly communicate the services TRCA provides and strengthen TRCA's position to develop projects. The strategic directions of the future SNAP program will align TRCA staff to assist in overcoming further barriers to urban retrofits. TRCA Strategic Priorities Building The Living City, TRCA's 2013 Strategic Plan identified the expansion of community and market transformation programs, including SNAP, as a key action to accelerate the retrofit of communities needed in developing a sustainable city region. TRCA's watershed plans demonstrate that sustainable design must be implemented in new greenfield development and in retrofits of existing urban areas, simply to maintain watershed conditions, let alone improve them. The Living City Policies contain direction for TRCA's advocacy role in the process of building sustainable communities and recommendations for TRCA's work with its partners. SNAPS provide a forum for partnerships that can demonstrate, test, evaluate and learn from innovative approaches and help existing communities become more sustainable. 160 Current and Emerging Government Policy Priorities and Opportunities The future SNAP program will assist TRCA in advocating the role SNAP can play in providing on- the - ground action in response to current policy priorities. There is an increasingly urgent need for urban retrofits to address a wide range of issues. For example: • The Federation of Canadian Municipalities' 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card found that one third of Canada's municipal infrastructure is at risk of rapid deterioration, and noted that investments in repair and upkeep are needed in the short term to prevent a rapid decline in the condition of municipal assets (Jan 2016). • The Ontario Government's Climate Change Strategy states that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 2° C rise in average global temperatures. If the world does not take strong action within the next decade, we are on track to see a 4° C rise, at which point the damage from climate change would be irreversible. It is crucial that we take steps today to fight climate change, protect the environment, build a low- carbon, high - productivity economy and ensure strong communities for the future (November 2015). • Partner municipalities face the overwhelming task of implementing numerous plans and strategies, including: municipal energy plans, climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies, infrastructure asset management plans, stormwater management (SWM) retrofits, basement flood protection priorities, neighbourhood improvement strategies and many other public policy objectives. Best Practices and Trends in Urban Renewal There is a growing community of practice that recognizes the effectiveness of a neighbourhood, or "ecodistrict ", scale approach to urban renewal. The Ecodistricts movement, which emerged from Portland, Oregon around the same time as the inception of TRCA's SNAPs, promotes a very similar holistic planning approach as SNAP and is gaining global recognition. The Canadian Green Building Council has indicated an interest in promoting the Ecodistricts model in Canada. SNAPS are already well - positioned to serve as a local delivery agent of this neighbourhood -based planning model. A "collective impact" approach is becoming recognized as essential for promoting large scale social change and dealing with complex problems, such as the implementation of sustainable urban retrofits. Collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants (Kania and Kramer, 2011). TRCA and our SNAP partners are already providing a collective impact approach, and the SNAP program will continue to support, strengthen and learn from this approach to accelerate sustainable urban retrofits. Social innovations refer to new concepts and practices, some of which are system- changing, which resolve existing social, cultural, economic and environmental challenges for the public good (Centre for Social Innovation, 2016). Increasingly these necessary innovations are coming from initiatives that foster an intersection of the for - profit, nonprofit and public sectors. SNAPs are creating a space for such social innovations to occur. Future SNAP Program Goal The continuing goal of the SNAP program is to accelerate the creation of sustainable neighbourhoods in older urban areas. 161 Principles Taking a neighbourhood -based approach to urban retrofits, finding ways to overcome barriers to implementation and achieving multi - functional outcomes from planned activities will continue to be underpinning principles of the program. Strategic Directions The following strategic directions will guide future program activities: • build on the partnerships already established in the pilot neighbourhoods to deliver even greater impact toward targets; • incorporate approaches to address continuing challenges that hinder urban retrofit implementation; • build capacity among SNAP partners for additional innovation and implementation activities; • expand the application of successful innovations, including the neighbourhood model itself; • strengthen the partnership and facilitate knowledge sharing; • work toward achieving financial sustainability. Program Areas The Program will consist of four Areas: Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning and Design (Enable): This Program Area involves the provision of planning and advisory services, which will enable the development of new SNAP plans within and external to TRCA's jurisdiction. The work includes: site selection, scoping and workplan development, action planning, community engagement, market research and fundraising. TRCA staff will provide this role on a fee for service basis. Roles and associated fees and funding arrangements are determined on a case by case basis, depending on project scale and scope, data availability and the capacity of the partner to dedicate resources (staff, technical studies etc.). TRCA staff regularly receives enquiries from municipalities, other conservation authorities (CA) and other groups within and beyond TRCA's jurisdiction who are interested in applying the SNAP planning model or learning from TRCA's innovative approaches on component projects. Provision of this service will allow TRCA to share the experience we have gained and grow the SNAP program. A greater number of SNAPs will increase the impact of the strategic neighbourhood approach and improve the potential for attracting more substantial partnerships due to increased market potential and networks. 2. Sustainable Neighbourhood Implementation and Facilitation (Innovate): Projects within this Program Area advance implementation and demonstrations in the five pilot SNAP "innovation labs ", as well as in new SNAP neighbourhoods as action plans are prepared. Selection of projects is based on their ability to address action plan priority outcomes, their strategic role in engaging key stakeholders, the opportunity to demonstrate new approaches and the availability of necessary resources. Priority projects and TRCA's role are determined in consultation with SNAP Neighbourhood Project Management Teams, and can range from facilitation of multiple SNAP implementation projects with a variety of delivery partners to direct responsibility for leading specific implementation projects in coordination with internal TRCA departments. Funding for implementation is project specific and often derives from a combination of sources, including planned capital, innovative private and public sector grants and in -kind partnerships and donations. 162 3. Knowledge Sharing and Think Tanks (Advance): Projects within this Program Area aim to strengthen SNAP program effectiveness by facilitating intra -SNAP dialogue, knowledge sharing and connections with extended partner networks. These efforts increase the potential for garnering more significant resources, expertise and support for testing new approaches. Initiatives within this Area will also tackle persistent implementation challenges shared by many of TRCA's partners, in order to advance the practice of sustainable urban retrofits. Additional expertise, thought - leaders and research are brought together to inform issues in one or more SNAPs, and use the SNAPs as case studies to guide industry directions. To a large degree these initiatives will complement ongoing neighbourhood projects, and therefore will be considered as part of project budget development. It is anticipated that these forums will also position SNAP to access additional special grants and sponsorships. 4. Scaling up (Export): Projects within this Program Area aim to provide guidance for expanding and exporting proven solutions. Successful innovations within neighbourhood SNAPs are scaled up to achieve greater impact and realize additional return on investment in other locations having similar characteristics. This Area also includes initiatives to assist partners in identifying locations which could benefit from an integrated neighbourhood -based approach to urban retrofit. These initiatives will be supported through a combination of fee for service and other special project funding arrangements. Specific projects within each Program Area will be chosen to reflect priorities identified by municipalities and other partners through various initiatives, including watershed plans, climate action plans, infrastructure renewal plans and other strategies, and through consultation with relevant groups (e.g. neighbourhood SNAP Project Management Teams, SNAP Program Advisory Group, residents etc.). Projects will only be launched when necessary funding, resources and partnerships can be secured to ensure the project's viability. Current projects within the four Program Areas are described under the Details of Work to be Done section of this report. FINANCIAL DETAILS Municipal capital funding from regions of Peel and York, and City of Toronto has formed the core budget for SNAP neighbourhood planning and implementation projects to date. This capital funding has been critical in leveraging two to four times more funding from other private and public sector partners, depending on the project and year. For example, in 2015 the total SNAP budget was $1 million, with 60% ($600,000) from regional municipal capital and 40% ($400,000) derived from other sources. The other sources included a local municipality (City of Markham), private foundations via The Living City Foundation (e.g. Weston Foundation, RBC Blue Water, Metcalf, Boise Project Up), federal (FCM Green Municipal Fund) and provincial (Local Food Fund, Great Lakes Community Guardian Fund, Trillium). In addition, significant in -kind products and services are contributed from implementing partners, including municipalities, community groups and organizations, and private sector businesses. Staff will continue to work towards improving private and public funding support for implementation activities associated with TRCA's SNAP program and individual SNAP neighbourhood projects. Staff anticipates opportunities to complement current budgets through alignment with priority government initiatives and associated funding programs, such as: • federal green infrastructure, affordable housing and energy efficiency; • Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund; 163 provincial climate action, greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade revenues, infrastructure renewal, accessibility and health; municipal infrastructure renewal, stormwater management fee revenue, social and health programs, including those supporting the aging demographic. TRCA will also continue to support the efforts of our municipal and community partners in the preparation and securement of grants for joint projects. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A number of projects are currently underway or in planning stages for 2016, within the four Program Areas: Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning and Design • SNAP Planning and Advisory Service — starting a new SNAP in Caledon and working to expand services to groups external to TRCA through a pilot partnership with Credit Valley Conservation, Brampton and Peel. • Collaboration with Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) on Ecodistricts — exploring the service TRCA could provide as a local delivery agent for Ecodistricts. Sustainable Neighbourhood Implementation and Facilitation • Strategic Projects and Programs — Attachment 1 contains a summary of ongoing and planned projects determined in coordination with local SNAP Project Management Teams. Especially innovative projects include: • Stormwater management pond retrofit design to provide local irrigation water supply as a public - private win -win (County Court SNAP, Brampton); • Suburban park renewal as a new model for integrated infrastructure renewal and catalyst for community engagement in home retrofit action (County Court SNAP, Brampton and Bayview Glen SNAP, Markham); • Multi -unit residential (MUR) revitalization through partnerships with private landowners, tenant engagement and community groups and utilizing multi - functional design (Black Creek SNAP, Toronto); • Capacity building for local social enterprise (Black Creek SNAP, Toronto); • Greening infill development through builder engagement, best practices guidance and demonstration partnerships (Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill); • Home retrofit programs delivering on multiple- objectives through a locally - tailored one - window approach and fostering neighbor to neighbor connections (Burnhamthorpe SNAP, Mississauga; Bayview Glen SNAP, Markham and others); • Streamlined SNAP Action Planning ( Caledon SNAP, Caledon). Knowledge Sharing and Think Tank Forums • SNAP Program Advisory Group — convening municipal staff liaisons 1 -2 times per year to facilitate intra -SNAP knowledge sharing. • Annual SNAP communication strategies — preparing an updated communications strategy for the future SNAP Program, including SNAP's strong contributions to climate action. • Socio- economic metrics project — leading a project to refine metrics and provide preliminary assessment of socio- economic impacts of SNAPS. • Suburban Park Renewal — planning an initiative to engage innovative thought - leaders in one or more case study SNAP park renewal projects to identify new ideas to address challenges. 164 Scaling Up and Future SNAPs • Workplans identifying future integrated infrastructure projects — discussions are underway with prospective partners to develop a project that would help municipalities enhance the impact of planned capital projects, identify priority locations for future SNAP projects and support long term workplanning and budgeting for integrated projects. • Black Creek SNAP Harvest the Rain Home Retrofit Program expansion — piloting the delivery of this program to TRCA's Erosion Remediation program clients and exploring further applications in other similar neighbourhoods. • Mount Dennis Eco- Neighbourhood — exploring TRCA's role in supporting the Mount Dennis Community Association in its initiative to develop an eco- neighbourhood. Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, 416- 661 -6600, extension 5253 Email: smeek(cDtrca.on.ca For information contact: Sonya Meek, 416- 661 -6600, extension 5253 Email: smeek(cDtrca.on.ca Date: April 14, 2016 Attachments: 1 165 Attachment 1 Key Accomplishments and Planned Activities within Each SNAP Neighbourhood Key accomplishments of each SNAP during 2009 -2015 are briefly identified. Planned activities for 2016 are listed. TRCA is the lead partner for 2016 activities, unless otherwise noted. Dozens of partners are involved in the delivery of these initiatives. Black Creek SNAP, Toronto Key Accomplishments: ✓ Action Plan completed, including design concepts. ✓ Installation of San Romanoway naturalization areas, community amenities, Sunshine Community Vegetable Garden and Fruit Tree Orchard (Toronto's largest urban orchard creation). ✓ Approximately 150 balcony gardens in five towers. ✓ Multiple skills training programs and income opportunities for residents. ✓ Connected tower tenants and single family home residents through intergenerational skills sharing, backyard sharing and social enterprise. ✓ Surplus harvest donation program from the single family homes to the towers. ✓ Single family homes (SFH) residential retrofit program "Harvest the Rain" engaged 11% of hard -to -reach population and achieved significant home retrofits. ✓ Installed rainharvested supported gardens and low impact development (LID) at MUR and ICI properties. ✓ Grants awarded by RBC Blue Water, Great Lakes Community Guardian Fund, Local Food Fund, Metcalf Foundation, Boise Project Up, Trillium Foundation and Weston Foundation. Planned Activities 2016: Residential home retrofit program `Harvest the Rain " - encouraging homeowners to retrofit their homes and properties, addressing SWM, basement flooding protection, tree canopy coverage, energy efficiency and harvest donation. Urban Agriculture Initiatives - fostering community resiliency and building capacity by promoting food security and skills development in this food desert. Includes harvest donation pick -up and delivery to meal programs, skills sharing, backyard sharing, fruit tree care services, etc. San Romanoway Tower Revival - precedent- setting private /public partnership to sustainably revitalize property grounds and implement indoor energy efficiency retrofits, while improving community's socio- economic conditions Phase 1 (63 plot allotment garden, fruit tree orchard, pollinator gardens, naturalization areas) constructed in 2015 - Phase 2 (orchard expansion, additional naturalization, art installations, skills training expansion) being installed in 2016. • e County Court SNAP, Brampton Key Accomplishments: ✓ Action Plan completed, including design concepts. ✓ Cutting -edge community engagement (80 events, 1,700 people). ✓ Brampton's first bio- filter swale constructed. ✓ Grants awarded by FCM, RBC Blue Water, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), others. ✓ Green Home Makeover demonstration shows significant energy and water savings (44% and 41 % respectively). ✓ Green Home retrofits promoted neighbourhood -wide. Planned Activities 2016: Upper Nine SWM Pond Retrofit Design and Environmental Assessment (EA) (City of Brampton lead, TRCA advice and support) - Legacy project to address critical public infrastructure retrofit and create community destination and improved sense of place. Integrated design process and community involvement. Testing new approaches to integrate enhanced stormwater treatment, natural heritage, public amenities (e.g. entrance, boardwalk, meeting area, lookouts, public art installations, signage). Concept developed, detailed design in 2016, construction following. Stormwater Irrigation Project final technical studies (Brampton Golf Club lead, TRCA advice and support) - Rainwater harvesting from Upper Nine SWM pond to irrigate golf club, reducing tap water use by 50 %, up to 100% overtime. Golf Club seeking approval from their board in 2016 to undertake final technical assessment / system master plan and approvals and monitoring of water quality prior to usage. Construction would follow pond retrofit. Neighbour -to- Neighbour Connections - Building a foundation of community cohesion, capacity and leadership for home improvement and resilience. Deep engagement of culturally diverse residents, and activities to support leadership capacity (e.g. local discussions, formation of local group, neighbour -led retrofit parties, etc.). Ongoing in 2016. Bioretention with boulevards (City lead,- TRCA monitoring) -Support community education and appreciation. Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) 2016 -2017 monitoring. Meadow establishment and signage design /installation in 2016. Burnhamthorpe SNAP, Mississauga The Action Plan was completed and endorsed by the City of Mississauga Council in September 2015. The Plan supports environmental resilience and active lifestyles over three major areas of focus: Residential Resilience through increased uptake in lot level stormwater and energy actions; Food -Tower Connection for food security and greater neighbourhood connections through local food production; and Occupying the Street through creating greener, more vibrant streets over time. 167 Key Accomplishments: ✓ Action Plan completed, including design concepts. ✓ Community engagement established via school network. ✓ Depave Paradise Project. ✓ Community Garden Project. ✓ Grants awarded by FCM, Green Communities Canada, RBC Blue Water. Planned Activities 2016: • Residential home retrofit program —a "one water' based approach by fostering collaborative promotions of lot level stormwater management actions to address the City of Mississauga's new SWM charge program and the Region of Peel's downspout disconnection rebate program, with other retrofits to be promoted in subsequent years. Raingarden installation at Sheridan Garden Centre — a partnership project with Sheridan Nurseries, Ecosource and TRCA to create a living showcase aimed at promoting homeowner participation in the residential home retrofit. • Environmental movie nights (Community led; TRCA support). Caledon SNAP, Caledon Key Accomplishments: ✓ Neighbourhood selected to address multiple partner priorities. ✓ Project management team established. ✓ Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund application submitted. Planned Activities 2016: • Action Plan Development (Town/TRCA lead). Community Engagement -Engagement of local leaders and community champions; leading inspiring engagement activities with residents, local groups, schools, students; nurturing of a local neighbourhood team to support long term ownership; building awareness of the SNAP project in the community; cross promotion of other projects. • Social Research - Delivery of residents surveys, focus groups and interviews as part of residential program design. Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill Key Accomplishments: ✓ Action Plan completed. ✓ Two Eco- Landscaping Front Yard Makeover Demonstrations. ✓ LID performance monitoring shows rain gardens and soakaways can capture 13 mm rain events. ✓ Residential eco- landscaping program has engaged over 500 people, including over 300 households generating double the rate of uptake on partner programs in SNAP area as Town -wide. ✓ Bond Lake Public School bio -swale installed. • i Planned Activities 2016: • Residential Eco- Landscaping - cross promotion of available workshops and tools to assist homeowners in implementing low maintenance, eco- friendly landscaping. • Sustainability Best Practice Guidance for Infill Site Redevelopment —exploring partnership with Town of Richmond Hill using Lake Wilcox SNAP as a pilot. Bawiew Glen SNAP. Markham The Action Plan was completed and endorsed by the City of Markham Council in May 2016. The plan leverages public infrastructure renewal projects addressing local flooding, through enhanced designs that achieve synergies with municipal and watershed objectives and community benefits. Inspiring green and healthy living, key project areas include road right of way alternatives, integrated park concepts, aging urban forest and succession planning, and a locally tailored program for green home improvement. This SNAP was the recipient of a 2016 National Award of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects. Key Accomplishments: ✓ Action Plan completed, including design concepts. ✓ Community engagement established via school network. ✓ Grants awarded by FCM, RBC Blue Water and CMHC. Planned Activities 2016: Glencrest Park Renewal (City of Markham lead; TRCA coordination, advice and role in implementation) — installation of raingarden, naturalization plantings, pollinator garden, looped trail and other features that add beauty, community amenities and environmental function to rehabilitation works associated with a stormwater infrastructure project for flood remediation. Residential home retrofit program — pilot program will focus on promoting solar powered heaters for swimming pools, ash tree removal and replacement and cross promotion of available programs for other home retrofit priorities, including water and energy conservation. • Community engagement and animation —through school network; handprinting and animal footprinting, planting and other events are planned. 169 RESMA68 116 - MUD CREEK REACH 2 PROJECT Contract #10001004 — Design /Build Services for the Construction of a Pedestrian Crossing. Award of Contract #10001004 for the supply of all labour, equipment, materials, design, and engineering services necessary for construction of a pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek Reach 2, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT Contract #10001004 for the supply of all labour, equipment, materials, design and engineering services necessary for construction of a pedestrian crossing at Mud Creek Reach 2 in the City of Toronto be awarded to McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd. at a total cost of $231,969.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded design builder, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other design builder that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been undertaking channel restoration works along Mud Creek on behalf of the City of Toronto since 2011. TRCA has also been involved with recent trail infrastructure development within the Don Valley Brick Works (DVBW) Park located adjacent to Mud Creek. Since 2014, the City of Toronto's Urban Forestry group has made significant improvements to the trail system and user circulation throughout the DVBW. New ecologically sustainable trails have been built, unofficial trails have been closed, and existing trails improved. New interpretive signage and wayfinding has also helped to improve visitor circulation. Currently, there is no formal entrance to the north end of the DVBW, which has resulted in a number of issues for the park, park users, and local residents. Informal trail development has degraded sensitive habitats and has caused significant erosion along the fragile North Slope and along the newly stabilized banks of Mud Creek. Some of these informal trails also lead pedestrians across private property. 170 In 2015, City of Toronto staff asked TRCA for assistance in planning, designing, and implementing a trail infrastructure project known as the DVBW North Entrance Project. The objective of this project is to bring a formalized trail off of the Beltline Trail, across a new pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek, and connect to the north -west corner of the park's existing official trail system. TRCA retained a consultant in late 2015 to complete a hydraulic analysis and fluvial geomorphic assessment to confirm the preferred location and dimensions for the proposed pedestrian crossing structure. This project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will be the development of the trail connection from the DVBW Park to the east bank of Mud Creek at the proposed pedestrian crossing location. The second phase will be implementation of the proposed pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek which will complete the trail connection. Having one formal entrance and trail to the northwest end of the DVBW will help to funnel visitors directly into the park and mitigate pedestrian traffic on sensitive areas and private property. RATIONALE A Design -Build Request for Proposal (RFP) for design builders for Contract #10001004 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http: / /www.biddingo.com /) on Thursday, March 3rd, 2016. The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 65% technical criteria and the remaining 35% on the fee proposal. The evaluation criteria included the following: • Experience, qualifications, and availability of Consultant and its employees proposed for the Services; • Consultant's understanding of the Services, Project and Scope of Work; • Proposed approach and methodology for the coordination of Services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them; • Proposed schedule, benchmarks, timelines and work plan, and ability to comply with proposed schedule; and • Reasonableness of cost. Request for Proposal documents were received by the following nine (9) general contractors: • Algonquin Bridge Inc.; • Bridgecon Construction Ltd.; • Bronte Construction Ltd.; • Dynex Construction Inc.; • Ground Force Foundations Inc.; • Hobden Construction Company Ltd.; • McPherson - Andrews Contracting Ltd.; • Newton Group; and • TBG Environmental Inc. A mandatory site meeting was held on Tuesday March 15'h, 2016. Proposals closed on March 315`, 2016 at 12:OOpm and proposals were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee on Thursday March 315`, 2016. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Ashour Rehana, Matt Johnston, James Dickie and Mark Preston) reviewed the submitted proposals and evaluated them based on the aforementioned criteria. The results of the evaluation are as follows: 171 Based on the evaluation of the received proposals, it was concluded that the combined technical and fee proposal valued at $231,969.00 submitted by McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd. offered the best service for value among the design builders and whose technical capacity matched the project needs. Although Hobden Construction had the lowest fee proposal, their technical proposal lacked critical details that staff feel is reflective of the low cost, and that to engage them creates a risk of bringing the final cost up to or higher than the next lowest bidder, as staffs estimate for this contract was approximately $250,000. Therefore staff recommend that McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd. be awarded Contract #10001004 at a total amount not to exceed $231,969.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST; it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications. This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #3 under TRCA's current 10 -year strategic plan, which is to Rethink Greenspace to Maximize its Value. Installing the proposed pedestrian crossing will encourage public access and help to appropriately direct pedestrian traffic away from sensitive areas. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #186 -38. Report prepared by: Nivedha Sundararajah, 647 - 201 -8463 Emails: nsundararajah @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647 - 808 -6542 Emails: arehana @trca.on.ca Date: May 13, 2016 Attachments: 1 172 Technical Technical Financial Financial Total Overall TOTAL BIDDERS Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking TENDER Score Score Score AMOUNT 65% 35% 100% Plus HST McPherson- 63.5 1 24.5 2 88.0 1 $231,969.00 Andrews Contracting Hobden 51.6 2 35 1 86.6 2 $152,400.00 Construction Bronte 43,9 3 17.5 3 61.4 3 $277,800.00 Construction j j j Based on the evaluation of the received proposals, it was concluded that the combined technical and fee proposal valued at $231,969.00 submitted by McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd. offered the best service for value among the design builders and whose technical capacity matched the project needs. Although Hobden Construction had the lowest fee proposal, their technical proposal lacked critical details that staff feel is reflective of the low cost, and that to engage them creates a risk of bringing the final cost up to or higher than the next lowest bidder, as staffs estimate for this contract was approximately $250,000. Therefore staff recommend that McPherson- Andrews Contracting Ltd. be awarded Contract #10001004 at a total amount not to exceed $231,969.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST; it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications. This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #3 under TRCA's current 10 -year strategic plan, which is to Rethink Greenspace to Maximize its Value. Installing the proposed pedestrian crossing will encourage public access and help to appropriately direct pedestrian traffic away from sensitive areas. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #186 -38. Report prepared by: Nivedha Sundararajah, 647 - 201 -8463 Emails: nsundararajah @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647 - 808 -6542 Emails: arehana @trca.on.ca Date: May 13, 2016 Attachments: 1 172 14G ac m� Legend a LJ a a u a t 'y Proposed Bridge Toronto and Region Conservation 16t The Living, City f d Lake Onl.do a ••1 RES. #A69 116 - PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto. Approval of the "Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ". Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT item 8.7- Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and region Conservation Authority, be deferred to Authority Meeting #5116, scheduled to be held on June 24, 2016. RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Nay Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Nay Mike Mattos Yea Frances Nunziata Nay Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea CARRIED RES. #A70 /16 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE PARKING LOT EXPRESSION OF INTEREST Information Update. An information update on the status of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest referenced in Resolution #A257/15, from Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT the staff report dated May 10, 2016 on the status of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest be received; 174 AND FUTHER THAT staff be directed to report back at Authority Meeting #6/16, scheduled to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcome of Phase 1. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) parking lot property is a 2.65 hectare (6.56 acre) gravel and asphalt surfaced parking lot that primarily services BCPV. In 2006, 2008 and 2013, with the support of the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff completed studies that considered this site as TRCA's long term head office location. This site was investigated based on its strategic location at the centre of TRCA's jurisdiction and its proximity to public transit, Black Creek Pioneer Village and institutional partners such as York University. In 2014, after examining the existing planning and zoning permissions it became apparent that developing a new headquarters building on the BCPV parking lot site would involve a lengthier and more challenging planning approval process, which would not be conducive to constructing a new headquarters prior to the end of TRCA's six year lease term for 101 Exchange Avenue. Therefore, in 2015 DTAH was retained by TRCA to complete a two- phased planning and design approach for 5 Shoreham Drive and the BCPV parking lot. Phase 1 established a master plan that explored potential redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot and tested the capacity of the site to support various development scenarios, while considering the ongoing operational needs of Black Creek Pioneer Village. This master plan was presented at the July 24, 2015, Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group ( LTOAWG) meeting. At the December 4, 2015 LTOAWG meeting staff was directed to prepare parameters for an Expression of Interest (EOI) for the proposed development of all or a portion of the BCPV parking lot. These parameters were submitted for review by the LTOAWG at the January 15, 2016 meeting, and followed by Authority approval on January 29, 2016. Furthermore, Resolution #257/15 from the January Authority directed staff to proceed with the Expression of Interest (EOI) for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site and report back at Authority Meeting #4/16. RATIONALE Prior to the release of the BCPV EOI, staff consulted with City of Toronto Planning staff on March 7, 2016 and formally submitted the BCPV EOI document for their review and comment on March 8, 2016. Based on City staff comments received on March 22, 2016, staff revised the BCPV EOI document and re- submitted to the City for review on April 5, 2016. TRCA staff received supportive final comments from the City on April 15, 2016, and proceeded with the release of the BCPV EOI on May 3, 2016. The purpose of the EOI for the BCPV parking lot property is to seek an innovative and experienced partner(s) to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the redevelopment of the property. As part of the response to this EOI, potential partner(s) may choose to present an opportunity for how they may support TRCA in the development of a new Head Office at 5 Shoreham Drive, as part of the redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot. TRCA's ideal partner(s) will have both the vision and expertise to complete a master plan process that realizes a property development that features opportunities for compatible recreational, cultural, and /or institutional uses that complement Black Creek Pioneer Village and the surrounding community and demonstrates sustainable, innovative and rich city building ideas and principles. This EOI is comprised of two phases: Phase 1 is a Request for Qualifications to identify a list of qualified potential partners; and Phase 2 is a Request for Proposals from those prequalified in Phase 1, which will include submission of detailed business cases. 175 The Phase 1 EOI document issued on May 3, 2016 requests a high level summary of respondents' intent for the parking lot at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway and summary of qualifications. The EOI was advertised on procurement websites Biddingo.com and Merx.com, as well as through direct invitation. A mandatory property tour will be held by potential respondents to attend on May 25, 2016, and the submission deadline is June 21, 2016. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the EOI phases will be provided through the Major Facilities Capital Projects, account code 006 -50. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Complete tasks associated with Phase 1 of the EOI and report back to report back at Authority Meeting #6/16, scheduled to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcomes of Phase 1 of the BCPV EOI. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach @trca.on.ca Date: May 11, 2016 176 RESMA71 116 - CRITICAL EROSION AND FLOODWORKS PROJECTS Proposed 2016 Workplan. Submission of TRCA's proposed 2016 Critical Erosion and Floodworks Projects in accordance with the City of Toronto's Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan (2014). Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff reported on the management of erosion and slope stability hazards related to the July 8, 2013 severe weather event at Authority meetings #6113 held on July 26, 2013, #11113 on January 31, 2014, #6/14 on July 25, 2014, #10/14 on January 9, 2015 and #7/15 on July 24, 2015; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff was directed at Authority Meeting #7/15 under Resolution #A136/15 to continue with the implementation of several ongoing and new priority projects described in the revised 2015 workplan; AND WHEREAS staff were directed at Authority Meeting #7115 under Resolution #A136/15 to allocate a portion of each year's funding to lower priority sites where proactive works may prevent significant future damage to or loss of property; AND WHEREAS staff has raised a number of concerns enforcing TRCA's Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy through the implementation of several critical erosion projects since 2014; AND WHEREAS some property owners requesting assistance with erosion control works have expressed concerns of their properties being flagged as 'at -risk' though TRCA's investigations; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be authorized to commence with the implementation of new projects as outlined in the 2016 workplan described herein; THAT staff be directed to report back at a future Authority Meeting with proposed revisions to TRCA's Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy; THAT staff be directed to seek legal advice regarding the disclosure of information collected through TRCA's erosion investigations that involve private property; THAT staff be directed to keep the 2017 -2026 works forecast for private properties waiting for assistance confidential until further legal direction has been obtained regarding the disclosure of information and a staff report with recommendations is brought back to a future Authority Meeting for approval; THAT staff be directed to pursue additional sources of funding from the Province for erosion control works; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be provided to Toronto Water in compliance with the City of Toronto's 2014 Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan. CARRIED 177 BACKGROUND On July 8, 2013 an intense downpour rolled through the Toronto area, causing wide - spread flooding, surcharges of water infrastructure, and significant damage to the river and valley systems including extensive damage to park trails and pedestrian bridges, numerous debris jams, and an unprecedented number of slope failures on hundreds of private properties that border these natural areas. TRCA Restoration Services (now Restoration and Infrastructure) staff became the first responders to flood and erosion related damage following this event, inventorying and assessing more than 500 sites over the course of several months. TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years under various program names and special projects, but the July 8, 2013 event significantly increased the number of hazards in the Toronto area, requiring TRCA to rethink its approach to erosion management in its jurisdiction to more effectively deal with the effects of climate change. On July 26, 2013 staff brought the first post -storm erosion damage report to Authority Meeting #6/13, providing an overview of the information collected to date with recommendations for further action. At that time, only 141 properties had been inspected and the full extent of damage was not known, however six sites were flagged as requiring immediate action due to the perceived level of risk to houses and /or municipal infrastructure. Staff acted quickly to initiate engineering investigations at these and other top priority sites to determine the appropriate course of action using reallocated 2013 funding. At Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014, staff provided an update to the Authority detailing the work completed to date, and the estimated cost of each major activity. By this time, the total number of sites inspected had risen to 482, and the preliminary estimate of damages was approximately $37 million. It is noted that this estimate included only those properties reported to and inspected by TRCA, and excluded damages to municipal lands and infrastructure, which TRCA's municipal partners reported on separately to avoid double- counting. Also presented at Authority Meeting #11/13 was a workplan outlining a list of projects recommended for remedial works in 2014 using 2014 -2015 Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding from the City of Toronto, which also provided funding for priority projects not related to the July 8, 2013 flood; and 2014 -2015 core erosion management funding from the Region of Peel. In accordance with TRCA's Erosion Management Program, all work proceeded on a priority basis, to ensure the most hazardous sites be addressed first. In the spring of 2014 the City of Toronto requested TRCA's assistance with the drafting of a Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan to be received by the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee from the General Manager of Toronto Water. The purpose of the Plan was to advise City Council of the existing programs in place to manage watercourse erosion risks and to respond to damage caused by accelerated erosion during intense storms; and to request that Council uphold the principles of watercourse management in Toronto. One of the principles included a requirement that Toronto Water continue to report to City Council, as part of the annual Toronto Water budget submission, the 10 year TRCA/Toronto Water coordinated capital plan of erosion improvement works. To uphold this principle, TRCA and Toronto Water meet regularly to review priorities and TRCA provides Toronto Water with an annual workplan for all projects proposed to be completed with the Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding prior to proceeding, to promote collaboration and cost savings through coordinated planning, design and construction processes. 178 As an update to the January 2014 workplan, a mid -year report was brought to Authority Meeting #6/14 on July 25, 2014 to outline the in -year adjustments that were required following the receipt of more detailed information from engineering studies, additional storm damage at already known sites, and project delays due to stalled erosion agreements with individual property owners. It was noted that the workplan was neither a rigid nor exhaustive list, but a framework to approach what was, and continues to be, a large backlog of sites requiring erosion control works in the Toronto region. On January 9, 2015 at Authority #10/14, staff provided an overview of the erosion restoration work completed or in progress as of December 31, 2014 with 2014 Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding from the City of Toronto, and 2014 core erosion management funding from the Region of Peel. In the same report staff also requested approval of the 2015 workplan, allowing staff to continue on with this important work at additional priority sites identified in previous reports to the Authority. At Authority #7/15 on July 24, 2015 staff provided an update on the Critical Erosion and Floodworks projects in progress, and highlighted the need to diversify its approach to erosion management in Toronto by allocating a portion of each year's funding to proactive and minor works to realize the economic and social benefits of preventing further damage from occurring during future storm events. Since the last report to the Authority in July 2015, TRCA's erosion management team has worked diligently to complete a number of priority projects, and to reassess all other sites waiting for assistance, for both major and minor /proactive works to develop the 2016 workplan outlined herein. To comply with the principles of the City's Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan, the workplan was presented to Toronto Water in April 2016 and it is understood that all proposed projects have Toronto Water support. RATIONALE 2016 Workplan As an update to the last workplan presented at Authority Meeting #7/15, the current status of each project currently in progress and proposed with 2016 Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding is described in the 2016 workplan provided as Attachment 1. As in 2014 and 2015, some in -year adjustments to the workplan may be required as more detailed information is received from engineering studies, subsequent storm events worsen conditions at certain sites, and other projects are delayed due to legal negotiations and other factors. Of note is the Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy which aims to identify properties on and adjacent to Toronto's ravines and watercourses that are highly vulnerable to erosion during severe weather events like the July 8, 2013 event; to develop a preliminary priority for hazard mitigation works; and to recommend the desired repair horizon (e.g. 5, 10, 25 years) and funding level to mitigate all hazards identified through the study in the recommended repair horizon. Minor and Proactive Works As the primary objective of the TRCA's Erosion Management Program is to reduce risk to life and property from the hazards of erosion, the majority of funding continues to be allocated to sites where significant damage has already occurred. However, since receiving direction by the Board at the July 24, 2015 Authority Meeting #7/15 to allocate a portion of each year's funding to lower priority sites where proactive and minor works may prevent significant future, staff have initiated an extensive review of potential candidate sites to inform the appropriate portion of annual funding that should be allocated to this category of work. As illustrated in Attachment 1, the 179 proposed allocation to minor /proactive works in 2016 is approximately $200,000 or 5% of the total available budget for valley erosion hazards. It is noted that the proposed allocation is small due to a significant backlog of high priority repairs ongoing from 2015. For 2017 however, the proposed allocation to minor /proactive works is proposed to be increased to15% as several top priority sites are expected to be completed in 2016. As all of the low priority sites will be captured and assessed under the Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the recommended portion for 2018 onwards will be determined through the strategy, tentatively scheduled to be completed in December 2017. In all funding years it is noted that the allocation to minor /proactive works is approximate, and may be increased or decreased as needed to balance reactive and proactive works as appropriate. Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program With several erosion control agreements negotiated since the July 8, 2013 event, it is staff's opinion that TRCA's current policy for erosion control works benefiting private property (Attachment 2) requires updating to address a number of concerns raised by staff in enforcing this policy, including but not necessarily limited to the issued described below: Amount of financial contribution from the benefiting landowner Currently where there is no conveyance of land in exchange for the work, the financial contribution from private landowners is roughly equal to 10% of the project costs for residential properties and 15% for commercial properties. As there is no conveyance of land with this option and the owner maintains ownership of the completed works, there is generally limited benefit to the broader public. Therefore, the financial contribution is recommended to be increased to allow TRCA to complete a greater number of projects in a given year. Language regarding determination of contribution method The current language of the policy suggests that the property owner can choose the contribution method (i.e. land conveyance or financial contribution) however where the works are highly engineered and require specialized monitoring and maintenance, or where the works span multiple properties, conveyance is preferable. Therefore it is recommended the contribution method be at TRCA's discretion. Lack of hybrid contribution method Currently the policy specifies land conveyance or financial contribution. Where the scope of work includes components beyond erosion control and /or slope stabilization measures, such as structural repairs to buildings and foundation underpinning; consideration should be given to a hybrid contribution method that requires the benefiting property owner to pay the full cost of such works while still being bound to the financial contribution or conveyance requirements of the erosion control works. i O 4. Inclusion of Reimbursement Option Where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with erosion control works but is unable or unwilling to implement the work with its own forces for any reason, the option to reimburse landowners in specific cases should be made available to expedite the backlog of repairs across TRCA's jurisdiction, subject to all necessary conditions and the execution of agreements. In this scenario, the eligible amount would be determined based on staff's estimate of the cost to construct the work with its own forces, minus the property owner's financial contribution as determined through the contribution formula if no land conveyance is included. To solicit comments on these concerns and the corresponding recommended changes, staff recommends formally circulating the current policy internally to key groups including but not limited to Property and Legal Services, as well as externally to Toronto Parks, Forestry & Recreation, and Toronto Water. Pending the receipt of comments, TRCA staff request direction to bring a draft revised policy forward to a future Authority Meeting for approval. Disclosure of Information Collected related to Private Property Although TRCA has been assisting private landowners with erosion control works for more than 30 years, prior to the July 8, 2013 storm, this assistance was typically limited to one or two projects per year. And while there was always a long list of sites waiting for assistance, there was never a lengthy delay between completing the detailed geotechnical investigations and proceeding with the stabilization works as exists today. Since the July 8 storm, TRCA has completed more than 150 detailed geotechnical investigations to assess the extent of risk to participating properties and help prioritize the implementation of repairs. While a large number of studies can be completed with the available funding, only a handful of properties have been able to be repaired in 2014 and 2015 due to the cost of the repairs at each project site. The concern that some residents have raised is that the detailed investigations have flagged their property as being 'at- risk', and that this determination has effectively devalued their property and /or complicated their ability to sell the property. Furthermore, since the cost of repairs are typically beyond the financial means of the average homeowner, many owners are upset that their property is not forecasted to receive assistance for several years while higher priorities are addressed. In response to these concerns, staff recommends having a legal review of all information collected regarding private property through its Erosion Management Program and how it is disclosed pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The purpose of this review is to advise what changes are recommended to TRCA's verbal and written communications, if any, to ensure that property owners wishing to receive assistance with erosion control works have been duly advised of what information is collected, who it may be disclosed to, and how it may be used. Until the aforementioned legal direction has been received, staff recommends treating the 2017 -2026 forecast of projects involving private property as confidential. Following completion of the legal review, staff are prepared to bring a report to a future Authority Meeting outlining the recommended changes to TRCA's communications for review and approval. FINANCIAL DETAILS In the fall of 2015 TRCA staff completed a state of good repair (SOGR) backlog analysis for all existing erosion control structures and known hazard sites requiring work in the City of Toronto to support its capital budget submissions for 2016 -2025. 181 The total cost to mitigate all known Toronto erosion hazard sites on TRCA and private property is currently estimated at $32.6 million, in addition to the $32.7 million in outstanding repairs required to TRCA's existing erosion control infrastructure along Toronto's ravines and watercourses, and $51.8 million in outstanding repairs to TRCA's existing erosion infrastructure along the Toronto waterfront. The total budget for Critical Erosion and Floodworks Projects in 2016 is $7 million; Attachment 1 shows how the $7 million is allocated across the priority projects. Some adjustments to individual projects funded under this capital works program were proposed to and accepted by Toronto Water in April 2016, and it is noted that the allocations are subject to further revisions as the work progresses. All funding for Critical Erosion and Floodworks Projects is provided by the City of Toronto within the accounts listed in Attachment 1, except where noted otherwise. Some funding is expected to be received from benefiting landowners on select projects, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) through the 2016 -2017 Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program on approved major maintenance work to existing flood and erosion control structures. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Please refer to the 2016 workplan (Attachment 1) for the details of work to be done for each project. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: May 17, 2016 Attachments: 2 182 Attachment 1 Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program (a) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will require a minimum of a permanent easement over the private property for the work area and access routes where it has been determined that title to the property is not required. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be required; (b) Where the property involved would meet other TRCA objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to TRCA as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash contribution; (c) Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 100% of the cost of the works. (d) Where works are carried out on TRCA -owned land for the protection of private property, the cash contribution will be waived; (e) In all cases, the TRCA will require some form of binding indemnification agreement signed by the benefiting owner(s) which may be registered on title; (f) The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to the Authority, Executive Committee, or any advisory board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in accordance with procedures adopted by Authority Resolution #18/80; (g) Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting owner(s) will be based on the following schedules: OWNER CONTRIBUTION SCHEDULE Residential Value of Works Owner Contribution Maximum Owner Contribution $0- $15,000 $1,500 + 10% of (Cost- $0) $3,000 $15,000 - $30,000 $3,500 + 10% of (Cost - $15,000) $4,500 $30,666 - $50,000 $4,500 + 10% of (Cast - $30,000) $6,560 $50,000 - $75,000 $6,500 + 10% of (Cost - $50,000) $9,000 $75,666 - $166,666 $9,000 + 10% of (Cost - $75,066) $11,566 $166,600 and over $11,500 + 10% of (Cost - $100,000) TBD Commercial I Industrial Value of Works Owner Contribution Maximum Owner Contribution $ 6 - $15,666 $2,266 + 15% of (Cost - $6) $4,406 $15,600 - $36,666 $4,460 + 15% of (Cost - $15,000) $6,566 $36,606 - $50,000 $5,500 + 15% of (Cost - $36,666) $9,506 $50,606 - $75,666 $9,560 + 15% of (Cost - $56,000) $13,350 $75,666 - $166,666 $13,350 + 15% of (Cost - $75,666) $17,166 $100,666 and over $11,506 + 15% of (Cost - $100,000) TBD Procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. 183 Attachment 2 Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan Men 2015 Year 2016 2016 Approved Revised Other 2016 Funding Project Name End Capital Capital Funding Proposed Status Project Details Account Balance Funding Funding- Budget Flood Control Channel Maintenance -Black Creek: continue with sediment and vegetation removal from the limits of the • Black Creek Channel (Jane to Scadett 2016) channel from Jane St. to Scadett Rd. (Ward 11) •Yonge -York Mills Channel: remove sediment and vegetation from the limits of the 107-24 ' Yonge -York Mills Channel (Ward 25) 738,762 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,738.762 On oin from 2014 channel (Donino Ave. to Knightswood Rd.) -Stabilization works at 449 not viable due to severity of erosion and site constraints -Stabilization works at 447 not viable if house at 449 remains -Stabilization works at 441 possible but low priority if other two properties cannot be protected -Preferred hazard mitigation method is phased acquisition, with 449 being first priority for 2016, then 447 and 441 -Proposed acquisition year(s) for 447 and 441 currently under review 441 449 Guiidwood Parkway Erosion Hazard -Reallocation of 370K to Fishleigh Drive Project to fund completion of shoreline 135-01 Mitigation (Ward 43) 120,000 600,000 230,000 1 350,000 1 Ongoing from 2013 stabilization work . 1 Midland Avenue acquired in 2014 -Construct shoreline stabilization works June- Dec 2016 pending receipt of approval -Currently assessing market value of 81 and 83 Fishleigh Drive for potential future acquisition as per Board direction at Authority Meeting #6/15 held on June 25, 2015 under Resolution #At 18115 -Buttress on hold following direction to pursue acquisition and receipt of information 1 Midland - 81 -83 Fishleigh Erosion Control regarding endagered species habitat along bluff face 175-01 Project (Ward 36) 1,137,476 0 370,000 1,507,476 Ongoing from 2014 -Reallocation of 370K to Fishleigh Drive Project to fund completion of shoreline -identify potential future erosion 'hot spots' in Toronto by modeling the July 8, 2013 event over select ravines in Toronto that have been identified as vulnerable based on site characteristics and other data collected •2017 will involve using the information collected in 2016 to develop a comprehensive strategy to identity locations, type and costs of proactive hazard mitigation -Final report (target Decemeber 2017) will inform the prioritization of proactive/minor works for future capital budget submissions for 2018 onwards -Reallocation of 150K to ongoing emergency works at the Jennifer Court-W hitburn Future Erosion Hazard Mi igation Strategy Crescent sector of Downsview Dells Park, as majority of services required for 133 -99 (2016 -2017) 300,00 150,000 150,000 strate can be obtained in house Valley Erosion Hazards (including July 8 storm See information by subproject in italics below 133 -01 sites 0 3,800,000 3,950;000 400,000 4,350,000 Program management, monitoring, legal support, minor works (multiple Wards) •General program management •Annual re- inspection of all participating properties rn2' •Legal support to execute agreements •Minor works such es downspout extensions/redirections, removal of unstable structures, regrading, plantings (approximate allocation.: $200,000 for 2016) 520,000 Black Creek in Downsvtew Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 177 Whdtium Crescent •Includes 150K reallocation ham Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy (133 -99) Emergency Works (Ward 9) •Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope •2016 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work at 111 -117 Whdbum Crescent •Other is property owner financial contribution toward cast of work (111 -117 Windburn Crescent) 200,000 1,415,000 Ongoing from 2014 Riverhead Drive Emergency Works (Ward 2) •Stabiltzation works from 1 Katrina Road and 69 - 53 Riverhead Drive complete (Phase 1) •2016 involves completing stabilization works at 47 -09 Riverhead Drive (Phase 2) -Remaining participating properties along Riverhead Drive to be studied at more detailed level in 2017 (tentative) 375,000 Ongoing from 2074 Men Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan 185 2015 Year 2016 2016 Project Name End Approved Revised Other 2016 Status Project Details Funding Capital Capital Funding Proposed Amount Balance Funding Funding* Budget 5 Old Yonge inc) 14 -16 Brookfield (Ward 25) •Work at 5 Old Yonge substantially complete •Work at 14 -16 Brookfield involves removing landslide and restoring slope -Should TRCA be unable to implement the work due to lack of available resources when all approvals have been obtained, owners have requested approval to retain own contractor to complete work and submit invoices for reimbursement (up to maximum estimated by TRCA staffminus owner financial contribution) 85,000 375,000 Ongoing from 2014 1025 Scarfed (Toronto Community Housing apartment complex) (Ward 2) -Class FA complete and final approvals underway .Work involves constructing a vegetated buttress at the toe of slope and relocating an existing playground back from the slope crest to allow the upper slope to self - stabilize -Other funding is from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program 115,000 690,000 Ongoingfrom2015 Black Creek between 14 Appletree and Seeley Drive (Ward 9) -Class EA underway 'Phase 1 work scheduled to commence fall 2016 pending receipt of all approvals 230,000 Ongoing from 2015 30 Northline Road (Ward 31) -Class EA underway for remainder of 2016 to identify preferred solution 60,000 Ongoing from 2015 Hudson Drive at Mud Creek Reach 6 (Ward 27) •Preliminary designs for upper slope below Hudson Drive to try and align with PF8R1Toronto Water's Mud Creek Reach 6 Restoration Work 35,000 New 2018 Phase 2 detailed geotechnical assessments -Detailed geotechnical investigations to confirm extent of risk and priordize assistance Heath Crescent (Ward 27) with erosion control works Storer Drive (Ward 7) -Specific addresses omitted pending legal review of program communications to Clarinda Drive (Ward 24) protect homeowner privacy Gwendolen Crescent (Ward 23) Rollin Avenue (Ward 25) 650,000 New 2016 Royal York Road (Ward 5) -Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owner participation - 2015 project ON HOLD Ridge Point Crescent (Ward 12) -Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owners' participation -Site currently being assessed for interim works (e.g. downspout - 2015project ON HOLD exterrsionsmedirections; removal of unstable structures) with minor works funding Rldgegate Crescent (Ward 5) -Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owner participation - 2015 project ON HOLD TopcliHAvenue (Ward 8) •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities - 2015project ON HOLD Bucksburn Road (Ward i) -Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities - 2O15pmject ON HOLD .Proposed reallocation of 300K from Western Waterfront Major Maintenance Strategy to fund complefion of work ongoing from 2015 under TRCA's Erosion Major Maintenance Program (for repair of existing works) -Work involves replacing failed armourstone wall with new wall to higher elevation to 134 -25 Denison Drive West (Ward 11) 0 300,000 300,000 Accelerated from 2018 Protect tableland and homes along Denison Drive West -Proposed reallocation of 300K to Denison Drive Project following review of information collected for other projects (i.e. projected cost of strategy has been W estennWaterfront Major Maintenance reduced following review of available information) 241 -20 Strategy (Wards 6,13,14) .500,000 200,000 200,000 Now 2016 185 Table 1. Critical Erasion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan 'Revised as presented to and supported by Toronto Water on April 13, 2016. W Conservation for The Living City. MINS 2015 Year 2016 2016 Approved Revised Other 2016 Funding Project Name End Capital Capital Funding Proposed Status Project Details Account Balance Fundirm Fundin ' Budget Waterfront Major Maintenance & Remedial Other is funding from core capital funding for minor maintenance 241 -01 Works (5,210) 600,000 800,000 188,000 982,790 NM2016 Program admin & monitoring -Program management and annual m inspection of structures 75,000 Annual Bellamy Ravine (Ward 36,43) -Completion of channel stabilization works and minor hall improvements 400,000 Ongoing from 2015 Guild Inn revetment repair (Ward 43) -Repairs to existing revetment to protect access road 133,000 New 2016 Mahe Curtis ParkBioswafe (Ward 6) -Major repairs to bioswale to improve drainage 150,000 New 2016 Bluffers SW hardpoint major maintenance (Ward 36) -Detailed design, approvals -Implementation of interim works until permanent repairs can be completed 154,790 New 2016 Reber cleanup (waterfront -wide) -Removal of exposed rebar from engineered beaches -Priority areas are Col. Sam Smith Park, Humber Bay Parklands 50,000 Annual Rotary Park (Ward 6) -Completion of detailed design and receipt of approvals required for construction -Construction timing to be determined through W Waterfront Major Maintenance Strategy 20,000 Ongoing from 2015 Totals 1,991,0281 7,000,000 7,000,000 588,0001 9,579,028 'Revised as presented to and supported by Toronto Water on April 13, 2016. W Conservation for The Living City. MINS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A72 /16 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 8.10 — Wild Water Kingdom. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES. #A73 /16 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Frances Nunziata THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES. #A74 /16 - WILD WATER KINGDOM Update on the Upgrade and Revitalization of the Water Park. Update on lease negotiations with Premier Parks, LLC regarding upgrades and revitalization of the water park at Claireville Conservation Area. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT confidential item 8.10 — Wild Water Kingdom be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED 187 RES. #A75 116 - PUBLIC RECORD - DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road, City of Vaughan, York Region. Reporting of a Decision respecting one appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and information respecting the Official Plan policies supported by the TRCA and landowner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., as approved by the OMB. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the following Resolution #A142/15 approved at Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record: THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re- affirmed as it relates to the subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), in the City of Vaughan. THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and Provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the outstanding OMB appeal and for their information. AMENDMENT RES. #A76 /16 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: irseuse THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered Species Act and the Provincial Policy Statement; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the implementation of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the following Resolution #A142115 approved at Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record: THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re- affirmed as it relates to the subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), in the City of Vaughan. THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and Provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the outstanding OMB appeal and for their information. THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered Species Act and the Provincial Policy Statement; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the implementation of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act. i s RATIONALE The purpose of this report is to provide a status update for the information of the Authority on the OMB appeal of the "Natural Areas — Core Features' designation of 230 Grand Truck Avenue by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. The report also outlines the policy requirements supported by the OMB, TRCA and Dufferin Vistas. History Details: Since Resolution #A142/15 was approved on July 24, 2015, TRCA staff worked with the appellant to negotiate a settlement which ensures the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, ORMCP and PPS will be met as the development foot print is defined (relative to any historical or existing features on site). Given the appellant had not completed any detailed technical review of the site, policies were included that require study of the natural features on the property as part of future development planning proposals (Le., Draft Plan of Subdivision and /or Zoning By -Law Amendment Applications). The requirements for further technical review and assessment of natural heritage features on the site was requested and included within the detailed site specific Official Plan Amendment for the subject site. A copy of the OMB Decision (dated March 9, 2016) including the site specific amendment is attached. The following is a summary of the policy requirements that were included: The property is divided into 3 segments, each subject to different policies based on the features present. Eastern: The eastern parcel was recognized as containing natural heritage and hazard features including a watercourse associated with the Don River, along with wetland areas and significant vegetation including endangered species. An approximate extent was agreed to; however the precise limits of this area will be finalized through the future Natural Heritage Evaluation. Middle: The mid - portion of the site was recognized as potentially containing natural heritage and hazard features which would require further assessment and review as part of the future development review process. As such, this portion was designated Low Rise Residential Special Study Area; necessitating further study before development, if any, would be permitted. Technical studies (examining existing features) that are required include: • A Natural Heritage Evaluation; • Geotechnical /Slope Stability Analysis; • Hydrogeological Study /Analysis; • Water Balance; • Landscape Restoration Plan; • Functional Servicing Report (FSR); and • Planning Report, including Oak Ridges Moraine Conformity. The submission of these studies which will determine the extent of the natural features and hazards on the site, if any, will be required prior to the consideration of any site alteration or development approvals on the property. The future development patterns and features for preservation /conservation including the ways and means to achieve this will be determined through the submitted studies and recognized through the zoning by -law and future development planning processes. The final boundary between the Natural Area and Low -Rise Residential Special Study Areas will be determined through the above -noted studies and through staking of the natural features which has yet to be completed. 190 Western: The west side of the property was designated for low -rise residential development. The TRCA does not regulate this portion of the property and acts as technical advisors to both the City and the Regional Municipal of York. The policies require appropriate technical studies and ORM Conformity. The City of Vaughan, Region of York and the Province of Ontario did not participate in the protection of the natural features nor in the development of the OP policies approved by the OMB. They did not present any witnesses at the OMB hearing. Residents in the area were involved in the OMB process. Since the Decision was released, TRCA staff have been contacted by residents and media. Several residents advised that their concerns were not reflected in the OMB Decision. Much of the discussion took place in closed session due to the legal nature of the process and therefore information available is limited. The appellant has recently submitted a Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (19T- 16V001) to the City of Vaughan. A copy of the application along with some of the technical studies have been circulated for TRCA review. TRCA technical review is continuing at this time and comments will be submitted to the City accordingly. TRCA staff will continue their review and to dialogue with the applicant, City staff and their consultants to ensure the policies approved by the OMB are implemented and respected and that the appropriate protections are put in place for natural features on the site. Report prepared by: Kevin Huang, extension 5307 Emails: khuang @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kevin Huang, extension 5307 and June Little, extension 5756 Emails: khuang(ci_)trca.on.ca; jlittle(a)trca.on.ca Date: May 27, 2016 Attachments: 3 191 Attachment 1 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario ISSUE DATE: March 9. 2016 CASE NO(S).: PL111184 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Appellant: Appellant: Appellant: Subject: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Heard: APPEARANCES: Parties Dufferin Vistas Ltd. City of Vaughan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) 1096818 Ontario Inc. 11333 Dufferin St et al 1191621 Ontario Inc.; and others Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed New Official Plan City of Vaughan PL111184 PL111184 Duca v. Vaughan (City) October 14, 2015 in Vaughan, Ontario Counsel D. Bronskill D.Jubb J. Wigley DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD 192 2 INTRODUCTION PL111184 [1] This is the decision for an appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. ( "Appellant ") regarding a proposed new Official Plan for the City of Vaughan ( "City ") known as Vaughan Official Plan (2010). This appeal involves lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue and it has been identified as appeal No. 21 among a number of appeals that were filed regarding Vaughan Official Plan (2010). The various appeals are in the process of being resolved through a number of Board proceedings. [2] At the beginning of the proceeding, David Bronskill informed the Board that there was a settlement among the parties based upon proposed changes to the Official Plan. However, the Board heard that a number of residents of the area wanted to present evidence. [3] Michael Smirnov, Sergei Lifchits, Codruta Papoi, Nick Shlepov and Peter Badali, on behalf of the Eagle Hills Community Association, requested participant status which was granted by the Board on consent. [4] The subject property is approximately 4.5 hectares ( "ha ") in size and is located north of Rutherford Road and west of Dufferin Street. The lands to the north have been developed with low density residential uses. The lands to the south adjacent to the western part of the property are also developed with low rise residential uses. There are woodlands abutting the south eastern part of the property that are part of the Carrville Centre Secondary Plan area. [5] Grand Trunk Avenue, which is a municipal road, currently ends at the north limit of the property. Plans are for the road to extend through the subject property and continue to the south along the western boundary of the Secondary Plan area to connect with Rutherford Road. 193 3 EVIDENCE PL111184 [6] The Board heard evidence in support of the settlement from Paul Lowes, Principal with SGL Planning and Design Inc. Mr. Lowes is a Registered Professional Planner with approximately 30 years of experience. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in land use planning. [7] The Board also heard evidence in support of the settlement from Tom Hilditch, President and CEO with Savanta. Mr. Hilditch has more than 20 years of experience carrying out natural heritage studies. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in ecology. [8] Mr. Badali expressed support for the settlement on behalf of the Eagle Hills Community Association. [9] Mr. Smirnov, Mr. Lifchits, Ms. Papoi and Mr. Shlepov were opposed to the settlement and supported the proposed Official Plan designations for the property. [10] Mr. Lowes testified that the subject property is identified as being within a settlement area in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ( "ORMCP "). He indicated that the ORMCP allows urban development in settlement areas, but it may be restricted by the presence of natural features. Natural heritage studies are required to identify and evaluate natural features and determine any required buffers. [11] According to the evidence, the property is identified as Urban Area in the Regional Structure of the York Region Official Plan and it is not shown as being within the Regional Greenlands System (Exhibit 96). Mr. Lowes indicated a small area of the property is identified as woodland in Map 5, Woodlands, of the York Region Official Plan. [12] A wooded feature is also shown on a portion of the property on Schedule 24 of Official Plan Amendment No. 604 which was intended to incorporate the policies of the 194 M PL111184 ORMCP into the Official Plan. In this context, Mr. Lowes stated that woodlands larger than 4 ha. are considered significant, but that the woodland on the property now is smaller than 4 ha. [13] In the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) the subject property is identified as Natural Area and Countryside. In Schedule 2, Natural Heritage Network, the site is shown as having Core Features. In Schedule 13, Land Use, the property is designated as Natural Area. Mr. Lowe stated that the designations in Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were appealed by the previous owner of the subject property and are being carried forward by the Appellant. [14] The Board heard that a Natural Heritage Network Study was completed for the City which does not identify a significant woodland on the property or any other significant feature. It does show a stream corridor to the east of the property (Exhibit 99). [15] Mr. Lowes explained that in the late 1990's, there was more of a wooded feature in the eastern portion of the property. Many of the trees were removed by a former owner who was charged and ordered to replant. It is Mr. Lowes' understanding that the Court accepted the replanting. [16] There was also a greater concentration of trees in the western part of the property which were removed in the early 2000's by a previous owner. According to Mr. Lowes no charges were laid in that case. [17] The Board heard that Mr. Hilditch undertook a number of natural heritage studies for the property. He also reviewed previous natural heritage work for the area. Mr. Hilditch's studies included investigations in the disciplines of botany, Ecological Land Classification, and breeding bird studies. Mr. Hilditch indicated that a number of field visits of the property were undertaken in conjunction with his work. In addition, staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA ") visited the site to review its natural heritage characteristics. 195 b'1 PL111184 [18] Mr. Hilditch stated that there was evidence that the site had been historically disturbed. He indicated that key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrogeological features, which had been referenced in other documents, do not exist on the western part of the property. However, there are some features in the eastern part of the property which may warrant protection and require further studies. The eastern part of the property contains an intermittent watercourse, an off -line pond and some wetland features. There are four butternut trees in this area, and also green frog and bull frog were found. Mr. Hilditch indicated that these are significant species and they were found in the portion of the property that is intended to remain designated as Natural Area. He also indicated that the eastern wood pewee was heard in the vicinity, but off site. [19] The presence of these features indicates that there may be significant wildlife habitat and significant woodlands on portions of the eastern section of the property and off -site adjacent to this area. [20] As a result of these findings, Mr. Lowes indicated that modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were proposed to deal with the possible presence of significant natural heritage features as included in Exhibit 100. The modifications propose changes to Schedule 13 of the Official Plan redesignating the land use for the subject property from Natural Areas to Low Density Residential and Natural Areas. Schedule 14 of the Official Plan is also proposed to be modified to identify the property as being subject to a site - specific plan. [21] The modifications also propose adding a new section 13.X to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) which specifies a number of detailed studies that must be completed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with TRCA prior to development of the property. [22] Through s. 13.x.4 the land uses for the property are further delineated. For the western part of the property, the modifications assign a Low Rise Residential designation. The central portion of the property is identified as Low Rise Residential 196 C. PL111184 Special Study Area. The eastern part of the property is identified as Natural Area. The modifications require that the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area can only be developed if studies demonstrate that specified natural features and functions will be protected. The intent is that the area identified as Natural Area will be protected and that the boundary between the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area and the Natural Area will be more clearly defined through the studies and field work. [23] Mr. Lowes' expert planning opinion was that the proposed modifications conform to the ORMCP. He also stated that identifying the property as Low Rise Residential conforms to the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe ( "Growth Plan "). [24] Mr. Lowes indicated that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement ( "PPS "). He indicated that through the modifications natural heritage features will be protected as required in the policies of the PPS. [25] Mr. Lowes' opinion was that the modifications protect the known significant features and that they conform to the York Region Official Plan. [26] Mr. Lowes stated that the modifications represent good planning and are in the public interest. [27] Dawne Jubb and Jonathan Wigley indicated support for the settlement on behalf of the City and TRCA. [28] Mr. Badali supported the modifications and the settlement. He indicated that the Eagle Hills Community Association is concerned about traffic issues and he contended that the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue through the property will help alleviate traffic problems. [29] The other participants expressed concern about the settlement and they indicated that the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) designations for the property should not be changed. The removal of trees on the property through the actions of the previous 197 7 PL111184 owner should not be a rationale to remove restrictions on the property. The Board heard that the photomap submitted as Exhibit 93 appeared to be out of date and that the tree cover on the property is more extensive than shown in the figure. Ms. Papoi submitted two previous Board decisions for the property which recognized provisions to protect the wooded areas on the property. They requested the Board to maintain the designations for the property that are identified in Vaughan Official Plan (2010). ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [30] The Board has carefully considered the evidence provided by the parties and participants. The expert opinion evidence supporting the settlement is uncontradicted. The professional planning opinion and the expert evidence regarding ecology and natural heritage support the proposed redesignation of the lands, the identified limits and character of the natural heritage features and the approach for delineating development of the property as described in the modifications. [31] The Board accepts Mr. Hilditch's opinion that the significant natural heritage features are not located in the western part of the property which is proposed for low density residential use. Based upon the evidence, the only potentially significant natural heritage features are within the eastern part of the property, primarily in the area designated as Natural Area in the modifications, and in adjacent areas off -site. The Board accepts and agrees with Mr. Hilditch's opinion that these areas can be protected through the proposed studies and the land uses and policies included in the modifications (Exhibit 100). [32] It is clear from the evidence that the property at one time contained more extensive woodlands, a portion of which were identified as being worthy of protection. However, it is difficult from the evidence to determine the exact extent of significant woodlands that may have existed on the property in the past. [33] The Board shares some of the concerns expressed by participants that portions of the wooded area of the property have been removed which may have affected its n PL111184 natural heritage significance. The Board in no way condones actions which contribute to the removal of significant natural heritage features that may facilitate development. The Board understands that the Appellant is in no way responsible for these actions and is considering the potential for the property in its current condition. [34] Furthermore, the Board notes that the alignment for the municipal road, Grand Trunk Avenue, has been planned to essentially bisect the property in a north to south direction. Given this alignment, some impact on any environmental features that may have existed previously in the central portion of the property must have been anticipated and considered to be acceptable. [35] The Board has concluded from the evidence that the features of the site as they exist must be the basis for its determinations. Therefore, the Board agrees with the planning opinion provided by Mr. Lowes. The Board finds that the proposed modifications comply with the ORMCP, the Growth Plan and the York Region Official Plan. The Board finds that the modifications are consistent with the PPS. Furthermore, the Board finds that the modifications represent good planning and are in the public interest. [36] Mr. Bronskill indicated that during the hearing, the need for a minor revision to Exhibit 100 was identified through which changes are required to Schedule 1 of the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) to reflect the new designations of the lands. He indicated that a revised Exhibit 100 would be provided to the Board. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board received the revised Exhibit which is attached to this decision. [37] This decision in no way contradicts the previous Board decisions for the property that were submitted in the evidence. The evidence in this appeal and particularly the expert opinion evidence provided by the parties strongly supports the settlement. In the Board's decision Vaughan (City) Zoning By -law No. 489 -2001 (Re) [2003] O.M.B.D. No. 1163, which was submitted by the participants, the significance of expert evidence was emphasized. 199 p PL111184 [38] Based upon the above considerations, the Board will allow the appeal in part based upon the modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) contained in the revised Exhibit 100. [39] The appeal of Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is resolved in full by the settlement. However, Mr. Bronskill noted that the provisions of Exhibit 100 do not address Vaughan Official Plan (2010) Schedule 2 which identifies the City's Natural Heritage Network. At the time of the hearing, Schedule 2 had not been approved by the Board and Mr. Bronskill indicated that he may be requesting some changes in the future to address the Appellant's interests and the results of the settlement. ORDER [40] The Board orders that the appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is allowed in part and Vaughan Official Plan (2010) is modified as set out in Attachment 1. "C. Conti" C. CONTI MEMBER If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416- 212 -6349 Toll Free: 1- 866 - 448 -2248 200 MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 201 MODIFICATIONS TO THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 The City of Vaughan Official Plan is hereby modified by: Modifying Schedule I" — Urban Structure by modifying the categories from "Natural Areas and Countryside" to "Community Areas" and "Natural Areas and Countryside" as shown on Schedule I "; 2. Modifying Schedule 13" — Land Use by modifying the designation of the Subject Lands from "Natural Areas" to "Low -Rise Residential" "and "Natural Areas" in the manner shown on Schedule "2 "; 3. Modifying Schedule "14 -C" — Areas Subject to Site Specific Plans to identify the subject lands as an area subject to a site specific plan as identified in Schedule "T', attached hereto; 4. Adding a new Section 13.X to Chapter 13 of Volume 2 of the Vaughan Official Plan as follows: "13.X 230 Grand Trunk Avenue 13.x.1 General 13.x.1.1 The subject lands known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, as shown on Map 13.X.A, have been considered appropriate for Low -Rise Residential development subject to detailed review. The policies in this section outline the studies considered necessary to determine the extent of development and the appropriate type of infrastructure needed to support the development as well as the future extension of Grand Trunk Avenue. 13.x.2 Natural Features /Hazard Lands 13.x.2.1 The natural features, functions and hazards on the site will require detailed review through the development process. Some of these features extend south of the subject property, necessitating reasonable consideration of adjacent lands in terms of natural features and the provision and connection of infrastructure. 13.x.3 Detailed Technical Studies and Plans 13.x.3.1 Prior to consideration of site alteration or development approvals on the property, a comprehensive set of plans and studies be completed to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the TRCA: • A natural heritage evaluation that defines the natural features, functions and linkages within and to a reasonable extent adjacent to the site, defines appropriate buffers and demonstrates that the impacts of development are appropriately mitigated and /or compensated, where appropriate, including the subject lands and to a reasonable extent those abutting to the south; • A geotechnical slope stability analysis, including cross - sections, detailed grading plans; 202 • A hydrogeological study /analysis; • A water balance; • Landscape restoration plans. • A Functional Servicing Report (FSR) that: o Considers the alignment, design and extent of grading of the proposed extension of Grand Trunk Avenue o Reviews the development opportunities within the context of the Block Plan and MESP o Detailed consideration of the subject lands and to a reasonable extent the lands to the south, respecting stormwater management, slope stability and the alignment of Grand Trunk Avenue. • Planning Report including Oak Ridge Moraine Conformity 13.x.3.2 An appropriate Terms of Reference for the FSR will be developed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the TRCA. 13.x.3.3 The future development patterns and features for preservation /conservation including the ways and means to achieve this will be determined through the above -noted studies and will be recognized through the zoning by -law and future development planning processes. 13.x.4 Land Use Designations Three land use designations are illustrated on Map 13.X.B. 13.x.4.1 Low -Rise Residential The lands identified as Low -Rise Residential designation on Map 13.X.B shall be developed in accordance with the policies of Section 9.2.2.1. 13.x.4.2 Low -Rise Residential Special Study Area The lands identified as Special Study Area on Map 13.X.8 shall be developed in accordance with the Low -Rise Residential designation and policies outlined in 9.2.2.1, without the requirement for an OPA, provided the studies, prepared in support of a development application or zoning application, are completed to demonstrate that development can be accommodated and the following features and functions, if present on the site, are maintained to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with TRCA: • Draw / Valley; • Hazard Slopes; • Headwater Drainage Feature; • Groundwater seepage areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine; • Wetlands; • Significant Wildlife Habitat; and • Endangered Species. 13.x.4.3 Natural Areas 203 The lands identified as Natural Areas on Map 13.X.B contain the following features and shall be subject to the policies of Section 9.2.2.16: • A Watercourse; • Wetlands; • Endangered Species; and • Natural Vegetation. 13.x.4.4 The specific boundary of the Natural Areas and Low Rise Residential Special Study Areas shall be determined through the studies of 13.x.3.1 and through staking of the natural features. 204 � \ cu }\ /f \ ;! '° \ ./ . ° »ww jLbr >y � ■�� . .� `� ■ \ \ \�. ho 205 .. .MA6w \ r } O p I I d Nr; ��7 .tI i a I b f r„ I d, i r a q of J 206 a a. Ui dil IF Qt g 0 i a � P g b9gg3¢¢@@ Sz EE�" MI mill t 1 1� 111111 1 11.1(1 � I.1 OH : v� O C 2 N N I LF O p I I d Nr; ��7 .tI i a I b f r„ I d, i r a q of J 206 a a. Ui dil IF Qt g 0 M al x� II ME BE f irk Y Z Vi Q N N a `d Uri f [y uwl Z n Z 2 a�y Z u p`L� 2 ��y. X Q :7i X X v 4 v Y H Q O ' :++w5yyuy �t�I1�5 L O. +••aiiV.l• l % �I ,I 11 it V 4 �Klavyl,o 15wL:b n .ate, I ' S 'I i i 1 jg ® yj I J �Aau• o G 6y S 000d�� p� '�OFaiNwy III n I J �Aau• o G 6y S • dW LI • F- -I L -A 99 • • o P amow- MAP 13.X.A W AP Area Subject to Policy 13.X • • �a • 0 �w Rise Residential ra r 0 0 �w • L UF C21 Area ow,�:Ii,,:l se Residential Ima • 209 40 ��lyu • MAP 13.X.6 Attachment 2 n Ch m °o :t1 O G a <-cn _. a Z 3 y� Zen 1k °4;• M O r �. I , zy v} i nw�. F2pILWAY x ANADIAN NATIDNPL i yd : I - W4 v X tl z a PETER RU�PERT AVENUE ��,w n .� 3 LW. L - - - •; n 010 ND TRUNK AVENUE fl i D a w m •, � 'DUFFERIN 3o c m �. r f U E 0 M x 0 v Z� i Co J J y u ' .i igr 2110 Attachment 3 2111 n (D D - 0 o > C.n c/.,m0 m =Z0 a V Z -4 M -i m / 2 CO) 1'f1 O c.._.......:. - �- r 1 � _ GRANDTRUNKAVENUE .. •' � r � �C� r it m� < o 2 m M z o �f n el 00 DUFFERINSTREET 2111 RES. #A77116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek Watershed Kindwin (Brock) Developments Corporation, CFN 55650. Acquisition of property located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue, municipally known as 2095 Brock Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #832116) Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 1.251 hectares (3.091 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 and designated as Part 74 on the Draft M -Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes, Land Information Specialists, Reference No. 13 -25- 795 -03, dated January 19, 2016, municipally know as 2095 Brock Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Kindwin (Brock) Developments Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A78116 - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA -OWNED LAND - 360 0KIDS SUPPORT SERVICES 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 55757. Proposal from 360 °kids Support Services (360 0kids) to enter into a 10 year lease and contribute capital assistance in restoring a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned heritage home located at 17 Mill Street, in the City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res. #833116) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Chris Fonseca 212 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease arrangement with 360 °kids Support Services to operate and manage a youth transition facility located at 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed; THAT the term of the lease be for 10 years; THAT consideration be a nominal sum of $12.00 per annum along with an initial capital investment of $120,000 for building restoration; THAT the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to give effect thereto including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the development of the program partnership between TRCA and 360 0kids at a future date. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RESMA79 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Section II items 11.2.1 — 11.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 11.2.1 — 11.2.4, Inclusive COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR TRCA STAFF (Executive Res. #834116) CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL AND ITS GREATER TORONTO CHAPTER (Executive Res. #835116) ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA (Executive Res. #836116) SEPTIC COLLECTION AND DUMPING SERVICES 2016 AND 2017 (Executive Res. #837116) 213 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A80/16- GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from January through March 2016. Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the summary of Good News Stories from January through March 2016 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for from January through March 2016 are as follows: January Partnership developed with York Region to build uptake in their Water Saving and Protection Incentives for Businesses program and boost potential implementation of capital infrastructure projects designed to reduce operational footprint and wastewater discharge issues. Partners in Project Green now working with Toronto and Peel on similar initiatives. • Multicultural Connections Program staff participated in the Family Literacy Day Fair in Markham that welcomed 520 adults and children that were newcomers to Canada. 340 participants attended the launch of a new fat bike program at Albion Hills Conservation Area, in partnership with Caledon Cycle and Chico Racing. • The City of Vaughan was awarded World Council on City Data Platinum Certification (ISO 37120 standard) for reliable and useful data. TRCA contributed biodiversity data from our Regional Watershed Monitoring Program to support this designation. • TRCA published a peer reviewed journal article in the journal Freshwater Science on the impact of chloride (road salt) on benthic invertebrates. Working with TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), these results will be communicated to both the public and private road salt applicators in order to promote reduction in de -icing materials. • TRCA staff co- authored an article on the principles for urban stormwater management to protect stream ecosystems which refers to TRCA/CVC's (Credit Valley Conservation) low impact design (LID) manual. Both articles are currently online now and will be formally published in a special edition of Freshwater Science on Urban Ecology in March. Report commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change ( MOECC) on of an expert review of provincial land use policy and planning in light of climate change was released and presented to the Crombie Panel by MOECC staff , to which the Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) was a co- author. • State of Climate Science in the Great Lakes Basin report published, representing the largest compilation of climate change science for freshwater systems in this region. OCC was retained by Environment to undertake the work. • TRCA, Ontario Climate Consortium and Conservation Ontario met with John Godfrey, Special Advisor and Chair of the Province of Ontario's climate action group, to discuss the potential role of conservation authorities (CA) in advancing Ontario's leadership and strengthen collaboration with municipal governments to implement climate change adaptation priorities. • New planning and permitting fees and financial structure approved by the Authority. BILD sent correspondence stating that they accept TRCA's fees. 214 • Ontario Association of Landscape Architects journal "Ground" included TRCA article on ecological considerations in the urban environment. • Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) journal published article on TRCA's award of excellence in planning for The Living City Policies. • New parking system going in at Black Creek Pioneer Village thanks to a significant in -kind donation through The Living City Foundation from Precise ParkLink. • "Restrictions on Dredging Activities" and "Degradation of Benthos" beneficial uses re- designated as "not impaired" in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern, as per the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 2012. February • Demolition of buildings at Bolton Camp had a diversion rate of 84 %, well in line with our corporate target of 80% diversion of waste by 2018. • The first TRCA/City of Vaughan project partnership has been negotiated after a decade of ongoing issues related to stormwater runoff from Pine Valley Drive into the Boyd Conservation Area, causing extreme erosion on the valley side, sedimentation of the roadway, and closure of the public trail. The relationship, modelled after other TRCA - municipal partnerships, will see the City of Vaughan commissioning the detailed design works and obtaining TRCA permits, and TRCA being contracted to construct the project and rehabilitate the area. It will be of benefit to park users and city residents. • A male fisher is investigating constructed nest box at Glen Major. Hoping a female fisher will nest in the box TRCA installed. Nature of Things will possibly film as part of a documentary. • Presented Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) and Partners in Project Green (PPG) at Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Cities Conference in session on From Crazy to Common Sense: "Radical" Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Well- received by municipal staff and elected officials from across Canada. • Archaeology and Greenspace Planning has moved into Swan Lake office and the lakeside meeting rooms are available for booking creative workshops. • Launch of planning and permits section of the new TRCA website for use and feedback, before launching other sections. • TRCA awarded grant by Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade for employer engagement activities that improve integration and retention of new Canadians within the workforce. • Close to 600 people attended the 60th Annual Authority meeting which had speakers from the federal government, as well as both the ministries of the Environment and Climate Change, and Natural Resources and Forestry. A highlight was a video of partners speaking about their relationship with TRCA and what they see as TRCA's value to the GTA. • Authority approved TRCA completing negotiations to conduct restoration work at Redelmeier Pond, in Vaughan. • Scarborough Bluffs was profiled in a news video in the United States. • On February 4th, 23 new Canadians visited the Markham Museum to learn about wildlife habitat and create bird feeders. This project is supported by the City of Markham's Environmental Sustainability Fund. March • 77 municipal, academic and business representatives attended a webinar hosted by TRCA's Partners in Project Green (PPG) and Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC), focussing on the importance and first steps in creating adaptation strategies for businesses to address looming climate hazards and vulnerabilities. 215 • PPG staff participated in a panel hosted by Sustainable Waterloo Region ( "Exploring Sustainability Beyond Carbon ") in which the perspectives of waste management, air quality and water stewardship engagement with the Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC &I) sector were explored. Partners in Project Green successfully completed its nine -month "SmartWay Transport Partnership" contract with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), recruiting five new corporate program participants and securing as many Seneca College and University of Toronto Mississauga student placements to help participants enhance their supply chain operations. • Through PPG's Materials Exchange program, TRCA has started a new recycling program that captures and recycles a particularly difficult waste stream: used Keurig containers. The partnership with GoJava helped TRCA divert 12 kgs of organics and plastics last month alone. • 688 people attended the 5th annual TRIECA Conference on stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and natural channel design. • MMAH providing $40,000 to Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) for methodology to evaluate renewable energy technologies. • Secured a grant in the amount of $24,000 from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund to implement a demonstration rain garden at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Working with BCPV staff, the Norfinch Adult Education Centre and the Jane /Finch Community Centre, this grant will be used to install the garden on site at Black Creek Pioneer Village and engage the surrounding community about stormwater management and the importance of native plants. • Bayview Glen Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) won a National Award of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects. Black Creek SNAP received a grant from the City of Toronto through the "Investment in Neighourhoods" program for up to four staff for a year, with option for up to three years of renewals. • Secured $150,000 for the Caledon SNAP in partnership with Town of Caledon through Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund. • Through a revamped program, new marketing initiatives and a kids free offer, Black Creek Pioneer Village doubled the number of visitors to its March Break program. • Undertaking Toronto -wide trail audit, work valued at about $300,000. • $50,000 gift to The Living City Foundation from Cadillac Fairview in support of the Environmental Leaders of Tomorrow program. This gift will be matched by The W. Garfield Weston Foundation. • Reached an agreement with DG (landowners) for up to $2.1 million to remove the dam and restore the Redelmeier Pond in Vaughan. • Secured $300,000 through National Disaster program for flood risk assessments and 2D modelling. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca Date: May 6, 2016 216 Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A81/16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT item 11.4 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:47 p.m., on Friday, May 27, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 217 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #5/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, June 24, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT David Barrow Member Justin Di Ciano Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Ron Moeser Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member RES. #A82/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, be approved. CARRIED 218 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Presentation to Paul Ainslie of his 10 -Years of Service Recognition Award. 5.2 A presentation by Brian Denney, CEO, TRCA, re: item 7.1 - Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. RES. #A83 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT above -noted presentations 5.1 and 5.2 be received. CARRIED 6.1 An email dated June 17, 2016 from Regional Councillor Gino Rosati, City of Vaughan, in regard to item 7.1, Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. RES. #A84 116 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT above -noted correspondence 6.1 be received. CARRIED 219 CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 "Rosati, Gino" To "'jreda @trca.on.ca "' <jreda @trca.on.ca> ,• , <Gino.Rosad @vaughan.ca> cc "'kstranks @trca.on.ca "' <kstranks @trca.on.ca> 06/17/201612:41 PM bcc Subject Item 7.1 - Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority History: Eg� This message has been forwarded. To: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Chair Maria Augimeri and Board Members RE: Item 7.1 - Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting of June 24`h, 2016. However, I would like to give you my brief comment with reference to the above item, and I am in full support of the staff recommendations. This project has been before us for quite some time and I do believe it is time to move forward, as I believe a new administration center is really needed for the TRCA. Gino Rosati Local and Regional Councillor City of Vaughan 220 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A85 /16 - PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto. Approval of the "Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ". Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (Project), at a cost of $70,000,000, be approved; THAT the regional municipalities of Peel, York, Durham, the City of Toronto, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio be designated as the benefiting municipalities on the basis as set out in the Project; THAT the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry be requested to approve the Project in accordance with Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act (Act), and the application to the Project of the provincial share of land disposition proceeds on the basis as set out in the Project; THAT pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Conservation Authorities Act (Act), the Minister be requested to approve an interest rate on funds borrowed to finance the Project not to exceed 3.75% for the life of the Project; THAT pursuant to Section 24 of the Act, the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to approve the Project, if required; THAT staff be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including obtaining any additional approvals which may be deemed necessary and the execution of any necessary documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority upon response from the Province of Ontario and the participating municipalities. AMENDMENT #1 RES. #A86 /16 Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff explore, in a rigorous nature, the pursuit of Construction of an Administrative Office Building for provincial governments, and public - private partnerships; 221 funding for the Project for the TRCA from the federal and AMENDMENT #2 RES. #A87/16 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT the second paragraph of the main motion be amended to read as follows: THAT the regional municipalities of Peel, York, Durham, the City of Toronto, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio be designated as the benefiting municipalities on the basis as set out in the Project and that the TRCA's member municipalities be requested to consider this matter as part of the budget deliberations at the earliest opportunity; THAT the following be inserted to the main motion, after Amendment #1: THAT if TRCA staff is required to utilize funds from the existing City of Toronto erosion control funding, then TRCA staff work with local TRCA board members to identify priority restoration projects; AMENDMENT #1 WAS CARRIED AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED RECORDED VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION. AS AMENDED Paul Ainslie Yea Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Blase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Frances Nunziata Nay Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED 222 THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (Project), at a cost of $70,000,000, be approved; THAT the regional municipalities of Peel, York, Durham, the City of Toronto, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio be designated as the benefiting municipalities on the basis as set out in the Project and that the TRCA's member municipalities be requested to consider this matter as part of the budget deliberations at the earliest opportunity; THAT the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry be requested to approve the Project in accordance with Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act (Act), and the application to the Project of the provincial share of land disposition proceeds on the basis as set out in the Project; THAT pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Conservation Authorities Act (Act), the Minister be requested to approve an interest rate on funds borrowed to finance the Project not to exceed 3.75% for the life of the Project; THAT pursuant to Section 24 of the Act, the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to approve the Project, if required; THAT staff be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including obtaining any additional approvals which may be deemed necessary and the execution of any necessary documents; THAT staff explore, in a rigorous nature, the pursuit of funding for the Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for TRCA from the federal and provincial governments, and public - private partnerships; THAT if TRCA staff is required to utilize funds from the existing City of Toronto erosion control funding, then TRCA staff work with local TRCA board members to identify priority restoration projects; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority upon response from the Province of Ontario and the participating municipalities. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016, Resolution #A257/15 was approved as follows: THAT a project to build a new Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) head office at 5 Shoreham Drive, based upon the schematic design developed by DTAH be accepted in principle, with the condition that staff be directed to: approach TRCA member municipalities for new funding support for the construction of a new head office building based upon the design developed by DTAH Architects Limited; • initiate a competitive procurement process for a consulting team to lead detail design; 223 • confirm financing and borrowing opportunities and strategy (i.e. public private partnerships, liquidation of assets, government grants and support from industry partners etc.); • proceed with an Expression of Interest (EOl) for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site, which may consider a design /build option for a new TRCA head office, as part of a potential public private partnership, in accordance with the parameters attached as Attachment 5; and • report back at Authority Meeting #4116, scheduled to be held on May 27, 2016 on member municipality funding support, financing strategy, outcome of procurement process and EOI. RATIONALE Since Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016, staff has conducted research and analysis of available financing and borrowing opportunities that has been informed by discussion with key stakeholders and experts. This has included discussions with TRCA's municipal partners, in which the Project has been well received. The findings from TRCA's work to date are summarized as follows: Investigation of Public Private Partnership TRCA retained PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to undertake a financial analysis of the Project through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) or design - build - finance- maintain - operate project delivery method versus a conventional Design- Bid -Build (DBB) process. PwC reviewed TRCA's existing cost estimate and used this information to calculate a cost comparison of both procurement models, which included Net Present Value of the total project as well as the annual cash requirements. PwC also outlined for TRCA the benefits and drawbacks of each approach as summarized in Attachment 1. Based on this comparison, the Project net present value under PPP was calculated to be $27 million higher on a whole life basis than through a DBB approach. TRCA staff has concluded that there is not sufficient risk associated with the Project that would warrant the projected increase in cost anticipated by using a PPP method. Staff is therefore recommending a more conventional project delivery method. Procurement Method and Schedule As informed by the PwC report and discussions with other leaders in the field, staff has confirmed that the most effective delivery of the Project will be achieved using a conventional procurement approach, supported by a construction manager, and similar to a PPP will be coupled with an integrated design process that assembles a design team early in the planning process, to benefit from the input of the constructor and operator on constructability, operation, maintenance and life cycle requirements. TRCA staff will explore another benefit of PPP (pay for performance advantage) by utilizing financial incentives or penalties to encourage innovation, and mitigate potential schedule or scope creep. 224 Further to the findings related to the advantages of the PPP approach, TRCA staff has also made provision for an annual contribution to a major maintenance reserve to ensure that there is available budget to undertake a proactive maintenance and replacement schedule based on the Project life cycle requirements. TRCA staff will work with the project team to detail the opportunities for building life cycle efficiency and inform the long -term operation and maintenance. Staff will now proceed with the Request for Qualification phase (Phase 1) of the procurement process, as directed by Resolution #A257/15, to retain a design team. Phase 1 will be followed by the Request for Proposal phase (Phase 2). Following the completion of Phase 2, staff will report back to the Authority as required by the TRCA Purchasing Policy. The timing and decision to award will be influenced by progress related to Project approval. Project Financing Recent feedback from municipal staff, potential lenders and PwC, suggests that TRCA will be able to achieve a rate of interest comparable to those generally available to our participating municipalities, and certainly lower than the rates generally available through private financing provided in a PPP model. While the option of having one of TRCA's participating municipalities borrow the required funds on behalf of the organization has not been ruled out, TRCA must also be prepared to borrow directly from a financial institution. The Royal Bank of Canada, TRCA's banker, has expressed an interest in advancing the required Project funds, provided that the Project is adopted by both the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario, in accordance with all the provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (Act.) One of the requirements of the banker is approval of the project by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry under section 24 of the Act. Staff has contacted staff from the Ministry and confirmed that in order for the Minister to provide approval of the project there must be provincial funds allocated to the project. In as much as the proposed project funding model calls for the application of $10 million in land sale proceeds, of which approximately $5 million is deemed provincial funding, this condition can be satisfied. The rationale for the application of land sale proceeds is addressed below. Under subsection 3(5) of the Act the Minister is also required to approve the interest rate for the associated Project borrowing. It is proposed that the Minister be requested to approve an interest rate ceiling of 3.75 %, which appears adequate based on staffs research to date. FINANCIAL DETAILS The maximum total Project cost is $70,000,000 (including contingency provision.) The elements of the Project include: base building; design; project and construction management (design and construction); furniture and equipment; permits, approvals and legal fees; and disbursements. Project Funding The Project will be funded as follows: Participating Municipal Funding: $60 million Land Disposition Funds: $10 million TOTAL: $70 million 225 The participating municipal Project contributions will be finalized through their respective budget process and will be in accordance with the annual Modified Current Value Assessment (CVA) formula; which is subject to annual updating. Participating municipal Project funding contributions includes two sources: a) confirmed existing annual Major Facilities Project funding of $500,000 over 21 years ($10.5 million total); and b) new annual funding contributions of $1.5 million over a 33 year period ($49.5 million total). Municipal levy funding is summarized in Attachment 2. Staff will continue to explore opportunities for other grant funding contributions. If successful, these funds would be used to offset the term of the participating municipal contributions. Land Disposition Funds As noted, Minister's approval will be required by financial institutions prior to advancing the required funds for the Project. Therefore, subject to approval by the Minister, TRCA proposes that land disposition funds in the amount of $10,000,000 be made available to assist with the funding of the Project. TRCA currently has $2,000,000 in reserves from land disposition funds that could be allocated to the Project. The final value of land disposition contribution will be determined based on available land disposition funds during the Project, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. When land disposition proceeds become available TRCA will seek approval of the Minister to allocate the funds as described herein. The requested land disposition funds will support Project costs directly tied to green technologies that demonstrate the goals and objectives of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act, as well as the strategies presented in the Government of Ontario's Green Investment Fund. TRCA has estimated that these green technologies amount to approximately $10,000,000 (including on -site photovoltaic panels, electric heat and cool ground and air source heat pumps, low- carbon wood and concrete hybrid structure, and self -tint electro chromatic glass window system). Additional information on how the Project supports the goals of the Province is provided within the Project document. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will submit the Project document to each participating municipality, with a request for formal approval of the Project and funding contributions. Staff will continue to seek out the most favourable approach in finalizing the terms and conditions of a loan to finance the Project, including continuing to explore opportunities for a participating municipality to take on a loan on behalf of TRCA, on a cost recovery basis. Staff will submit the Project document to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for approval in accordance with Section 24 and 3(5) of the Act. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach @trca.on.ca Date: May 12, 2016 Attachments: 2 226 Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of PPP and DBB Advantages of PPP Advantages of DBB Fixed price, date - certain commitment Well understood process, allows for the Project to be divided into smaller components as required Ability to enforce achievement of specifications Engineer /designer will work for the TRCA and will through the contract and payment mechanism (pay provide best recommendation on quality vs. price for performance), which includes deductions in case of availability or performance failures Design benefits from input of construction Opportunity for value engineering with the TRCA's contractors and operators continuous involvement during the design period, that is, the comparative review of technical alternatives compared to their execution cost Design and overall Project cost reflect whole Lower up -front ancillary costs for consultants and lifecycle of the asset legal advisors The private partner assumes significant long -term risks, including interface and coordination risks during construction (such as between design and construction Quality of the assets at the end of the project term is assured through handback condition assessment Bidders are encouraged to develop innovative solutions to meet the TRCA's needs Disadvantages of PPP Disadvantages of DBB TRCA is contractually obligated to make Difficult to avoid schedule and scope creep maintenance and lifecycle payments in line with the service standards defined in the Project Agreement. This will remove flexibility to divert funds away from these activities in case of budget constraints Success of PPP depends on the quality of the Design does not benefit from input of construction Project Agreement and ability to clearly and contractors and could potentially suffer from a lack accurately communicate performance requirements of constructability and potential disputes between designer and construction contractor Planning and procurement take longer than under a Design does not benefit from an operator's input DBB procurement concerning O &M and lifecycle requirements This approach can be misunderstood and raise Low opportunity /less motivation for innovation by opposition from special interest groups such as construction contractor and O &M /lifecycle trade unions, who fear job losses providers Up -front planning and procurement costs are higher Limited price and delay risk transfer: engineers and contractors would not provide guarantee of overall "fixed price date certain" commitment, with the TRCA assuming most cost overruns or costs resulting from delays Interface risk between designer and contractor(s) and operators Warranty on construction and equipment limited to one to two years post completion. Warranty typically not supported through liquid security, putting enforcement at risk Lifecycle costs are not always funded in a timely manner (i.e. may be pushed back due to budget constraints in a given ear Construction contractors have no responsibility for the lifecycle of the assets and may not be motivated to build with consideration for longevity 227 Attachment 2 Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Project) 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto May 12, 2016 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info @trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Member of Conservation Ontario ww229.ca INTRODUCTION This Project description has been prepared by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in order to obtain the approval of the Project by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act (the "Act. ") The Project provides the design and build elements of a new TRCA administrative headquarters which will be located at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto. Also consistent with the Act, TRCA requests approval of the Minister of a rate of interest for its financing requirements in accordance with Section 3(5) of the Act. Minister's approval of the Project in accordance with the various provisions of the Act is required by financial agencies prior to entering into loan agreement with TRCA. This Project outlines the details of the proposed building together with the rationale for the replacement of the existing head office building, the estimated costs and the proposed funding arrangements. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project is for a new six storey TRCA headquarters building that is based upon the schematic design completed by DTAH Architects Limited in 2015, as described further herein. The schematic design supports TRCA's business and provides accessible customer service by meeting requirements for office, meeting, collaboration, demonstration, central filling, shipping /receiving and storage spaces. The project will provide 9,724m2 (100,000ft) for office space use and 7,951 m2 (90,254ft 2) for a three level underground parking garage. The Project will follow best practices in operational efficiency and will supplement energy demand with on -site, renewable power sources (i.e. rooftop - photovoltaic panels). The Project's structure will be a low - carbon wood and concrete hybrid system; and is proposed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certification and WELL Building certification; which is the world's first building standard focused exclusively on human health and wellness. LOCATION The Project location at 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto, Ontario has served as TRCA's head office setting for over forty years. (Recently, TRCA moved to an interim, leased head office facility in Vaughan, Ontario.) The Shoreham site is an optimal location for TRCA operations as it provides convenient access to the 400 series highways, is relatively central to its area of jurisdiction and is well serviced by public transit and regional trail connections. The location will result in a reduced auto driver mode share ranging from 45% to 65 %, which is less than the 80% range currently experienced by staff and clients at TRCA's interim head office, located at 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan. RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT TRCA Space Requirements: TRCA has grown considerably since its main office at 5 Shoreham Drive was constructed in the early 1970's. The original office at 1,821 m2 (19,600ft2) was built to accommodate 80 staff. Growth coupled with a lack of adequate office accommodations resulted in long term, chronic space shortages, poor working conditions for staff and a lack of adequate meeting space. These issues were partially addressed with the move of staff to various satellite offices over the years and the lease of additional office space at 101 Exchange Avenue in Vaughan to serve as an interim head office' to accommodate over 300 staff. However, TRCA's long -term goal is to consolidate staff currently in multiple facilities to one central location to reduce travel time between TRCA offices, and allow resource and staff sharing. Furthermore, a purpose built facility will allow TRCA to provide optimal customer service and support; achieve accommodation standards for staff comparable to our regional and municipal partners, with a positive influence on staff retention; and ensure that the office can accommodate growth to meet future staff and program requirements. ' Lease expires in 2021 229 TRCA growth projections show that our current interim head office will not have sufficient space to accommodate staff growth beyond 2021. The interim head office has a maximum building capacity of 440 persons (including staff and visitors). At the interim head office, TRCA anticipates a 3% growth rate over the coming years, resulting in an estimated work force of 436 persons in 2021. This number does not include staff from other buildings that TRCA intends to relocate to the new head office building at 5 Shoreham in order to achieve operational efficiencies. Ownership of the Project. Building at the 5 Shoreham Drive location will allow TRCA to maintain asset - ownership and reduce cost and risks generally associated with a leasing option (i.e. potential for unfavourable and expensive lease terms; unsuitable working conditions; decreased levels of service delivery; lower workforce productivity; and staff retention). After an extensive analysis of our available options TRCA has concluded, that similar to our municipal partners, a 100% ownership model is the most cost effective solution. Finally, since TRCA owns the lands at the 5 Shoreham location the total project costs will be positively impacted. Project Green Features and Demonstration of Key Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act Features: The Project will demonstrate how the goals and objectives of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act (Climate Act), as well as, the strategies presented in the Government of Ontario's Green Investment Fund (GIF) can be achieved. The Project will i) support Ontario's continued growth and global leadership in the development, use and manufacturing of clean energy and green technologies; and ii) demonstrate Ontario's transition to low- carbon urban communities. Presented in Table 1 below is a comparison of the key GIF strategy areas and how the Project will demonstrate their application. Table 1: Project's Demonstration of Key GIF Strategy Areas GIF Strategy Area How Project will Demonstrate a GIF Strategy Area Key Project Features to Achieve GIF Strategy Climate Change — Low The Project will demonstrate a low carbon Predominantly all electric heating and Carbon Future footprint through all lifecycle phases cooling system serviced by air and (material production, construction, ground source heat pumps. operation and end -of- life). According to model simulations completed by WSP Low carbon, wood structural system. Group (formerly Halsall), operating carbon emissions are estimated to be reduced At minimum, 5% of building's energy by more than 50% and embodied carbon needs will be met with on -site by more than 75% when compared to an photovoltaic panels. average building in the Toronto region. Passive House design principles, The Project is Net -Zero ready, as the simple, well insulated building envelope systems and the designs have been done will reduce heating and cooling in a manner that will allow for them to be requirements. reconfigured in the future, to draw from completely renewable sources. Self -tint electro chromatic glass system that automatically adjusts throughout the day will optimize the indoor climate and the outside view. Solar thermals panels on the roof will provide heat for domestic hot water demands. 230 GIF Strategy Area How Project will Demonstrate a GIF Key Project Features to Achieve GIF Strategy Area Strategy Grow Economy and Where possible, the Project will source Photovoltaic panels. Create Jobs from Ontario base firms. The Project will create a point of local demand for clean Solar thermal wall. energy and green technologies. Low carbon, wood structural system. Ontario WOOD Works — a champion for Ontario's wood industry — has expressed support for the Project. Electric Vehicle Charging Installment of charging stations for TRCA Quantity of charging stations to be at Stations staff and visitors will support and promote 2% of total number of parking spaces. Electrical Vehicle use. Green Infrastructure Project will be regenerative; it will restore Rainwater harvesting gardens. green infrastructure systems and their corresponding ecosystem services (i.e. Bioswales and permeable pavement. benefits humans obtain from nature) that existed prior to the properties initial Native plants that will mimic pre - development in the 1970s. development habitats. The Project will manage on -site, Provision for on -site agriculture. stormwater runoff for at minimum the first 25 mm of rainfall. Modal Shift: to low- Project promotes use of active Located within one kilometre of Toronto carbon transportation infrastructure as it is near a Transit Commission's new Black Creek transit node, with supporting connections Pioneer Subway Station and the York (sidewalks, signalized pedestrian University Bus Loop; which provides crossings, carpooling), as well as walking regional connections. and cycling networks that promote accessibility and safety. On -site access to the Black Creek Pioneer Ravine trail system. The Project will provide support for TRCA's corporate fleet of hybrid and Fronts Shoreham Drive, which has electric vehicles, which allows staff to sidewalks and forthcoming cycling commute to work by way of active or lanes. public transportation systems, and use a fleet vehicle for work purposes. On -site designated carpool parking spots. On -site electric car charging. Additional parking to accommodate 60 TRCA corporate fleet vehicles. The TRCA corporate fleet is transitioning to 100% electric. Water Conservation and Project will demonstrate design and Potable water use metres. Stormwater Management technologies that reduce potable water use and manageluse- onsite stormwater. Ultra -low flow plumbing fixtures. The Project will demonstrate a preliminary Harvest rainwater for use in the building potable water use reduction of 43 %. (i.e. as feed for water closets, urinals and irrigation). 231 ESTIMATED COSTS The maximum total Project cost is $70,000,000 (including contingency provision.) The cost elements of the Project include: base building; design; project management (design and construction); furniture and equipment; permits, approvals and legal fees; and disbursements. FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS TRCA proposes that the funding for this Project be contributed as follows: Participating Municipality Levy (see Appendix 1) $60 million Land Disposition Funds $10 million TOTAL: $70 million This purpose built facility will allow TRCA to provide optimal customer service and support to all its participating municipalities and residents of its jurisdiction. Therefore, TRCA proposes that the Project be a generally benefiting project and participating municipalities contribute to the Project in accordance with the Modified Current Value Assessment (CVA) formula; which is subject to annual updating. The participating municipal funding will be negotiated with each participating municipality and will be subject to their individual budget processes. Land Disposition Funds Subject to approval by the Minister, TRCA proposes that land disposition funds in amount of $10,000,000 will be available to assist with the funding of the Project. When land disposition funds become available TRCA will seek approval of the Minister to allocate the provincial share of the funds as described herein. The requested land disposition funds will support Project costs directly tied to green technologies that demonstrate the goals and objectives of the Climate Act, as well as the strategies presented in the GIF. TRCA has estimated that these green technologies amount to approximately $10,000,000 (including on- site photovoltaic panels, electric heat and cool ground and air source heat pumps, low- carbon wood and concrete hybrid structure, and self -tint electro chromatic glass window system). FINANCING RATE In accordance with Section 3(5) of the Act, TRCA requests that the Minister approve a rate of interest for the Project that is no greater than 3.75 %, throughout the life of the Project. Based on proposals from TRCA's banker and discussions with finance staff at participating municipalities it is estimated that this rate represents the ceiling on borrowing costs. CONCLUSION Minister's approval under sections 3(5) and 24 of the Act is required in order to satisfy lending conditions which will be required by financial institutions. Furthermore, Minister's approval is also required to contribute Provincial share of land disposition funds towards the Project. 232 Appendix 1: Breakdown Participating Municipality Levy Project for the Construction of an Administrative Head Office Building For the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Levy Apportionment by Municipality Participating 2016 CVA Existing Project New Project Total Annual Municipality Factor (Note 1) Funding (Note 2) Funding (Note 3) Levy Funding Adjala- Tosorontio, Township of 0.000067 34 101 135 Durham, Regional Municipality of 0.028247 14,124 42,370 56,494 Mono, Town of 0.00008 40 120 160 Peel, Regional Municipality of 0.113733 56,867 170,600 227,467 Toronto, City of 0.643621 321,810 965,431 1,287,241 York, Regional Municipality of 0.214252 107,125 321,378 428,503 Annual Total 1.000000 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 Project Total (21 Years) 10,500,000 10,500,000 Project Total (33 Years) 49,500,000 49,500,000 10,500,000 49,500,000 60,000,000 Total Project Municipal Levy Note 1 - The annual allocation factors are subject to change with the release of updated modified CVA data. Note 2 - This funding is available within approved levy allocations to the TRCA. Note 3 - This funding is an additional amount the participating municipalities will be required to raise for TRCA. 233 6 RES. #A88/16 - GREENWOOD CONSERVATION LANDS Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan and Brock North Inland Filling. Final approval of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan, the strategic placement and grade of clean surplus fill within an abandoned aggregate extraction area within the Greenwood Conservation Lands at the Brock North tract; the transfer of provincially -owned Highway 407 ETR East Extension Lands; and the strategic acquisition of lands to facilitate inland filling for ecological restoration and financial sustainability. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan was approved in principle by the Authority on November 30, 2012 (Resolution #A219/12); AND WHEREAS the former aggregate extraction area at the Brock North tract has been identified as a site for habitat restoration and enhancement through the strategic placing of clean fill, and was approved as a possible site by the Authority on January 28, 2011 (Resolution #A13/11); AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has initiated planning and discussions with City of Pickering related to the restoration and recreational potential of the property, as was recommended in a report to the Authority on January 28, 2011; AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has acquired lands for the construction of the Highway 407 ETR East extension that may become surplus upon completion of the highway construction; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan be approved; THAT the funds for receiving the clean fill be set aside exclusively for project costs and implementation of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan, including future restoration and habitat enhancement of the property and the phased implementation of the recreation plan; THAT the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax be requested to waive all fees, charges & securities (refundable deposits) related to municipal approvals and implementation; THAT the City of Toronto be requested to waive the requirement for payment of fair market value for all of the entitlements, interests and permissions conveyed or granted by TRCA to the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax for ancillary uses; THAT TRCA staff continue to work with the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax to enter into a management agreement related to the permitted ancillary uses; THAT TRCA staff continue to work with Ministry of Transportation officials and report back on the options for land transfer or use of surplus Highway 407 ETR East Extension lands in the future; 234 THAT TRCA staff continue to explore strategic land acquisition for inland filling that supports ecological restoration and financial sustainability; THAT TRCA staff develop a landscape master plan for the Brock North inland fill area that achieves a balance between ecological restoration and recreational facilities, while incorporating approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of clean fill; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be authorized and directed to execute all the necessary documentation required to facilitate restoration of the property and implementation of the Master Plan. AMENDMENT RES. #A89/16 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the sixth paragraph of the main motion be amended to read: THAT the funds for receiving the clean fill be set aside exclusively for project costs and implementation of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan, including future restoration and habitat enhancement of the property and the phased implementation of the recreation plan and land acquisition in Durham Region; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan was approved in principle by the Authority on November 30, 2012 (Resolution #A219/12); AND WHEREAS the former aggregate extraction area at the Brock North tract has been identified as a site for habitat restoration and enhancement through the strategic placing of clean fill, and was approved as a possible site by the Authority on January 28, 2011 (Resolution #A13/11); AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has initiated planning and discussions with City of Pickering related to the restoration and recreational potential of the property, as was recommended in a report to the Authority on January 28, 2011; AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has acquired lands for the construction of the Highway 407 ETR East extension that may become surplus upon completion of the highway construction; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan be approved; 235 THAT the funds for receiving the clean fill be set aside exclusively for project costs and implementation of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan, including future restoration and habitat enhancement of the property and the phased implementation of the recreation plan and land acquisition in Durham Region; THAT the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax be requested to waive all fees, charges & securities (refundable deposits) related to municipal approvals and implementation; THAT the City of Toronto be requested to waive the requirement for payment of fair market value for all of the entitlements, interests and permissions conveyed or granted by TRCA to the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax for ancillary uses; THAT TRCA staff continue to work with the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax to enter into a management agreement related to the permitted ancillary uses; THAT TRCA staff continue to work with Ministry of Transportation officials and report back on the options for land transfer or use of surplus Highway 407 ETR East Extension lands in the future; THAT TRCA staff continue to explore strategic land acquisition for inland filling that supports ecological restoration and financial sustainability; THAT TRCA staff develop a landscape master plan for the Brock North inland fill area that achieves a balance between ecological restoration and recreational facilities, while incorporating approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of clean fill; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be authorized and directed to execute all the necessary documentation required to facilitate restoration of the property and implementation of the Master Plan. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, staff presented the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan. The report was referred to the September 25, 2015 Authority meeting for more information as follows: THAT the staff report be referred to the September Authority meeting fora staff report with information on possible volumes of fill, clarification of Pickering's plans for recreation fields, options to close the funding gap, provincial lands purchased for the Highway 407 corridor and clarification on conditions of the original transfer of lands from Toronto and mechanism for approval of plans and funding contributions as required. The report addresses these issues as outlined below. Greenwood Conservation Lands With the most recent acquisition of the Brock Lands in 2011, adding to the adjacent Greenwood Conservation Area (GCA) and Rodar property, the area of the amalgamated properties totals 689 hectares (1,704 acres). For the purpose of integrating the planning of all the lands into the master planning process, the three properties are considered as one large complex called the Greenwood Conservation Lands (GCL) as approved on November 30, 2012 as per Resolution #A219/12. Located within the Duff ins Creek watershed in the Regional Municipality of Durham, GCL borders the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. Additionally, it is adjacent to Highway 7 236 and the Highway 407 ETR East expansion in the north and Taunton Road to the south and is located between Sideline 16 and Greenwood Road west and east respectively. City of Toronto Transfer Agreement The Brock North former landfill site is located on the north side of the 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road in the City of Pickering. The Brock South site is located on the south side of the 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road in the Town of Ajax (Attachment 1). These lands were secured by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1969 as part of a landfill site selection process. At that time, in order to purchase land for use as a landfill in another jurisdiction, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was required to enter into an agreement with the Township of Pickering. The required agreement, among other matters, provided that "on completion of the refuse disposal sites, the land would be turned over to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for recreation purposes." The then Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto obtained Certificates of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment for landfill at both Brock North and South. The southwest portion of the Brock North site was used for landfilling in the late 1970's; however, the waste was removed from the site in 1997. Brock South was never used for waste disposal. Staff reviewed the Remedial Action Plan and The Closure Plan Implementation reports, as well as the Ministry of the Environment files, and was satisfied that there is nothing of any significance in terms of risks associated with the transfer of property. In the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the City retained the right to continue to monitor, pursuant to any certificate of approval. The lands were subsequently declared surplus by the City of Toronto's Solid Waste Management Division in 2008 and conveyed to TRCA for a nominal fee of $2 in 2011. The City of Toronto and TRCA entered into an agreement related to the use of the property by TRCA. The general terms of the agreement are as following: 1. The property is to remain in the ownership of TRCA. 2. The property is to be used by TRCA, Ajax or Pickering or any of their agencies only for open space and park purposes including paths, trails and other passive recreational uses. 3. Any other ancillary uses must be approved by the City of Toronto and will be conditional upon a management agreement between TRCA and Pickering. These uses may include an expansion of the Pickering Museum, a district park having a minimum size of 50 acres serving the entire City of Pickering with facilities such as stadiums, places of assembly and a variety of active and passive recreational and cultural pursuits including soccer fields, softball diamonds, baseball diamonds and football fields. 4. If there are ancillary uses, then the City of Toronto must receive the fair market value of all of the entitlements, interest and permissions conveyed or granted by TRCA. 5. If there is any sale or other disposition by TRCA for other than an ancillary use approved by the City of Toronto, then the City of Toronto has the rights to take the property back or take the profit. The profit is the Fair Market Value of the rights conveyed by TRCA less TRCA's costs of capital improvements, realty taxes, removal of exiting improvements, environmental clean -up costs, real estate commission, cost of acquiring, operating and maintaining the property. The uses proposed in the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan were contemplated at the time that City of Toronto and TRCA negotiated the transfer of the Brock North and South lands, and were incorporated into the Agreement between the City of Toronto and TRCA. City of Toronto staff has indicated that once TRCA has finalized the Master Plan they would review the plan and advise if further City approvals are required. 237 Brock North Environmental Conditions The terrestrial landscape and hydrologic function of the Brock North lands have been severely altered through previous aggregate extraction and landfill operations. Staff has assessed the site and identified opportunities to restore hydrological function, unique landforms, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. In order to restore the hydrological regime and natural watershed drainage, the importation of fill materials is required to replace the land overburden and reshape the topography in altered areas of the site. The revenue generated via tipping fees during fill placement will provide financial support for the phased implementation of the Master Plan, including restoration activities and the recreation plan. Inland Fill Plan TRCA staff has determined that importing approximately a minimum of 1.7 million cubic metres of fill is necessary to meet both restoration and revenue goals in the context of a recreational park. Tipping fee revenue will flow from either public or private partners, such as York Region who has specifically requested that TRCA reserve fill capacity at Brock North for disposal of excess soils associated with future infrastructure work. A very successful collaborative agreement between York Region and TRCA involving the placement of 450,000 cubic metres of clean soil at Brock South was completed in late 2015 as approved at Authority Meeting #6/11, held on June 24, 2011 (Resolution #140/11). Revenue will also be generated from private sector fill suppliers through a competitive bidding process meeting TRCA's Purchasing Policy. In this scenario, a contractor may be awarded a contract to supply and place a specific quantity of soil within a time frame at a unit cost. The contractor would also be required to restore and stabilize the site via the establishment of a natural cover crop. Past successful inland fill projects have generated tipping fees in the range of $3.50 to $6.00 per cubic metre. This would translate into revenue of between $6 million and $10 million dollars based on a 1.7 million cubic metre fill plan. Staff estimates that filling would take place over 7 to 12 years depending on design volumes and market conditions; however staff would always endeavor to maximize revenues and may delay filling to do so. A portion of fill revenue or approximately one dollar a cubic metre will be required to manage the filling operation including the implementation of the TRCA Inland Fill Quality Assurance Program. The program includes the pre - approval of all fill prior to delivery, followed by fill tracking, monitoring and laboratory testing. TRCA has achieved excellence in the management of fill operations and will continue to explore options for strategic land acquisition that will facilitate ecological restoration and financial sustainability. In addition to the restoration of ecological and hydrological functions, the placement of 1.7 million cubic metres of fill also allows for the construction of specific active recreational facilities requested by the City of Pickering. Discussions regarding the future use of the lands have identified that City of Pickering is interested in utilizing a portion of the fill site measuring approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) for recreational park facilities, including sports fields. Additionally, the Pickering Museum has identified a 10 hectare (25 acre) area at the north end of the site, adjacent to their lands, for possible expansion. In total, Pickering is looking to utilize approximately 10 percent of the lands within the City of Pickering. 238 Since the placement of fill will facilitate the development of a recreational facility, it is understood that a request must be made to Council to waive all fees, charges & securities (refundable deposits) related to municipal approvals and implementation costs. The City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax will also be requested enter into a management agreement for areas related to the permitted ancillary uses. In addition, future discussions with the municipalities will request the consideration of entering into a long term management agreement for the Greenwood Conservation Lands located in the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax. Also, TRCA staff will support The City of Pickering and Town of Ajax with their request to waive the City of Toronto requirement for payment of fair market value for the property being used for ancillary uses. Highway 407 ETR East Extension As outlined in the November 30, 2012 report to the Authority, TRCA entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to undertake restoration activities as overall benefit compensation for redside dace as required by the Endangered Species Act due to construction of the Highway 407 ETR East Extension. A total of eight stream restoration sites within Brock North will be fully restored by the end of 2017, funded by MTO for a total of approximately $1.8 million. As part of the Highway 407 ETR East Extension, MTO acquired lands for construction and habitat compensation purposes. It is anticipated that upon construction completion the lands will be deemed as surplus for the project and it may be beneficial for TRCA to explore the acquisition of strategic parcels, especially in the area of the GCL. FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated cost to implement the GCL Recreation Plan is $3.6 million, while the estimated cost to undertake full restoration of the site is estimated at $4.3 million. Approximately $95,000 was awarded to TRCA by the Trans Canada Trail for improvements to the Trans Canada Trail within the Rodar Property and Greenwood Conservation Area. Approximately $1.8 million has been secured for habitat restoration via MTO, and TRCA is working with partners, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), on additional in -kind restoration works. Revenues from the Brock South fill deposition site will help fund the restoration and recreation plans within the Brock South tract. Based on the estimated filling revenue for Brock North, which also accommodates a recreational complex, an estimated shortfall of $900,000 or revenue of $3.1 million could result for the complete Master Plan implementation. Regardless of the filling scenario, TRCA will continue to explore traditional and non - traditional sources of funding to achieve the phased implementation of the Master Plan. Projected Costs Revenues to Date Restoration 4.3 Million $1.8 million MTO Plan Recreation Plan 3.6 Million $95,000 Trans Canada Potential Fill Net Potential Trail Revenues shortfall or revenue Total 7.9 Million $2.75 million $4.3 million (based ($900,000) on $3/m3 $8.3 million (based $3.1 million on $6/m) DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To achieve the restoration and revenue goals at Brock North, TRCA staff will take the following actions: 239 • work with municipal partners to confirm their fill capacity requests; • undertake a competitive bidding process for fill suppliers; • work with the City of Pickering to confirm the preliminary recreation concept plan; • facilitate discussions with the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax and the City of Toronto to determine the mechanism for approval of ancillary uses; • enter into discussions with the City of Toronto regarding the waiving of the market value payment for ancillary uses on the Brock lands. To achieve the implementation of the GCL Master Plan, TRCA staff will undertake phased implementation based on available funds that will allow for ecological restoration and passive recreation. The phased approach will allow for flexibility in the design of the landform to accommodate both the recreational complex and any changes to the landform. TRCA staff will also continue to investigate traditional and non - traditional sources of funding. TRCA staff will work with Ministry of Transportation officials and report back on the options for the transfer of Highway 407 East Extension lands in the future. TRCA staff will also continue to explore options for the strategic land acquisition that requires filling to achieve ecological restoration and financial sustainability. Report prepared by: Karen McDonald, extension 5248 and David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: kmcdonald @trca.on.ca, dhatton @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246, David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: gmacpherson @trca.on.ca, dhatton @trca.on.ca Date: April 12, 2016 Attachments: 1 240 Attachment 1 w�y-z 241 m � c m � n rn O Z N M m M up Z jCp*2 r Z Z d ),0 �Z 0 !A r m !Q CD 0 CL ; V v D o0 C C c0 w n w�y-z 241 m � c m � n rn O Z N M m M up Z jCp*2 r Z Z d ),0 �Z 0 !A RESMA90 116 - SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: TOWARD ZERO WASTE Approval of TRCA's Solid Waste Management Plan for moving the organization away from landfilling solid waste and toward zero solid waste. Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has introduced the Waste Free Ontario Act which will provide vision and goals for resource recovery to encourage a circular economy within Ontario; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) municipal partners have adopted and recently increased their waste diversion targets at the regional level; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan: Toward Zero Waste, as appended and amended, be approved; THAT TRCA implement initiatives in the Plan to reach an interim goal of 80% diversion by 2020; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority annually on progress being made in implementing the Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/12, held on July 27, 2012, Resolution #A138/12 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on what strategies TRCA is using to achieve zero waste and what TRCA is doing to change the public awareness and engagement in waste reduction at all TRCA facilities. The purpose of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan is to support TRCA in moving toward zero waste and in becoming a leader amongst its peers in managing its solid waste. TRCA's goal is to divert 80% of material from landfill by 2020. TRCA has been actively promoting waste diversion at its facilities though its recycling program since the early 1990s. Some of the activities undertaken included: recycling at all locations with multi- stream recycling bins, appropriately designed signage and public education, and organic composting at some locations. Many of these projects continue to function, but can be improved through an examination of industry best practices. Past waste diversion activities included several informal in -house waste audits conducted at offices by TRCA staff Green Teams, Audubon Certification at certain locations, and annual office clean -up days facilitating reuse of materials and equipment. Formal audits at 19 sites were conducted using third party support in 2013 -2014, and currently five sites are being re- audited each year. In general, waste generated at TRCA can be divided into two broad sources, waste from the operation of TRCA facilities and waste generated through implementation of TRCA programs. The programs produce two- thirds of all of TRCA's waste while facilities account for the remainder. 242 TRCA generated 1,292 metric tonnes of solid waste in 2014 and 542 tonnes in 2015. The significant amount in 2014 stems from work carried out to clear debris from waterways, ice storm damage and additional projects that generated a higher amount of wood material than in 2015. Looking at the total waste generated at facilities and in operations, approximately 5% of the waste stream consists of materials that cannot be diverted. To achieve the corporate target of 80% diversion by 2020, TRCA must divert an additional 300 tonnes from its solid waste stream based on 2014 data. Two promising areas that hold a great deal of potential for diversion are construction and demolition waste and organics, where an additional 150 tonnes and 58 tonnes respectively are considered highly achievable. Pilot projects to increase diversion are planned for these two streams. A copy of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan is attached (Attachment 1). Recommendations in the Plan address 12 topic areas: • Reduction /Avoidance of Waste - The plan recommends small steps in this area focusing first on paper use, bottled water and developing better systems to track solid waste use. • Staff Engagement - This section recognizes the pivotal role that staff plays on the front line interacting with visitors and managing TRCA's solid waste. Recommendations address developing a culture of conservation through staff education and training and interdepartmental communication. • Public Space Visitor Engagement - This section recognizes the impact that visitors to TRCA facilities have on the amount and type of solid waste that is generated. Recommendations focus on education and raising awareness of the amount of solid waste generated by their activities. • Communications and Branding - Clear and consistent messaging across TRCA is critical to creating a unified brand that visitors and staff can recognize and relate to. Recommendations focus on development of a communications strategy, signage, third party certification programs and external profile for the program. • Organics - Organics provide the opportunity to reuse waste and promote at the same time as diverting material from landfill. Recommendations focus on pilot projects to test and expand organics collection in key areas. • Construction and Renovation Waste - Often overshadowed by waste from weekly collections, occasional and seasonal generation of construction and renovation waste is a significant issue and opportunity for TRCA. Recommendations focus on pre - qualification of contractors and material recovery facilities, solid waste language in contracts for third party construction and renovation projects, and auditing to better characterize the waste generated. • Hazardous Waste - Recommendations focus on the development of corporate policies, plans and procedures for collecting and disposing of hazardous waste such as paints and solvents, propane canisters, fluorescent light bulbs, motor oil, tires, etc. 243 • Procurement - Sustainable purchasing practices are used by organizations to buy goods and services based on best value which can include environmental, social as well as price considerations. Recommendations in this section focus on development of a sustainable procurement strategy which includes provisions for sustainable waste management. Waste Hauler Tendering Process - Choosing the appropriate waste hauling partner is critical to the success of the solid waste management plan. Recommendations focus on creating of tendering templates that include consideration for sustainable waste practices, data collections, auditing of results, and partnership in finding solutions to solid waste issues. • Reduce Contamination - Contamination can result in a whole dumpster of recycling being downgraded to garbage as well as result in service interruptions. Recommendations focus on procedures to ensure that garbage and recycling streams remain separate. • Monitoring and Evaluation — This is a critical part of TRCA's adaptive management approach. Data is used to assess the success of TRCA's actions, progress toward targets, and provides an empirical approach to decision making. Recommendations in this section focus on waste audits, annual reviews of waste billing information, development of key indicators, annual reporting and review of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan every five years. • Facility Plans - Implementation of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan is supported at the site level through of series of 19 individual facility -based solid waste management plans. Each plan addresses the corporate plan in the context of the waste and circumstances at each individual facility. RATIONALE The TRCA strategy comes at an important time for solid waste. TRCA's municipal partners have set ambitious diversion targets with Durham Region and City of Toronto aiming for 70% diversion, York Region aiming for 90% through the use of energy from waste processing, and Peel Region in 2016 increased its diversion from 60% to 75 %. Additionally, at the provincial level, 2015 saw the introduction of the new Bill 151 Waste Free Ontario Act. This Act will replace the current Waste Diversion Act, 2002 with the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2015 and the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2015. An important component of the Act is an Organics Action Plan which could include targets aligned with the provincial climate change strategy and /or regulatory actions, such as requiring source separation or imposing disposal bans for organic waste. Working in partnership with TRCA's Parks and Culture, Education, Restoration and Infrastructure divisions, and Property and Risk Management, the Community Transformation Program (CTP) group is rolling out a multi -year initiative aimed at increasing the diversion of waste and getting TRCA towards zero waste. FINANCIAL DETAILS Implementation of the Plan will be supported by TRCA's sustainability coordinator, working with staff in the Parks and Culture, Education, Restoration and Infrastructure division, and Property and Risk Management. Funding for the coordinators time and miscellaneous expenses is available through account code 414 -65. Staff costs from the various divisions involved will be covered through existing operating and capital budgets where appropriate. 244 A number of recommendations in the report will be costed on an annual basis when required and included in capital program budgets as needed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • circulate the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan to internal staff; • liaise with TRCA staff and waste contractors on waste collection issues; • monitor, measure and verify waste metrics annually; • coordinate the implementation of the recommendations from the waste report with TRCA sites and staff; • begin to develop pilot projects where appropriate; • monitor municipal and provincial opportunities and regulatory changes, and adjust strategies as appropriate. Report prepared by: Dana Fountain, extension 5202 Emails: bfountain @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre @trca.on.ca Date: October 13, 2015 Attachments: 1 245 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOWARD ZERO WASTE ba 1 �.1,Ikko— t 4, d 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Understanding Zero Waste 2 1.2 Report Organization 3 2. Waste Quantification and Categorisation 4 2.1 Waste Generation 4 2.2 Waste Management 7 2.3 Waste Diversion 8 2.3.1 Waste Diversion Potential 9 3. Overall Corporate Strategy 10 3.1 Reduction /Avoidance of Waste 12 3.2 Staff Engagement 12 3.3 Public Space Visitor Engagement 14 3.4 Communication and Branding 15 3.5 Organics 16 3.6 Construction and Renovation Waste 17 3.7 Hazardous Waste 18 3.8 Procurement 19 3.9 Waste Hauler Tendering Process 20 3.10 Reduce Contamination 21 3.11 Monitoring and Evaluation 22 3.12 Facility Plans 23 4. Conclusions: 24 247 1 .INTRODUCTION TRCA This report provides direction for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff in moving toward zero solid waste in the day -to -day operations • Owns 18,000 hectares of land of their many programs and facilities. It provides the background rationale and • Operates 19 facilities including corporate strategy for moving toward zero solid waste and is complemented field centers, Offices, education by individual solid waste management plans prepared for each TRCA facility. centres, a golf course and It is anticipated that implementation of the strategy and individual plans will conservation areas allow TRCA to achieve its corporate sustainability goal of 80% solid waste diversion by 2020 and set the stage for near zero solid waste in the future. as Nearly 800,000 visitors each year • Over 800 employees including full TRCA is in the business of sustainability. In 2012 the Authority Board adopted "Building and part time and seasonal. the Living City" our 10 -year plan that lays out the strategic direction TRCA intends to pursue from 2013 to 2022. The plan outlines our commitment • Generated 1,280 tonnes of waste to safeguarding and enhancing the health and well -being of the residents In 2014 of the Toronto region through the protection and restoration of the natural • Generates about 2,020 metric environment and the fundamental ecological services our environment provides. Toward zero solid waste is an aspirational goal in keeping with the strategic tonnes of greenhouse gas direction and supports the direction of our municipal partners. Furthermore, this report was prepared in direct response to Board direction where, at Authority Meeting #6/12, held on July 27, 2012, Resolution #A138/12 was approved, in part as follows: "...AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on what strategies TRCA is using to achieve zero waste and what TRCA is doing to change public awareness and engagement in waste reduction at all TRCA facilities ". ' Diversion rata Is the wale reduoedw ided, reused, recycled or recovered from total waste generated that would otherwise be designed to landfill measured from 2014 waste baseline. The intent of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan is to support TRCA in moving toward zero waste and in becoming a leader amongst its peers in managing its solid waste. This direction aligns well with the current corporate vision to become carbon neutral by 2025 and the goal to achieve a waste diversion rate of 80 per cent by 2020 from the baseline year of 20141. For TRCP to be considered a leader in the field of waste diversion, we will need to move beyond mere compliance with legislation and exceed the 60 per cent diversion target set by the Province for our municipal partners. Our municipal partners table 1, have committed themselves to either meeting or exceeding the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's diversion target of 60 per cent, set in 2004. While Ontario, as a whole, has only achieved 47.3 per cent diversion in 2013, most of our municipal partners have been above the average with their diversion rates and in their goals. Table 1: Municipal performance and targets for waste diversion ' Energy from Waste 248 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 Figure 1: Cyclical structure of a zero waste system. Traditional systems follow design, raw materials, manufacturing, consumption and landfill/ disposal line, whereas zero waste systems build on natural resource cycling where the need for extracting raw materials is substituted by recycling via source separation. 1.1 UNDERSTANDING ZERO WASTE Organizations struggle with the idea of achieving zero solid waste until they realize that it is an aspirational target that should be viewed as a journey. Zero waste is a concept that challenges the current system of waste disposal and focuses on the design of resource cycles, which builds on the common waste hierarchy of: reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and landfill /energy from waste. As leaders in the field of conservation and sustainability, it is important that TRCA demonstrate to our municipal partners that we are committed to matching or exceeding their own waste diversion targets. Where the need to generate solid waste cannot be eliminated, zero waste seeks to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all waste materials are destined to become resources for others to use, see figure 1. This also referred to as cradle -to- cradle thinking, in that a material is recycled into a new product at the end of its life, so that ultimately there is little to no waste. TRCA faces challenges in influencing resource flows outside of its control, especially at our facilities open to the public. Those challenges can be overcome by presenting increased options for diversion, enacting policies that reduce waste and encourage recycling and reuse, and redesigning our waste management procedures. To aim for zero waste requires TRCA to: avoid waste generation where possible; provide options to our visitors to divert their waste to recycling or compost streams; enact sustainable procurement policies which source the most suitable product or material using a combination of weighted sustainability factors; re- examine our list of material currently classified as landfill material and find substitutes or recycling destinations for it to be diverted. Where recycling, reducing and reusing are not available, TRCA must explore options for resource recovery, such as waste to energy. An additional consideration is for visitors and staff rethinking reusable versus disposable when considering product selection, or the packaging being used on a product. This can be addressed through education and awareness. Cradle- to`°Padle Pla 11 1W When choosing waste bins for the new head office in 2015, bins were selected from a company that had a progressive environmental policy. The plastic bins were composed of recycled material and can be picked up and recycled by the company at the end of their lifespan; around 20 years. Additionally, pre- consumer plastic off -cuts created in the manufacturing process are used to create bird houses for Project Nest Box, an initiative that gets students to set up houses and report on nesting data. electing these bins created increased market demand for recycled plastic, supported reuse of cut -offs and planned for the future recycling of the bin at end of life. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 249 Provincial Legislative Context Solid waste management and recycling in Ontario is regulated through the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change under the Environmental Protection Act. Ontario's Regulations are designed to ensure programs are developed to reduce the amount of valuable resources going to landfill and generally relate to the two areas where waste is generated: the residential sector and the industrial, commercial and institutional (IC &I) sector. TRCA fits within the IC &I sector. Organizations can be obligated to carry out waste audits and waste reduction work plans under Ontario Regulation 102/94 of the Environmental Protection Act. The Act encompasses educational institutions, hospitals; hotels and motels; manufacturing and retail establishments; restaurants and office buildings. Since TRCA does not have an office building totalling 10,000 m2, nor restaurants with sales above $3 million per year, nor does it fall under an educational facility where students are formally enrolled, TRCA is not obligated legally to conduct audits and waste reduction plans. Existing waste diversion programs at TRCA facilities go above and beyond those outlined in the Regulations for the IC &I sector. Although not obligated, TRCA audits waste as part of the broader effort to manage its own path towards sustainable waste management. Getting to Zero Waste As mentioned earlier, getting to zero waste is a journey that will require time and resources to achieve. However, addressing zero waste is only one of a number of important corporate sustainability initiatives that also require time and resources to complete. Prudent use of resources would dictate that for each corporate objective, including zero waste, we identify and implement the most cost effective solutions that help use achieve our objectives. In developing this plan staff have taken best efforts to identify the actions that will be cost effective and move the corporation toward zero waste. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION This project is divided into two parts - the first, this corporate report, focuses on the 2014 performance of TRCA in regards to generation management and diversion of waste, the challenges and opportunities that currently exist and the corporate strategy to move forward on advancing existing goals. The report focuses on commonalities shared between sites and operations to provide an overall strategic view as it relates to the corporate target of towards zero waste. The second part of the project builds on the Corporate Strategy to provide solid waste management plans for individual facilities. The individual site reports for the 19 facilities provide the tactical approach for the plan, focusing on specific audit findings and tailored recommendations. Acting as a report card, the site reports outline unique opportunities for improvements with coverage on the potential impact the recommendation may have, the resources required and who is involved or responsible. These reports are geared towards the site managers and provide site specific details on generation, characterisation and management. Z .WASTE QUANTIFICATION 32.0% Wood Waste 19.5% Construction Material 14.7% Contaminated Soil 14.5% Organic Waste 9.1 % Plastic, Metal and Glass 6.0% Paper Fibres 2.9% Miscellaneous Waste 1.1 % Manure 0.2% Hazardous & Electronic Waste Table 2: Percentage breakdown of waste by nine categories in 2014 AND CATEGORISATION In order to be able to formulate a corporate solid waste management strategy and plans for individual facilities, it is important to first understand the amount and composition of the waste TRCA generates. The quantity and characteristics of solid waste managed was determined through a series of 20 waste audits, conducted across the breadth of TRCA's sites and facilities, data from contracted waste haulers, tip weights from roll -on bins and conversations with staff. Supporting elements for this report, including a description of audit methodology, detailed audit results and findings from the staff survey, are found in a separate appendix report and is available upon request. 2.1 WASTE GENERATION TRCA generated 1,280 metric tonnes of solid waste in 2014 across nine categories. Categories of solid waste collected include woad debris, contaminated soil, construction waste from project implementation as well as plastic, metal, glass, organic waste, paper fibres, electronics and hazardous waste (paint, oil, light bulbs etc.) and manure. By far, the largest category of solid waste is wood debris' at 409 tonnes (32 %) generated through our program work cleaning out flood channels, addressing storm damage and invasive species. Construction and renovation waste" at our facilities and properties account for 250 tonnes (20 %), contaminated soil stands at 188 tonnes (15 %), and organic /food waste at 185 tonnes (15 %) from our offices and public facilities. The remaining categories include hazardous and electronic waste, paper fibres, plastic, metal and glass, miscellaneous waste and manure account for 248 tonnes, makes up 19% of all waste generated. TRCA TOTAL WASTE GENERATED (TONNES) - 2014 1lazardous & Electronic Waste d Manure 37 Miscellaneous Waste 77 Paper Fibres 117 Plastic, Metal and Glass 185 Organic Waste 188 Construction Soil 250 Construction Material 409 Wood Waste Figure 2: Waste tonnage generated by category through TRCA programs and from facilities in 2014. 3Includes live and dead branches, trunks and leaves collected from greenspaced not lumber from construction and renovation numerous, 4Indoors drywall, lumber, concrete, brick, piping wiring and carpeting from renovation projects and new construction, also includes operational waste from nursery and workshops. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 251 Figure 3: Total waste generated within all recycling, composting and garbage streams at the 19 TRCA facilities in scope. In teams of construction and bearskin. waste, it is generated by both facilities and programs but the tonnage generated was captured under programs as It is managed using temporary roll -on bins rather than regularly scheduled plckups In general, waste generated at TRCA can be divided into two broad sources, waste from the operation of our facilities and waste generated through implementation of our programs. These materials can be grouped into nine dominant categories. Our programs produce two - thirds of all of our waste, while facilities account for the remainder. Program generated waste primarily comes in from our field operations and is composed of construction and renovation waste, wood, or contaminated soil. Invoices for the disposal often indicate if the material was wood or contaminated soil, however this material was not audited. Unspecified invoices were destined for landfills. In addition, other than some of the construction and demolition waste nearly all of the program waste is remediated or recycled. Table 3: Waste generation (tonnage) for programs and facilities in 2014 - Additional construction waste is generated from project undertaken by contracted parties and where the collection and disposal of waste is included as an element of the contracted service, therefore k is not quantified, and therefore not included in this tally. Waste generated at our facilities is primarily from visitors to those facilities. With, the majority of the solid waste composed of organics (43°A) from lunches, kitchens and picnics, followed by recyclable plastic metal and glass (27 %) and paper fibres (18 %). These three categories collectively account for 88% of all solid waste generated at our facilties FACILITY WASTE GENERATED ( %) - 2014. Hazardous & Electronic Waste 390 Manure 8% Miscellaneous Waste ' P% Paper Fibres Plastic, Metal and Glass X13',, Organic Waste 252 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 Livestock Residents of BCPV 2 horses 1 -2 dairy cows (summer only) --12 sheep (Iambs on -site for a couple months - then sold) 4 goats 10 chickens 15 other fowl (e.g. heritage geese, guineatowl) Composition B% Take Out Containers 9% Other 9% Plastic Film 0% Recycled Fibre 3% Rec. Bottles & Cans 1% Organics Composition 5% Take Out Containers 5% Other 5% Plastic Film 14% Organics 27% Rec. Bottles & Cans 44% Recycled Fibre Figure 4: Breakdown of the composition of the two waste streams from our all TRCA facilities. The garbage stream includes 31 % recyclable materials (bottle and cans, fibre and half of take out containers). The largest contaminant in the recycling stream is organic waste at 14 %, with residual food from picnics. Because of local and informal approaches, the tracking of hazardous waste generated each year is difficult to quantify. The reported weight is based on annual estimates derived from conversations with staff at sites. Where invoices exist for the hauling of the material, there seldom is a weight value provided as the service is often not priced by weight. For a -waste, where the TRCA receives payment for the material, invoices do include the weight of the material; therefore e -waste has been included into the annual total waste generated. The three main sources of hazardous waste include: material from our offices that act as central hubs where staff can bring in batteries from home for recycling; TRCA facilities that produce their own hazardous waste through operations; and at campgrounds and conservation areas where visitors bring in hazardous materials such as small propane tanks. Manure is generated from the TRCA livestock holdings at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The Village houses various farm animals and the annual production was estimated to be 14 tonnes per year. The largest proportion of this waste is generated from Ross and Integra, the horses of Black Creek. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 253 2.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste is managed in a number different ways across TRCA. At our facilities, we rely on private and public contractors to remove waste on a scheduled and seasonal basis. Our programs rely on a number of on -call roll -on bin providers who haul the waste material to numerous locations for final disposal. These roll -on bins are also used at some facilities to accommodate regular waste generated at big events as well as construction and renovation waste. Tendering for waste management services from private hauling companies is done for the majority of TRCA sites. Of recent, TRCA has moved away from sites selecting their own tendering and moved towards a group tender covering all waste serving needs (garbage, recycling, cardboard, roll -on bins). Currently, the only sites that do not fall under the current tendering contract are 101 Exchange, Eastville and our Peel Region sites. The eight streams of solid waste collected are managed in a variety of ways. Garbage is landfilled for the most part, except for some of the waste collected by Peel Region and at 101 Exchange which is sent to energy from waste facilities. Recycling can be separated and managed at different sites in four ways. At areas where we have high numbers of public visitors, we have single stream management, similar to many municipal recycling programs. At areas where either volume is high enough, or where we have good participation from TRCA staff and field centre visitors, we use multiple collection streams. At some of our smaller offices compost is managed locally onsite using composters, but where we have collection from haulers it is destined to anaerobic digestion. E -waste and certain hazardous waste are recycled, but certain fluids are incinerated for disposal. STREAM Facility Waste Garbage MANAGEMENT To landfill To energy from waste operations Recycling Single stream Mixed container Paper Cardboard Organics Small scale collection on site Anaerobic digestion E -waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling Manure Program Waste Composting Table 4: Current management options and disposal destinations for waste categories generated by TRCA The TRCA manages a variety of hazardous waste and a -waste Within this stream the types of material managed include, but are not limited to, solvents, propane canisters, fluorescent lightbulbs, e- waste, batteries, paints, motor oil and tires. 254 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 Figure 5: Twinned bins at Petticoat Creek CA In a pilot study at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area to measure the importance of proximity for waste receptacles, garbage and recycling wire mesh bins were chained at the bottom to prevent them from becoming separated. These 'twinned bins' were compared with bins that were unattached and that became moved around by patrons to facilitate their picnics, Disposal of hazardous and a -waste can pose challenges for our staff and a number of unique ways have been developed by each site to deal with it. At BCPV, automotive waste is informally taken back by the mechanic who has the contract to maintain the vehicles on site. RSC has a number of contracts for hauling the hazardous waste to proper disposal. At our Peel Region sites, staff either bring the material to the local Community Recycling Centres, or hand it off to Peel Region employees for proper transport and disposal. In each case, flexible local solutions have been used in lieu of a formal corporate wide solution. E -waste is collected and managed via formal and informal means at a number of TRCA facilities. At our offices, staff has the opportunity to bring in old electronic waste from home and combine it with the corporate e -waste generated from the Information Technology department. This waste stream is primarily composed of old or non - functioning electronic equipment from business operations. This includes desktop computers, telephones and computer peripherals. last year over 1,600 kg of waste was collected. We receive payment for each kilogram of a -waste collected. Informal agreements with municipalities exist at other sites to provide on -going a -waste collection. Informal collection occurs at our campgrounds and conservation areas with material being deposited beside waste collection bins, this is however rare. When this happens at our sites in Peel Region, we arrange for it be recycled with the other hazardous waste. Where it happens elsewhere, it can be collected by staff for eventual recycling. 2.3 WASTE DIVERSION Waste diversion is the prevention through source reduction, recycling, reuse, recovery or composting of waste destined for landfill. Overall, TRCA achieved a respectable diversion rate of 56% in 2014. In addition, significant diversion rates were achieved with woody debris, contaminated soil, electronic waste and hazardous waste by either remediation or recycling. However, diversion was lowest with construction waste (9 %) and organic waste (16 %). Diversion of plastic, metal, glass achieved a rate of 30% and paper fibre reached a diversion rate of 36 %. To develop the diversion rates, the composition of each stream was determined through audits and contamination within each stream was estimated and deducted from the weights to provide an accurate actual diversion rate. Unfortunately this procedure was not completed for the construction and renovation waste stream, but will be included as a recommendation for future work. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 255 Manure is collected and stored onsite at Black Creek Pioneer Village until the Audits revealed that although 'twinned bins' did not amount becomes economically viable to manage. In the past low /no cost options lead visitors to recycle more by weight, it did make have been utilized to remove the waste for eventual composting. No pick up of them recycle more accurately leading to a significant waste occurred in 2014, but the pile was sent to be composted. in 2015. drop in contamination, from 65% in the control down to 15% with the'twined bins'. Data for program waste managed with roll -on bins was sourced from bills provided by haulers. In some cases we could identify when the roll -on bins were wood waste, but for the majority of the bills all that was indicated was that it was dumped at a landfill. Where the composition of the bin was wood, this was destined for recycling and where the waste was contaminated soils this material was remediated to become clean fill for future use. 2.3 WASTE DIVERSION Waste diversion is the prevention through source reduction, recycling, reuse, recovery or composting of waste destined for landfill. Overall, TRCA achieved a respectable diversion rate of 56% in 2014. In addition, significant diversion rates were achieved with woody debris, contaminated soil, electronic waste and hazardous waste by either remediation or recycling. However, diversion was lowest with construction waste (9 %) and organic waste (16 %). Diversion of plastic, metal, glass achieved a rate of 30% and paper fibre reached a diversion rate of 36 %. To develop the diversion rates, the composition of each stream was determined through audits and contamination within each stream was estimated and deducted from the weights to provide an accurate actual diversion rate. Unfortunately this procedure was not completed for the construction and renovation waste stream, but will be included as a recommendation for future work. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 255 ■ Wasre GenerWd. 201418 ■ Waste Grverted, 2014 (0 Wood Waste Construction Waste Contaminated Soil Plastic, Metal & Glass Organic Waste Paper Fibres Miscellaneous Waste E- Waste/ Hazardous Waste Figure 6: Waste generated and diverted /recycled /composted in 2014. Manure is not included in the graph as it was stockpiled in 2014. In 2015 the accumulated manure was hauled away by a compost operator. 2.3.1 WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL Looking at the total waste generated, approximately 37 tonnes of the waste stream consists of miscellaneous materials that cannot be diverted. This includes all of the miscellaneous waste such as diapers, rubber rafts, camping tents and other items thrown away by the public that visit our facilities that cannot be captured, therefore achieving 100% diversion is an aspirational goal. However to achieve the current corporate target of 80% diversion by 2020, Tl must divert an additional 300 tonnes or 24% of its solid waste streams. As it stands now, the greatest opportunities for this diversion lies in the diversion of construction and renovation waste. Aiming to achieve a 60% diversion rate for construction waste would divert 150 tonnes, bringing us half- way to our goal. TRCA can divert the additional 150 tonnes needed by adopting a challenging but achievable subset of goals in additional streams. This can be done by increasing the collection of mixed recyclables to 50 %, resulting in diversion of 58 tonnes, increasing organic waste diversion to 30 %, resulting in diversion of 55 tonnes, and increasing paper fibre to 50% resulting in an additional 38 tonnes diverted. Staff believe this 300 tonnes of additional diversion can be achieved through a few changes in the management approach. 256 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 10 OVERALL CORPORATE STRATEGY The journey toward zero waste begins with a focus on putting the appropriate management approach in place that supports implementing the recommendations in the Corporate Strategy and the individual facility plans. The analysis of solid waste and our management approach has illustrated that one size rarely "fits all" for TRCA's diverse facilities and programs. An adaptive management approach will be required in order to achieve the corporate target of 80% diversion by 2020 and zero waste in the long term. Adaptive management provides us with an approach to foster a culture of continuous improvement. Supporting the adaptive management approach should be a more inclusive and formal governance structure. A pragmatically oriented steering committee encompassing staff from various facilities should be convened on an annual basis with the goal of sharing which actions and strategies that are working (or not) at sites, provide feedback on the waste service to ensure the tendering process is tailored to their needs and present new ideas on sustainable waste management based on site observations and experiences. Providing a formal and regular touch point with site staff ensures that the strategies can be adapted as new actions get tested. Short to long term issues and opportunities to move us towards zero waste have been identified by audit results, conversations with staff and with the help of a sustainable waste consultant. These initiatives can be implemented at various sites and developed into new operating procedures across the entire TRCA. More site specific initiatives have been captured in the individual facility plans. Outlined in the sections that follow are strategies which can be implemented across the organisation. Included with each are initiatives for achieving the opportunity, a time frame for implementation and a listing of who would be required to help bring the desired change. ,j 11 Data assesses the success of our actions and progress towards our targets. Weights from haulers and audits provides materials for conferences and seminars on best practices in the field and lead to new strategies, policies and pilot projects. Actions are the levers by which the strategies can be achieved over the short, medium, and long -term. The four main tools employed to achieve waste targets are to reduce waste, reuse materials, recycle and recover energy from waste, such as bio -gas from organic waste. Strategies provide guidance on getting from the present -state to the desired end -state (vision and target). Each strategy is supported by initiatives levering us towards our goal and include both top -down and bottom -up approaches. Strategies applied to specific sites are the tactical plans for facilities managers. Laying out the actions tailored to the unique elements of each area: visitors, waste management streams, operations and location. Facility Plans include an assessment of current operations, identify opportunities for improvement, and outlines no -to low -cost initiatives that can be completed in the short -term. Figure 8: The strategic framework outlines a broad approach to achieving the aspire8unal vision of "towards zero waste'. The framework is intended to apply TRCA wide and provide long-ten direction and guidance across the organ¢ation 258 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 ir1 3.1 REDUCTION /AVOIDANCE OF WASTE The first step in the sustainable waste hierarchy is to reduce. Using 2014 as a baseline year, efforts should be made to lower the overall total waste generated annually, while also increasing the diversion rate. There will always be material that cannot be reduced, but small steps can be made in our operations and our facilities to avoid waste. Where We Are Now Currently there are only ad hoc efforts to consider waste reduction or avoidance at sites. These are not formalized and are not driven by any guidelines or policies. Where We Want to Go Measure annual waste generated against the baseline year to determine if annual waste materials at facilities are being reduced. Waste from projects may not be avoidable in the same way as waste from facilities. Develop ways to eliminate purchasing of unnecessary goods through procurement policies, guidelines and tools and a formal inventory of potentially shared resources between departments. How We're Going to Get There Table 5: Recommended actions for reduction and avoidance of waste 3.2 STAFF ENGAGEMENT At our facilities, employees represent our front line for educating their peers and the public on our vision for zero waste. Aligning zero waste with the staff culture at TRCA would help to embed it into ongoing action and help establish it as a social norm — or as the standard way of doing business. Engaging staff in TRCA's commitment and policies with respect to solid waste and educating them on our various waste streams allow for our staff to become waste ambassadors within the organization. Where We Are Now Staff members currently play a significant role in the success of the waste management programs at their facilities since they engage in day -to -day activities that contribute to waste generation and have control over the amount of waste produced. They are often the go -to people when it comes to visitors questions about waste. However, multiple audits have revealed that at areas where only staff has access to waste bins, mistakes are being made and recycling is being tossed into the garbage bin. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 259 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1 -3 4 -5 Responsibilities Monitor paper use and develop a paper reduction target for Sustainability the corporate level and at department levels. ( Coordinator, Site Managers Reduce bottled water consumption at TRCA facilities and Sustainability events. Provide and maintain access to drinking water V/ Coordinator, Site through taps, refilling stations and fountains at TRCA sites. Managers Develop guidelines and tools to consolidate and track Corporate Resources, shared material in an inventory so that duplicate purchasing Sustainability does not occur between departments. Coordinator Table 5: Recommended actions for reduction and avoidance of waste 3.2 STAFF ENGAGEMENT At our facilities, employees represent our front line for educating their peers and the public on our vision for zero waste. Aligning zero waste with the staff culture at TRCA would help to embed it into ongoing action and help establish it as a social norm — or as the standard way of doing business. Engaging staff in TRCA's commitment and policies with respect to solid waste and educating them on our various waste streams allow for our staff to become waste ambassadors within the organization. Where We Are Now Staff members currently play a significant role in the success of the waste management programs at their facilities since they engage in day -to -day activities that contribute to waste generation and have control over the amount of waste produced. They are often the go -to people when it comes to visitors questions about waste. However, multiple audits have revealed that at areas where only staff has access to waste bins, mistakes are being made and recycling is being tossed into the garbage bin. Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 259 13 Where We Want to Go All staff should be encouraged to engage in the waste management programs at each facility and to understand corporate objectives and their own roles in helping to achieve them. They should be provided with clear instructions on what the streams of each site are and what is acceptable within them. Building on a culture of conservation already strong within the TRCA, staff can help to foster a culture of toward zero waste where waste avoidance and proper waste management techniques are the norm. A waste committee should be established with representation from various TRCA divisions including property, parks & culture and corporate services, and with outside members including the waste hauler and /or consultants. This group would meet to discuss issues related to the sustainable waste management plan. How We're Going to Get There Table 6: Recommended actions for staff engagement 260 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Develop a steering committee convened on an annual basis Sustainability with the objective of sharing which actions and strategies Coordinator are working (or not) at sites, provide feedback on the ✓ waste service and present new ideas on sustainable waste management. Develop engagement and education programs for office Sustainability staff, integrating waste management into onboarding Coordinator packages and new staff orientation. Elements could include: ✓ • Awareness pieces about the zero waste initiative • Specifics on what goes where and what staff can do • Integration of recognition or awards for outstanding work Educate seasonal and temporary staff at conservation Sustainability areas to ensure that they are aware and supportive of TRCA Coordinator, Human waste diversion efforts and what is acceptable within the ✓ Resources staff streams. Prepare education materials and reach out to managers so that waste and recycling education is part of the orientation process. Conduct training for EcoTeam members on waste Sustainability diversion initiatives and tools and integrate training into Coordinator, new staff orientation. Include EcoTeam members in ✓ EcoTeam Members MRF tours to educate them on what happens with waste materials and build confidence that their leadership is helping to deliver results. Engage staff from the Project Management Office early Sustainability on so that sustainable waste management is considered in `� Coordinator, PMO the project planning phase of any restoration, demolition staff, Properties staff or construction operation. Table 6: Recommended actions for staff engagement 260 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 14 3.3 PUBLIC SPACE VISITOR ENGAGEMENT The public represents some of the biggest challenges in terms of the material that they bring to our sites. However, they are also our greatest opportunity to achieve our diversion targets at TRCA parks and other public facilities. Visitors range from school children, golfers, mountain bikers, campers, skiers and picnickers, each group creates different waste, has different recycling habits and many come from outside the TRCA jurisdiction. Our opportunity to engage them can range from a few seconds to a whole camping season. Getting them onboard with our sustainable waste practices is critical to our success. Where We Are Now A large proportion of waste managed at facilities originates from visitors. Our public use areas account for 76% of the waste generated at our facilities when compared with our offices and field centres. The facility assessments indicate that there is a good opportunity to improve visitor awareness and behaviours related to sorting of materials into the proper waste streams. Where We Want to Go Visitors should have equal and easy access to all available waste streams at the same location so that they can make the best decision and place the waste in the correct location. Passive and active engagement using education programs and signage will help to convey the "toward zero waste" culture to visitors. How We're Going to Get There Table 7: Recommended actions for public space visitor engagement Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 261 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Develop education materials that are tailored to the site Site Staff and and type of visitor. Helping to clarify what goes where ✓ Sustainability when sorting. Coordinator Engage and educate visitors to help foster sustainable Site Staff and behaviours through awareness, reducing barriers to proper Sustainability sorting, and encouraging social norms. Include message ✓ Coordinator "toward zero waste" vision clear to visitors through signage/ communication. Pilot periodic educational blitz to engage visitors Site Staff and face -to -face with personalized education. ✓ Sustainability Coordinator Engage with seasonal residents and long -term visitors Site Staff and at our campgrounds using informational brochures that ✓ Sustainability outline the acceptable material in each waste stream, similar Coordinator to the outreach municipalities do with households. Table 7: Recommended actions for public space visitor engagement Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 261 15 3.4 COMMUNICATION AND BRANDING Having a clear and consistent message across the Authority can help to create a unified brand that visitors and staff can recognise and relate to. Using the messaging of "toward zero waste' helps TRCA to establish a direct link to our overall waste targets as an organization. Where We Are Now Across all facilities assessed, it is apparent that there is a need for consistent communication, messaging and signage relating to TRCA's waste objectives and the waste management programs in place at each facility. In Summer 2014, new waste and recycling signs were rolled out across the facilities. This has allowed waste signage to be consistent and recognizable across all areas. Where We Want to Go Ensure clear and concise messaging and signage for staff and visitors at all TRCA facilities. Gain recognition of TRCA's goal for solid waste and its relationship to our strategic direction. One option is to become 3R Certified, a points - based program for buildings in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. The 3R program could provide comprehensive analysis of the entire lifecycle of waste management —from procurement to final disposal. The program would formalize measures to ensure continued auditing and weighing is practiced and commits TRCA to continuous waste improvement. How We're Going to Get There Table 8: Recommended actions for communication and branding 262 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1 -3 4 -5 Responsibilities Adopt the term "Toward zero waste" and develop Marketing staff recognizable branding and messages. Integrate the term ✓ and Sustainability into CSR strategy. Coordinator Develop a corporation -wide communication strategy Marketing staff supporting zero waste efforts with consistent messaging, and Sustainability terminology, visuals, and tools to be applied to all facilities ✓ Coordinator to support the corporate Living City objectives, and CSR objectives and the 80% waste diversion goal. Develop and install clear and consistent signage in all Marketing staff waste areas to help address knowledge barriers at the point and Sustainability of staff members and visitors making a decision on how ✓ Coordinator, Site materials should be sorted. Communicate the zero waste Managers messages, such as branding TRCA as toward zero waste and facilities as toward zero waste. Explore the 3R program to see if it would provide Sustainability comprehensive analysis of the entire lifecycle of waste ✓ Coordinator management —from procurement to final disposal. Leverage the journey to zero waste experience by Sustainability showcasing best practices and lessons learned at ✓ Coordinator conferences and seminars Table 8: Recommended actions for communication and branding 262 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 16 3.5 ORGANICS Organics represent a chance for TRCA to reuse a waste and promote recovery at the same time as diverting material from landfill. Choosing anaerobic digestion of organic material allows for the production of renewable energy to support societal goals and can provide valuable fertilizer for reuse. Where We Are Now Informal collection programs exist at offices and some facilities and formal contracted collection exists at the Interim Head Office, and in the kitchens of Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre. Approximately 43% of all waste at our facilities is organic waste. TRCA produced 165 tonnes of organic waste in 2014. Where We Want to Go The collection and diversion of organic waste represents the biggest opportunity for TRCA to increase the diversion rate at our facilities, but it can also be one the trickiest to achieve low contamination. Expanding existing collection, which in some areas is limited to kitchens, as well as exploring opportunities to increase collection services at more sites will help greatly help us to reach our objectives. If we are able to divert 30% by 2020, 55 tonnes of organic waste would be diverted. How We're Going to Get There Table 9: Recommended actions for organics Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 263 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Expand organic collection at sites where our staff is Parks & Culture primarily responsible for organic waste generation as in ✓ Staff, Sustainability commercial kitchens. Provide training and educational Coordinator support material to staff on acceptable materials. Conduct pilot project to expand organic collection to public Sustainability use areas such as conservation areas. ✓ Coordinator Conduct pilot to expand organic collection to weddings, Parks & Culture special events, and large picnics. ✓ Staff, Sustainability Coordinator Wider launch of organic waste program at public use areas Parks & Culture across the TRCA, with specific consideration for camp ✓ Staff, Sustainability, grounds. Coordinator Table 9: Recommended actions for organics Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 263 17 3.6 CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION WASTE Often overshadowed by the weekly waste collection program, the occasional and seasonal generation of construction and renovation wastes is a significant issue where TRCA could be doing better. Unfortunately, scale of construction waste and roll -on bin use was not understood at the start of this project and as such a key first step is to conduct audits on the type and quantity of waste being generated. Where We Are Now Many of our activities generate material that ends up in large roll -on bins that is taken to landfill. The composition of material can vary greatly from project to project. Opportunities exist to divert this material, if the proper system is in place. In 2014, Restoration Services Centre engaged a waste hauler who specializes in recycling construction waste. RSC was able to collect 6.25 tonnes of wood, plastic culvert material, Geotextile, sediment filter cloth and paper /plastic reforestation bags to be sent for recycling rather than landfilling. In the bill provided by to waste contractor it was shown that 10% of the material was residual and 90% was diverted. Not all waste generated from our operations in roll -on bins will have similar characteristics to the waste collected at RSC, however there is the opportunity to recycle a large portion of each bin given the selection of a hauler who has the ability to process the material. Some facilities rely on roll -on bins to collect garbage overflow on particularly busy periods when the regular garbage becomes full. These bins also collect oversized garbage from site and construction and renovation materials that may accumulate over the season (i.e., old picnic benches). Where We Want to Go Construction waste represents one of our greatest challenges and opportunities in terms of increasing our waste diversion. As such, it is key to our long -term waste strategy vision and goals. In future, construction waste should be sent to appropriate Material Recovery Facilities in order to maximize diversion or managed without having to be sent to facility, such as reuse of wood, durable goods, local arrangements for reuse. How We're Going to Get There Table 10: Recommended actions for construction and renovation waste InnInds. tlrywar lumbsC cmrs,sta brisk, piping, wiring and carpeting from renovation protests and new constmorm, also includes operational waste from nursery and workshops, 264 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1'3 4 -5 in Responsibilities Identify contractors that offer diversion services of Sustainability construction and renovation waste. Visit material recovery Coordinator facilities to verify operation and determine the categories of materials that are acceptable for diversion. Look to expand existing regular garbage bin collection Site Staff and Parks & so that excess garbage created from conservation areas Culture Staff does not need to be deposited into roll -on bins where appropriate. Audit roll -on bins to characterize the waste that is `/ Sustainability being collected. Coordinator Pilot project at a suitable location to evaluate the challenges Sustainability and opportunities of roll -on bin waste diversion. This would Coordinator, include working with project manager to estimate expected Properties Staff, and waste materials generated in advance of the project and Parks & Culture Staff explore opportunities for reuse or recycle within each local context. Table 10: Recommended actions for construction and renovation waste InnInds. tlrywar lumbsC cmrs,sta brisk, piping, wiring and carpeting from renovation protests and new constmorm, also includes operational waste from nursery and workshops, 264 Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 18 3.7 HAZARDOUS WASTE Waste generated at our sites, and through our operations as well as waste brought to our facilities by the public is at times hazardous, yet TRCA lacks a formal coordinated approach to dealing with hazardous waste. Hazardous waste can include solvents, propane canisters, fluorescent lightbulbs, e- waste, batteries, paints, motor oil and tires. Although hazardous waste is combined elsewhere in the report with a -waste these strategies primarily deal with hazardous waste, since the a -waste steam is not extensively available or necessary across most TRCA sites. Where We Are Now Local agreements exist at sites with some municipal partners, but for the most part the hazardous material accumulates at sites over the course of years. From discussions from facility managers a rough estimates of our annual hazardous waste is between 1 and 2 tonnes but no formal audit has been conducted. This is exclusive of our a -waste which is an additional 1.6 tonnes. Although the quantity of the hazardous waste generated is small compared to the annual total of TRCA's other waste streams due to the hazardous nature of the material it is critical to have mechanisms in place to track the material and be able to account for its safe disposal. A current initiative is underway in summer 2015 to contract and combine the pick -up of hazardous waste from sites at the same time as collecting medical waste and needles. Where We Want to Go A corporate wide coordinated approach to tracking and management hazardous and e- waste. Quantities and types of waste should be audited on a regular basis to support management decisions. Monitor which material was disposed, how much and who handled the disposal. Knowing this information will lead to better practices for the collection and disposal of the hazardous waste. How We're Going to Get There Table 11: Recommended actions for hazardous waste Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 265 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Audit current issue of stock piled hazardous waste at sites. Health & Safety Reach out to facility staff to take inventory of what we have, Staff, Sustainability how much of it and when we can get it removed. Develop ✓ Coordinator, Site a standardized template for site managers to complete, Managers tracking hazardous waste at each facility. Develop a plan for the future whereby hazardous waste Health & Safety collection is formalized and picked up on a regular basis. ✓ Staff, Sustainability Coordinator Develop a plan whereby a -waste collection is formalized Health & Safety and picked up on regular basis and expand collection to ✓ Staff, Sustainability additional sites if practical. Coordinator Explore partnership opportunities to reuse old computer Sustainability and electronic equipment for refurbishment and /or Coordinator, donation. ✓ Information Technology Staff, Partners in Project Green Staff Consider deploying "lab packs" or other hazardous Health & Safety containment barrels to collect and temporarily store waste ✓ Staff, Sustainability prior to pick up. This would be a safe and traceable system Coordinator prior to final disposal. Table 11: Recommended actions for hazardous waste Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 265 19 3.8 PROCUREMENT Sustainable purchasing practices are used by organizations to buy goods and services by evaluating them on multiple criteria, not just price. This includes consideration for best value (quality, price, and /or service), impact on the environment and product life cycle and social and ethical impacts. Sustainable purchasing also assesses the need the product or service fulfills and then evaluates if the need can be met in another way and if the product or service is truly necessary. Sustainable procurement, as it relates to waste management, focuses on the ability for a product to be recycled, reused, repaired or recovered for energy and the procurement of services which promote these practices. Where We Are Now TRCA does have a "Mandatory Green Product and Service Procurement List" however it is has not been updated in almost two years and does not focus on sustainable waste considerations. Where We Want to Go A revised list of sustainable products that take into account evolving technology, socially responsible and local sources as it relates to sustainable solid waste management. Updating the sustainable products list should involve a coordinated approach on an ongoing basis and development of metrics to monitor and evaluate progress. Develop mechanisms to consider in the long -term the full life cycle of all purchases and assets through a comprehensive asset management program. How We're Going to Get There Table 12: Recommended actions for procurement 266 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Seek expert advice on developing and integrating a CEO Office, sustainable procurement strategy which includes provisions Sustainability for sustainable waste management. Coordinator Develop and implement a zero waste event policy and CEO Office, guidelines /toolkit for TRCA events. Sustainability Coordinator, Site Managers Adapt the sustainable procurement policy to consider CEO Office, reduction, recycling, reuse and recover of waste using Sustainability guidelines for the following areas. Example areas include: Coordinator, Site Catering and Food Service ✓ Managers Event Planning Furniture and Office Supplies using EPEAT certified products Paper and Printing Product packaging Construction and renovation projects must include Sustainability considerations for waste diversion by recycling, resuse Coordinator and recovery when implemented internally or through the tendering process. Develop a monitoring and verification process to ensure Sustainability that sustainable procurement policies are being adopted Coordinator and practiced. Table 12: Recommended actions for procurement 266 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 3.9 WASTE HAULER TENDERING PROCESS Contracts for waste hauling from TRCA sites are an ongoing issue and opportunity. The selection process allows for the TRCA to choose partners who share our vision toward zero waste and who can help us to achieve our targets. Where We Are Now Several different waste management contractors are used at the various sites, offering different services and different procedures to collect and process materials. It is not completely known what happens to materials after they are collected from each site post pick up and has created confusion amongst staff, which can generate cynicism. Where We Want to Go A coordinated tendering approach for hiring waste management contractors would greatly assist in aligning the service with the corporate goals and objectives. Wider transparency of what happens when TRCA waste reaches a material recovery facility would also help to understand how waste is processed once it leaves our property. In May 2014, TRCA hired a new contractor who specializes in waste tracking and diversion. An extension of the contract has been provided till December 2015. Thus far the contractor has been able to provide TRCA monthly weights of waste for facilities covered under the contract. Moving forward, these weights will be the primary source for our corporate total, providing us with valuable data concerning our waste performance. How We're Going to Get There Table 13: Recommended actions for the waste hauler tendering process Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 267 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1-3 4 -5 Responsibilities Create a waste tendering template to ensure that provisions Sustainability for sustainable waste practices and data collection are ✓ Coordinator, included in the request for proposal. Properties Staff, and Parks & Culture Staff Consider grouping all waste streams into tendering contract Sustainability by including construction and renovation, hazardous, ✓ Properties Staff, and electronic, yard, organic wastes with standard garbage and Parks & Culture Staff recycling contract. Coordinator, Ensure a transparent relationship with hauler to ensure Sustainability waste is being properly disposed of, including informal Coordinator, auditing of material recovery facilities. Perform auditing of monthly waste values and site visits of where the waste ✓ is being processed. Invite waste contractors to steering committee to provide challenges, opportunities and clarity about the waste collection process. Implement coordinated and consistent tendering approach CEO Office, for hiring waste management contractors aimed at f, Sustainability supporting and being consistent with the Long -Term Coordinator, Site Sustainable Solid Waste Strategy. Managers Table 13: Recommended actions for the waste hauler tendering process Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 267 21 3.10 REDUCE CONTAMINATION Contamination can result in a whole dumpster of recycling being downgraded to garbage and result in service interruption from haulers who will refuse pick up. As the cost of disposal of garbage is twice the cost of recycling it is in TRCA's financial interest to lower the contamination rate at all of the sites to ensure that the material is being recycled, to lower our waste hauling costs, keep the best service providers and achieve our corporate goals. Where We Are Now Contamination continues to be a issue within both our recycling and garbage streams. Approximately 20% of the recycling collected from our facilities is composed of garbage and approximately 25% of the garbage stream is composed of recyclable material. Contamination has become a problem at a number of sites throughout the most recent waste contracting period. Where recycling has been deemed to be too contaminated it is picked up as garbage. Discussions between sites, our waste contractor, and the driver has helped to find solutions to avoiding situations where recycling is not picked up. Where We Want to Go Decreasing the level of contamination in the waste streams helps TRCA to achieve the overall target of 80% diversion by 2020, while also ensuring that the waste at our facilities is collected on schedule and with no service interruptions. Lower contamination builds trust and fosters confidence with staff that their efforts are having a positive impact, helping to diminish any misconceptions about how the waste is managed. TRCA should aim to increase the diversion rate of recyclable mixed containers from 30% in 2014 to 50% in 2020 and paper fibre from 26% to 50% by 2020; collectively this would divert an additional 96 tonnes. How We're Going to Get There Table 14: Recommended actions for reducing contamination 268 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1.3 4 -5 Responsibilities Ensure that all large bins and wire mesh bins at public use Site Managers sites are co- located and that users have the opportunity to choose between the best streams without inconvenience. ✓ Consider and prepare for expanded services at areas where organics collection will be piloted. Work with staff and cleaners so that they are aware of what Site Managers, level of contamination is tolerable and ensure that they are ✓ Sustainability taking the source separated garbage to the correct bins for Coordinator hauler pick up. Ensure signage is visible, accurate and clear when new Site Managers, waste service providers are hired on large bins and for Sustainability wire mesh bins. Large bins should include the message ✓ Coordinator (after clear and tinted blue bags for waste and recycling are adopted) " Clear Garbage Bags Only" and "Blue Recycling Bags Only" Conduct observation of waste collection at start of new Sustainability contract and periodically thereafter at sites to ensure the Coordinator waste hauler is using the appropriate collection vehicle for each stream. Ensures that recycling is not being comingled with garbage on the same pick -up run. Table 14: Recommended actions for reducing contamination 268 Toronto and Region conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 22 3.11 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Data assesses the success of our actions and progress towards our targets. An integral part of adaptive management approach provides empirical data to help decision making as the program evolves. Data collected will help to determine the success of certain initiatives and provide a snapshot of where we are relative to the baseline. Where We Are Now An important part of managing the progress and outcomes of the sustainable waste management plan is through the implementation of a monitoring system. Data from audits carried out in 2014 has been captured in a master database. New data from five audits carried out in 2015 has been added to the database. Currently, our waste projections are the result of estimations made for sites based on observations, measurements and anecdotal discussions with staff our facilities; and the weigh bills from roll -on bins from the accounting system. Where We Want to Go Additional data can be compiled with annual audits of select sites. Data collected will help inform the steering committee as to the future direction of the program. How We're Going to Get There Moving forward, our contracted waste provider will be able to provide us with accurate (or where necessary, estimates) of the weight of our waste stream via scales on the transfer trucks. It is expected this this level of detail will be included in future waste contracting considerations. Table 15: Recommended actions for monitoring and evaluation Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 269 TIMEFRAME (years) Initiative <1 1'3 4 -5 Responsibilities Aim to conduct five audits of different facility types each Site Managers year to ensure that all sites are audited once every four ✓ ✓ ✓ years. Conduct annual review of all waste bills in the accounting Site Managers, system and weights from the waste haulers to calculate Sustainability annual waste generation totals. Provide this to the steering ✓ Coordinator committee. For areas serviced by municipal pick up, conduct estimates based on average weights, frequency of pick up and duration of season to determine annual totals. Complete an annual report on waste generation and Site Managers, diversion and share with all staff (as per communication f- Sustainability strategies). Use the opportunity to demonstrate the Coordinator successes, staff profiles, new initiatives, etc. Develop indicators to show environmental performance on Sustainability waste diversion (i.e. trees and water saved, landfill space ✓ Coordinator avoided) to demonstrate to a varied audience progress on waste management Review and refresh strategy every 5 years. As initiatives are Sustainability implemented, priorities may shift away from planed actions ✓ Coordinator, Steering and may require expnasion of activities to new areas. Committee Table 15: Recommended actions for monitoring and evaluation Toronto and Region Conservation Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan 2015 269 Measurement Tools For facilities under contract with our private waste haulers, we should continue to rely of the monthly pick -up weights provided by our waste service providers. Where limitations exist (i.e. scales on trucks not functioning) estimates will be provided from the waste hauler. At facilities not covered under the contract but covered by the Municipality of Peel, we will need to rely on estimates acquired through the use of informal auditing. Additionally we can open up discussions with Peel region to see if we can be provided with scale data from the pick -up trucks at collection time. For weights from our roll o11 bins we can continue to rely of the scale weight provided in the invoices from the waste hauler. This is available on an annual basis from Lotus Notes. All these measurements will be captured annually through exiting corporate sustainability reporting practices. 24 4. CONCLUSIONS With a respectable diversion rate of 56% in 2014, the TRCA is aptly positioned to meet the target of 80% diversion by 2020 on our journey toward zero waste. Building on the culture of conservation that already exists, staff can be engaged and empowered to take on the strategies developed in this corporate report and the facility reports to deliver initiatives geared towards reaching our vision of toward zero waste. This report has laid out the challenges, opportunities and initiatives needed to drive the sustainable waste management program and fulfill the Board's mandate from the Authority Meeting #6/12, held on July 27, 2012, Resolution #A138/12 that states: "...AND FURTHER THAT staff 'report back on what strategies TRCA is using to achieve zero waste and what TRCA is doing to change public awareness and engagement iii waste reduction at all TRCA facilities ". Implementation of these strategies will require considerable internal coordination between groups within TRCA using, shared resources and effective working relationships, as much as it involves actively engaging our visitors and changing the way that they perceive of waste. By engaging both the staff and the public TRCA can meet or exceed the diversion targets of our funding partners and reach our own ambitious, yet achievable target in the near future. Emi � — RES. #A91116 - KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SITE SERVICING PROJECT Tender Call #10001696. Award of Contract #10001696 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the installation of municipal water and sanitary services within the Kortright Centre for Conservation, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Contract #10001696 be awarded to TACC Construction Ltd. for installation of municipal site servicing within the Kortright Centre for Conservation, in the City of Vaughan, at a total cost not to exceed $1,315,500.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Situated in the City of Vaughan on 325 hectares of pristine woodlands, the Kortright Centre for Conservation (KCC) combines a natural oasis with some of the most leading edge sustainable education programs and events in Canada. KCC hosts over 100,000 visitors annually and offers over 50 environmental education programs for schools and 30 sustainable technology workshops for the public, trades and industry or working professionals. The Kortright Visitor Centre building is a 30,000 square foot, three level post and beam structure, with a 140 seat theatre, eight classrooms, a cafe and gift shop. The Visitor Centre is the main hub for all the recreational programs and activities featured in the building with access to trails that provide avenues for natural adventures such as hiking, skiing, orienteering, geocaching, birding and dogsledding, or lessons in the latest sustainable energy or green building demonstrations. Originally constructed in 1979, and over 35 years old, the Kortright Visitors Centre's wastewater septic system is reaching the end of its functional lifespan. TRCA has been advised that obtaining approval permits from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to replace the septic system would be difficult, costly and lead to a shutdown of the building for an unspecified period of time. Additionally, the property's potable water source is supplied by well water, which due to its aged infrastructure and hard water scaling, has resulted in costly maintenance and repairs that has led to disruptions to KCC programming and operations. 272 To support KCC's position as Ontario's premier environmental and renewable energy education and demonstration centre, water /wastewater services are also required to support the proposed TRCA partnership with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom to create an Innovation Park as part of The Living City Campus at Kortright. The objective of this project is to act as an industry resource for sustainable construction by showcasing several sustainable homes and technologies to local and international developers, manufacturers, designers and contractors. Through its partnership, TRCA aims to work with its municipal and corporate partners to expand its existing sustainable housing demonstrations, research and education projects. As part of the overall plan, TRCA is proposing to upgrade its existing water /wastewater infrastructure to municipal services throughout the property. The approximately 1 km of services will include fire hydrants and service connections to various buildings at KCC including the Visitors Centre, Archetype House, rental property, maintenance workshop, greenhouse and agricultural facilities, and the proposed Innovation Park development. The new infrastructure will improve the overall operations of the water and wastewaters systems, and allow for future growth in visitation at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. RATIONALE This project is aligned with leadership strategies number eight and ten in TRCA's strategic plan. Through gathering and sharing the best urban sustainability knowledge and accelerating innovation, this project will assist TRCA in its commitment to continuous innovation and creating new ways to coordinate the engagement of academics, researchers, the building industry and municipal experts to more effectively infuse new science, an understanding of complex systems, innovation and on- the - ground experience into urban planning, design and governance in the Toronto region. Tender #10001696 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http: / /www.biddingo.com /) on April 18, 2016 with a mandatory site information meeting held on April 27, 2016. Tender packages were sent to the following nine contractors: • Blackstone Paving; • Fermar Paving Limited; • Harvie Construction Inc.; • Mar -King Construction; • Moretti Excavation; • Sam Rabito Construction; • Somerville; • TACC Construction; and • Trisan Construction. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on May 12, 2016 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL plus HST TACC Construction Ltd. $1,315,500.00 Somerville $1,397,387.26 Moretti Excavating Ltd. $1,880,000.00 273 Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from TACC Construction Ltd. against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of TACC Construction Ltd.'s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that TACC Construction Ltd. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that TACC Construction Ltd. be awarded Contract #10001696 for municipal site servicing within Kortright Centre for Conservation for a total amount of $1,315,500.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 15% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds required to complete this project are available from the Region of York, Region of Peel and City of Toronto through the Kortright Campus Development account #425 -01. Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, extension 5905 Emails: mguy @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aaron J. D'Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca Date: May 27, 2016 274 RES. #A92116 - BLUFFERS PARK CHANNEL DREDGING Award of Contract #10002209 for Maintenance Dredging of the Bluffers Park Entrance Channel, City of Toronto. Award of Contract #10002209 to complete maintenance dredging of the navigation channel at Bluffers Park. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Contract #10002209 be awarded to Catalina Excavating for the maintenance dredging of the navigation channel at Bluffers Park in the City of Toronto at a total cost not to exceed $159,940.00 plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of $20,000.00 as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractors, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1981 Bluffer's Park opened at the foot of Brimley Road as a waterfront park in the City of Toronto. Included within the Park is a commercial marina as well as four boating clubs which access Lake Ontario by way of the entrance channel. Due to coastal and sediment transport processes, the navigation channel is susceptible to deposition of sand and other material. This deposition reduces the depth of water in the navigation channel and can severely impact the ability to safely navigate boats through the area and limits marine -based emergency access if left unaddressed. The channel is owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, however the City of Toronto is responsible for maintaining safe navigation depths, and TRCA assists the City as requested to maintain these depths given staff's expertise with dredging and marine contract management. Sedimentation rates are expected to decline substantially in the channel over the long -term following the armouring of the Meadowcliffe sector of the Scarborough Bluffs shoreline in 2011, which was identified as the primary source of material depositing in the channel; however periodic maintenance dredging can continue to be expected, albeit at a much reduced cost and frequency. A previous coastal review by Shoreplan Engineering to consider possible structural solutions to the sedimentation problem concluded that a reconfiguration of the entrance channel will not alleviate all sedimentation issues and that routine maintenance dredging is the most effective solution at this site. 275 In early 2008, concerns of insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were brought to TRCA's attention by members of the boating clubs. TRCA notified the City of Toronto (Parks, Forestry & Recreation) of the hazard, who in turn retained TRCA to undertake maintenance dredging later that summer. Upon completion of the 2008 dredging project, approximately 1,700 cubic metres of sediment was removed from the entrance channel; a relatively minor amount compared to the more than 70,000 cubic metres of sediment which is estimated to have accumulated over the more than 30 years since the entrance channel was constructed. Recognizing that the maintenance work restored only the minimum depth required for safe passage through the channel, with no allowance provided for ongoing siltation, it was communicated by TRCA staff to the City of Toronto that future maintenance dredging would likely be required. In 2010, insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were again brought to TRCA's attention. In response, TRCA completed a hydrographic survey of the entrance channel in April 2010 to provide updated information to the City of Toronto and determine the appropriate course of action. The survey showed that a large sand bar formed laterally across the entrance channel, reducing water depths to approximately 1.5 m and creating a risk to the members of the boating community who require a minimum draft of 1.8 m below chart datum for safe passage. As a result of shallow water in the entrance channel, a member of the Cathedral Bluffs Yacht Club got stranded on the sand bar on the evening of April 26, 2010, requiring rescue. Although no injuries were reported, it is noted that the draft on the stranded boat was 1.4 m. Emergency dredging was completed within the entrance channel in June 2010, allowing for approximately 3,500 cubic metres of sediment to be removed. Unfortunately, a sounding completed by TRCA on May 9, 2011 revealed that more than 2/3 of the volume removed 11 months earlier had re- accumulated. In 2014, TRCA removed approximately 9,000 cubic metres of material from the channel based on hydrographic surveys and the City's 2011 capital budget. On May 19, 2016 two near - misses were reported to TRCA from a concerned boater after a vessel ran aground in an unmarked area of the channel. TRCA relayed this information to the City, who in turn requested TRCA's assistance with maintenance dredging. TRCA completed a hydrographic survey and determined that it was necessary to remove a minimum of 600 cubic metres of sediment to meet minimum navigation requirements. It was determined that the City's available budget will allow for the removal of approximately 3,100 -3,500 cubic metres of sediment to provide additional capacity in the channel for ongoing deposition from the adjacent east beach and Scarborough Bluffs. TRCA has recommended to the City that they consider completing a major sediment removal exercise to restore the channel to its original design condition as it is costly to mobilize on site; however, the City has been unable to approve this larger budget request. Sediment samples were collected from the channel and sent for laboratory analysis to determine disposal options for the dredgeate. Based on the results of these analyses, the sediment meets Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's Table 1 background data meaning that the material meets unconfined disposal guidelines. Given that on -site disposal is the most cost - effective solution and site disturbance is expected to be minimal, permanent disposal of the dredgeate is to be placed in a location determined by the City near the work area. 276 RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10002209 was publically advertised on Biddingo.com on May 27, 2016, and a mandatory site meeting was held on June 2, 2016. The following contractors attended this meeting: • Catalina Excavating • Galcon Marine • Ontario Construction • Town of Coburg Bids were opened at the Procurement Opening Committee meeting held on June 9, 2016 by TRCA staff (James Dickie, Judith Reda and Jessica Pietrangelo). The table below summarizes the results of RFQ #10002209 assuming removal of 3,100 cubic metres of sediment. RFQ # 10002209 Bluffer's Park Project — Channel Dredging Works BIDDERS MOBILIZATION/ DREDGING DISPOSAL TOTAL DEMOBILIZATION ($ /m') (Bluffers (plus HST) West Area $ /m' Catalina Excavating $13,000.00 $36.90 $10.50 $159,940.00 Galcon Marine $30,300.00 $31.20 $15.60 $175,380.00 Ontario Construction $88,800.00 $32.20 $16.70 $240,390.00 The main tender item that varied substantially between contractors was the proposed mobilization and demobilization costs. The large range in pricing is based on the location of the contractors' equipment relative to the work area and cost associated with transporting their machinery to the site. Catalina Excavating is already mobilized near the Lake in Coatsworth Cut, so they have the lowest cost to move the equipment to Bluffers Park. Galcon intends to mobilize from Keating Channel and has priced their mobilization accordingly. Ontario Construction has to mobilize their equipment by land from Niagara on the Lake and then has to crane their equipment into the water, explaining the high mobilization costs. The deviation on dredging and disposal costs per cubic metre is within the range that Restoration and Infrastructure staff anticipated for this contract. Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from Catalina Excavating against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Catalina Excavating's experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Catalina Excavating is capable of undertaking the scope of work. As it is standard practice to include a contingency in project estimation in the event of unforeseen events, $20,000.00 has been set aside for this contract. However, as the City has directed TRCA to remove as much material as possible with the available budget, it is recommended that staff be allowed to utilize the contingency to remove additional material, if required. Staff will monitor the progress of the contractor and the budget before extending the scope of work. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in early July 2016, pending authorization to award Contract #10002209 and the receipt of all necessary approvals. Work is anticipated to take approximately four weeks to complete, weather permitting. 277 This project is aligned with leadership strategy number two "manage our regional water resources for current and future generations." Dredging of the channel will improve shoreline access making the system more navigable for canoes and other boats. In addition, this project aligns with enabling strategy number seven "build partnerships and new business models." TRCA has now completed this work on behalf of the City multiple times allowing us to demonstrate TRCA's expertise and capability in performing this critical maintenance thereby increasing TRCA's financial resilience. FINANCIAL DETAILS A budget of $210,000 has been identified to complete the 2016 maintenance dredging works, including Contract #10002209, the recommended $20,000 contingency allowance, and staff time to secure approvals and manage the contract. Funding for this project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within account 186 -10. Report prepared by: Matt Johnston, Phone: 647- 808 -6743 Emails: mjohnston @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, Phone: 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell @trca.on.ca Date: June 10, 2016 278 RES. #A93/16 - PETTICOAT CREEK CHANNEL REALIGNMENT PROJECT Stream Restoration Partnership with Durham Region. Durham Region and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will be partnering to address erosion issues and restore 65 metres of Petticoat Creek along Altona Road in the City of Pickering. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to work with the Region of Durham to implement the Petticoat Creek Channel Realignment Project. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Petticoat Creek Channel Realignment Project is a stream restoration initiative led by the Region of Durham. TRCA's Restoration Projects group will assist the Region by providing project management and construction implementation expertise for this project. Petticoat Creek is currently eroding the west shoulder of Altona Road adjacent to Sparrow Circle in the City of Pickering. A realignment of the creek in this area is proposed to correct the erosion and stabilize the shoulder of the road. Petticoat Creek falls under the jurisdiction of TRCA and the Region of Durham has expressed interest in partnering with TRCA to construct the creek realignment. Specifically, the Region is looking for TRCA's construction support, logistics and guidance to restore the stream, and improve fish habitat in Petticoat Creek as part of this project. RATIONALE The Restoration Projects group has considerable expertise in administrating this type of specialized work. To assist Durham Region, staff will facilitate the implementation and logistics of this project in an efficient and expeditious manner, and reduce the risks associated with the restoration of this stream. This complex restoration project will be coordinated among several different agencies — namely Durham Region, the City of Pickering and Hydro One Networks Inc.. TRCA has secured all the regulatory approvals for the work. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Region of Durham has confirmed availability of the required budget, which is not to exceed $233,000.00, to allow for the construction of the Petticoat Creek Channel Realignment Project. Funding will be made available in account 109 -49. In addition, TRCA will be contributing $20,000.00 of additional funds from TRCA's Durham capital budget account 109 -10 to support further project enhancement. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails: nracette @trca.on.ca For Information contact: John DIRocco, extension 5231 Emails: jdirocco @trca.on.ca Date: June 7, 2016 Attachments: 1 279 Attachment 1 :l Petticoat Creek Channel Realignment Project / O Project Site Petticoat Creek = Major Road e Local Road .,: Hydro One Corridor Assessment Parcels Disclaimer The Dad used M e tniz map was —111ea I.. . I ... - 6 tlares. iRCA .1- n .—II . lo, errors or omislons m the Jam Intl r z Me , ht r make znangez Intl any Yime I.t. -nonze. for -1-1 mb m,IIionllhou, [ tlad map eo Me iRG GIS nepa„men,. pmro, vio tl etl ny OMNR �4 . . D d iz Cpt. Q--', Pntes r amer a.d p— mstl - —a ,eht L,, men e.per eow,.,e mrl: s /Wzrnc /5 uc N �-� -- A � rmoorol�aaeaio� Conservation RES. #A94/16 - ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Award of Contract #10001643 - Acquisition of One (1) Large Tracked Skidsteer. Award of contract for the Acquisition of One (1) Large Tracked Skidsteer. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Contract #10001643 for the Acquisition of One (1) Large Tracked Skidsteer be awarded to Chas Richards & Sons Ltd. Limited for a total cost not to exceed $110,290.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications. CARRIED BACKGROUND Staff within the Engineering Projects group in the Restoration and Infrastructure Division has identified the need for a large tracked skid steer to assist on an ongoing basis with the completion of various projects throughout TRCA's jurisdiction. The type of work ranges from trail construction to valley / stream / shoreline protection. The possibility of a long term rental / lease was explored but rejected due to the frequency at which this equipment would be utilized on project sites, making the option to purchase more favourable. Engineering Projects currently uses a Case SR150 (P1004) which is a small rubber tire skidsteer front end loader with an operating weight of 2,505 kg and radial lift loader design. Due to the design of P1004 there are limitations to its use as the rubber tire drive system which restricts site access and the locations on project sites where the equipment can travel. Therefore staff is looking to diversify the equipment pool with a large tracked skidsteer which will allow for greater versatility and efficiency in the field. Given TRCA already owns a large tracked skidsteer (Case TV380 [V1004]) with an operating weight of approximately 5,000 kg and a vertical lift loader design, and that staff is satisfied with its versatility, the decision was made to look for a machine with similar features. Further, this unit has proven to be safe to operate. RATIONALE Contract #10001643 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement service www.biddingo.com on February 18, 2016 with a closing date of March 4, 2016. The documents were viewed by the following suppliers: • B.E. Larkin Equipment Limited • Kooy Brothers Lawn Equipment • Battlefield Equipment Rentals • Moore JCB • BEC Equipment Ltd. • MultiBobcat Services Ltd. • Bob Mark New Holland Sales Limited • Nortrax Canada Inc. • Bobcat of Toronto • Bradford Rental • Chas. Richards Limited • Connect Equipment Corporation • Ed Stewarts Equipment • Green Tractors Inc. • Hutchins Farm Supply Inc. 281 • Stratford Farm Equipment • Strongco Equipment • Strongco LP • Top Lift Enterprises Bolton • Toromont Cat • United Rentals • Wajax Equipment Submissions were opened on March 4, 2016 by Restoration and Infrastructure Division and CEO's Office staff (Aubrey Orr, Judith Reda, Lori Colussi) with the following results: Supplier Bid (plus HST United Rentals of Canada Inc. No Bid Kooy Brothers Lawn Equipment $92,800.00 Kooy Brothers Lawn Equipment $97,600.00 Moore JCB o/a Moore Equipment Ltd. $97,700.00 Bobcat of Toronto $98,617.40 Stroh co Limited Partnership $99,600.00 BPT Components & Parts o/a BEC Equipment Ltd $105,340.00 Hutchinson Farm Supply $106,031.00 Connect Equipment Cor oration $106,520.00 Nortrax Canada Inc. $110,154.20 Chas. Richards & Sons Ltd. $110,290.00 Bob Mark New Holland Sales Ltd. $110.450.00 Stroh co Limited Partnership $110,900.00 Battlefield Equipment Industries a div. of Toromont Industries $112,250.00 Battlefield Equipment Industries a div. of Toromont Industries $132,970.00 TRCA requested vendors to replicate the specifications and features of Case TV380 (V1004). This replication would increase interdepartmental utilization of the machine, operator efficiency and ensure accessibility to multiple service locations throughout the jurisdiction. To assist in the facilitation and completion of projects as efficiently as practical the following attachments were included in the tender: • heavy duty bucket; • pallet forks; • smooth drum vibratory compactor roller; • side discharge bucket. Upon review of all submissions it was determined that the submission from Chas. Richards and Sons best met specifications and needs. The other submissions were less desirable for various reasons including: • lower operating capacity; • hydraulic flow rate; • bucket breakout force; • engine horsepower; • maximum lift height; • radial arm loader design; • single lift arm loader design; • engine emissions; • overall dimensions. Therefore staff recommends Contract #10001643 be awarded to Chas. Richards and Sons for the supply and delivery of One (1) Case TV380 skidsteer as specified. 282 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is available through the TRCA vehicle and equipment acquisition fund. (701 -11) Report prepared by: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr @trca.on.ca Date: June 13, 2016 283 RESMA95 116 - CONCUSSION PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Adoption for TRCA Conservation Areas. Board approval of the adoption of the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools at TRCA conservation areas to enhance the health and safety of visitors and staff and meet a stipulation of grant funding. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) submitted an application for funding through The Living City Foundation (LCF) to the Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund ( OSRCF) for the Bruce's Mill Pass Program Project; AND WHEREAS this application has been approved for funding on the condition that funding recipients have board - approved policies and procedures on concussion prevention and management; AND WHEREAS TRCA's education facilities currently follow the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA adopt, and amend as needed, the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools at TRCA conservation areas to meet the OSRCF's funding stipulation as well as enhance the health and safety of visitors and staff; AND FURTHER THAT the OSRCF be so advised CARRIED BACKGROUND In January 2016, TRCA submitted an application through The Living City Foundation to the Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund for the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project. The project proposes to pilot a series of collaborative sports and recreation programs at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area over the course of July and August 2016. These include zip - lining, aerial games, team - building exercises, cycling, soccer, Frisbee, baseball, and yoga. Each activity will be led by a qualified instructor. For a nominal fee (less than $25), individuals can purchase a pass to gain unlimited access to programs. Geared towards children and youth, the project aims to reduce financial barriers to participation while encouraging physical activity and the development of physical literacy. On May 20, 2016, TRCA was notified that the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project was approved for OSRCF funding. As a stipulation of OSRCF funding, grant recipients must have in place board - approved policies and procedures on concussion prevention and management. Currently, TRCA education facilities follow the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools (which they have amended as needed to reflect the nature of their site operations and programming). These guidelines were developed by the not- for - profit organization Ophea, one of Ontario's Provincial Subject Associations for Health and Physical Education, in partnership with the Ontario School Board's Insurance Exchange, the Canadian Intramural Recreation Association — Ontario, the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations, and the Ontario Association for the Support of Physical and Health Education. The guidelines offer curricular, intramural and interschool policies and procedures on concussion prevention, identification and management. They are managed by Ophea and are funded by the Government of Ontario. The guidelines are available at http : / /safety.ophea.net/concussion- protocols. The OSRCF has approved the use of the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools to meet the above - mentioned funding stipulation but requires that the Authority pass a resolution recognizing that these guidelines will be followed for the purpose and duration of the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project. The guidelines will be used as a comprehensive template for designing permanent policies and procedures on concussion prevention and management at TRCA conservation areas. RATIONALE Through the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project, TRCA will be encouraging learning, physical activity and engagement among approximately 500 children and youth. TRCA will also be enhancing the long -term sustainability of its conservation areas by pursuing new avenues of community engagement and collaborative program development. The learnings of this experience will be made accessible to peer organizations to support creativity and innovation in the broader sports and recreation sectors. As TRCA's education facilities adopted /amended the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools in late 2013, and as the OSRCF has approved the use of these guidelines to meet the concussion policies and procedures stipulation of funding, then formally recognizing that these guidelines will be followed by TRCA's conservation areas will ensure that the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project can move forward. It will also facilitate the development of permanent policies and procedures on concussion prevention and management at TRCA conservation areas to promote increased health and safety among visitors and staff. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is funding 60% of the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project costs (or $21,897) through the OSRCF. The remainder of the project costs is available through the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area operating budget, within account code 331 -20. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE With Authority approval, TRCA staff will: • provide the OSRCF with a copy of the Authority resolution to assert that the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project meets the concussion policies and procedures stipulation of funding; • provide concussion prevention and management training to all staff and volunteers involved in the Bruce's Mill Pass Program project; and • Undertake an immediate review of the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines — Concussion Protocol and Tools in order to develop permanent policies and procedures on concussion prevention and management that suit the diverse operations and activities of TRCA conservation areas. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424 Emails: SDemetriou @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards @trca.on.ca Date: May 31, 2016 285 RESMA96 116 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PATE) Program. The PAIE audited financial statement for the period April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 is presented for Authority approval. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PATE) Program audited financial statement as presented in Attachment 1, be approved and signed by the Chair in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade's Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2015 -2016 Ontario Bridge Training Projects. CARRIED BACKGROUND Funded by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade ( MCIIT), TRCA has been delivering the PAIE Ontario bridge training program since 2006 to assist internationally trained professionals to access training, licensing and employment opportunities in their field within the environmental sector. As part of its project audit guidelines, MCIIT requires Authority approval of PAIE financial statements, as attached, as verification that the financial information in the audit report is complete and accurate. RATIONALE Under funding from MCIIT, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements, including verification that: • project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the project; • funding and /or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have not been included in the report; • the Ministry expects that tuition /program fees will be used to off -set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project; • reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; • shared costs have been properly apportioned to the project; • the project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; • project funds that were provided to the project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest - bearing account; and • interest earned on project funding has been credited to the project. The accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP has completed the audit. The audited financial statement is presented for approval as Attachment 1. Report prepared by: Dash Paja, extension 5593, Email: dpaja @trca.on.ca For information contact: Dash Paja, extension 5593; Email: dpaia(&trca.on.ca; rgambelluri @trca.on.ca Date created: June 10"', 2016 Attachments: 1 some Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 4 GrantThornton Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Program of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Year ended March 31, 2016 287 Contents Independent Auditors Report Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Page 1 -2 4 -5 GrantThornton Independent Auditor's Report Grant Thornton LLP Sulte 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON URW 7(416)366 -0100 F(905)475 -6906 www.GrantThornton.ca To the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade We have audited the statement of revenue and expenditures ( "the StatemeneD for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA'D for the year ended March 31, 2016. The statement has been prepared by management in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Management's Responsibility for the Statement Management is responsible for the preparation of the Statement in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the Statement that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Statement is free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the Statement. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the Statement, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation of the Statement in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Statement. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Audk -T.-• ianry Gmnl TraWnt . A Canadian WmW d Grant RaWn lm aWnal LW AL U 17 GrantThornton Opinion In our opinion, the statement of revenue and expenditures for the Professional Access and Integration Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended March 31, 2016 is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Basis of Accounting and Restriction on Distribution and Use Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 2 to the Statement which describes the basis of accounting. The Statement is prepared to assist Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to meet the financial reporting requirements of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. As a result, the Statement may not be suitable for another purpose. Our report is intended solely for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and should not be distributed to or used by parties other than Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Markham, Canada June 10, 2016 290 C,ta �i%*r orc� zi/' Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31 2016 Revenue Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade grant $ 695,404 Interest 343 Program and application fees 21,455 717,202 Program costs Salaries and benefits 610,384 Website development and online learning tools 6,009 Network events / meetings 1,571 Third -Party evaluation 3,365 Technical training and supplementary workshops 5,874 Other employee costs 36.751 663,954 Administrative costs TRCA administrative recovery (Note 3) 34,152 Computer equipment 327 Communications 4,067 Travel, meetings and consultations 6,483 Facility rentals 1,957 Marketing 491 Audit 2,564 Other general administrative costs 3,207 53.248 Total expenditures 717.202 Excess of revenue over expenditures $ See accompanying notes to thellIent of revenue and expenditures. Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31 1. Nature of operations This Statement of Revenue and Expenditures ( "the Statement') pertains to the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program ( "PAIE" or "the Program') administered under the Funding Agreement issued by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA "). Accordingly this statement does not include all the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of TRCA. The TRCA is administering the Program on behalf of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. 2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation This financial information has been issued under the name of TRCA The Statement reflects the operations of the PATE, a project of TRCA, and has been prepared by management based on the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Costs eligible for reimbursement by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade under the Funding Agreement effective April 1, 2015 are eligible costs that are incurred after April 1, 2015 and before March 31, 2016. The more significant accounting policies with respect to the Statement are as follows: Accrual accounting Items recognized in the Statement are accounted for in accordance with the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting recognizes the effect of transactions and events in the period in which the transactions and events occur, regardless of whether there has been a receipt or payment of cash or its equivalent. Accrual accounting recognizes a liability until the obligation or condition(s) underlying the liability is partly or wholly satisfied. Accrual accounting recognizes an asset until the future economic benefit underlying the asset is partly or wholly used or lost. Additionally, items of a capital nature have been reflected as expenditures and not through amortization of property, plant and equipment. Revenue recognition Government transfers received are recognized in the Statement as revenue when the transfers are authorized and all eligibility criteria have been met except when there is a stipulation that gives rise to an obligation that meets the definition of a liability. In that case, the transfer is recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue as the stipulations are met. User charges, including revenue from the program and application fees are recognized as revenue in the period in which the related services are performed. Amounts collected for which the related services have not been performed are recognized as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue when the related services are performed. 292 Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31 2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation (continued) In -kind contributions In accordance with the agreement for the funding with respect to this Program, no in -kind contributions have been included in this schedule. 3. Related party transactions Under the terms of the Funding Agreement, TRCA charged $34,152 during the year ending March 31, 2016 for project overhead and administration costs with respect to the administration of the Program. 5 293 Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure Template FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2015/04/01 TO 2016/03/31 (Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period) Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Case Number: 2013 -08 -1- 1528274 Organizational contact Name: Leigha Abergel, Supervisor Telephone #: (416) 661 -6600 ext. 5343 Project Name: Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PATE) PROJECT REVENUE Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s) $ 79,826 Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2015/2016) $ 775,000 Tuition /Program Fees $ 21,455 Total $ 876,281 PROJECT EXPENDITURE Total Expenditure $ 717,202 DEFERRED REVENUE Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule 6 (2015/2016) $ 159,079 UNALLOCATED Unspent funding $ INTEREST EARNED Interest Earned for audit period 2015/2016 $ 343 I verify that the above financial information is correct and that: • Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; • Funding and /or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have not been included in the Report; • The Ministry expects that tuition /program fees will be used to off -set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project. • Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; • Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; • The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; • Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest - bearing account; and • Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project. I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance to the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. Signature of Organizational Sign Off Date Maria Au¢imeri Chai Name Title I have authority to bind the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 229W RESMA97 116 - SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF VARIOUS AGGREGATES WITHIN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Vendors of Record. Award of Vendors of Record contracts for the Supply and Delivery of Various Aggregates within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require numerous procurements for aggregate materials; AND WHEREAS TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various aggregates to TRCA project sites that was evaluated on cost, corporate experience and resources, and reference checks; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendor of Record (VOR) arrangement with a primary and secondary supplier for each material contract, less than $100,000 per occurrence, for a one year period, being the two highest ranking suppliers meeting TRCA's requirements; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded supplier, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted tenders, beginning with the next highest ranked bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA implements numerous environmental projects of varying scale throughout the GTA. The projects highly depend on the utilization of aggregate materials for the site work to progress. These types of projects include the following: • waterfront development and remedial shoreline protection, including lakefilling, placement of rip rap, armour stone headlands, groynes and breakwaters; • habitat enhancement and regeneration projects, including wetlands, meadows, natural channels, trail development; and • bank /slope /channel stabilization projects, including armour stone retaining walls, drainage channels, revetments and buttresses. TRCA staff engage in multiple procurement processes to source and deliver materials in a timely manner to ensure construction delays are mitigated. To improve efficiencies and assist staff during the peak construction season, TRCA staff is establishing a Vendor of Record for the supply and delivery of various types of aggregate materials for projects within the GTA. Due to the proximity of project sites to quarry locations from where the material is produced, the Vendor of Record will establish east and west jurisdictions with multiple primary and secondary suppliers for each type of aggregate material up to $100,000 per occurrence. The establishment of this Vendor of Record will help to ensure a capable vendor is able to deliver quality materials when needed at competitive pricing while reducing procurement costs. The VOR list will be subject to monthly reviews in order to confirm 295 that the suppliers are providing an adequate level of service and to update applicable health and safety policies and certificates. RATIONALE Request for Tender documents were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http: / /www.biddingo.com /) on Tuesday, May 3, 2016. Tender documents were received by the following 17 bidders: • B Town Group; • Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel; • Bot Aggregates Ltd.; • Brock Aggregates; • CDR Young Aggregates Inc.; • Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd.; • Dufferin Aggregates; • Glenn Windrem Trucking; • J.C. Rock Ltd.; • James Dick Construction Limited; • Lafarge Aggregates; • Nelson Aggregates; • R.W. Tomlinson Limited; • Redstone Quarries; • Stonescape Ontario Inc. • Strada Aggregates; and • TBG Environmental Inc. The tender provided specifications for the various types of aggregate materials TRCA requires for its project sites. The materials include various types of granular, armour stone, rip rap and round stone. Additional to providing the cost to supply these aggregate materials, the supplier is to specify the source of the aggregate and cost for delivery by tri- axle /flatbed trucking. With numerous project sites spread across TRCA's jurisdictions, a site location map was provided depicting Yonge Street as the divide between east and west jurisdictions as well as estimated quantities based on prior purchases within the last two years to assist bidders with their competitive pricing. Tender submissions closed on May 20, 2016 at 12:00 pm and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee on Friday May 20, 2016; the unit pricing submitted by each bidder is presented in Attachment 1. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff reviewed the tender submissions and were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 50% reasonableness of cost, 30% corporate experience and resources and the remaining 20% on the reference check. Along with unit rates for supply and delivery of aggregate material, bidders were to include company resources, relevant experience, references, quarry locations, and health and safety certificates to ensure TRCA is receiving good value for services. From the evaluation, the highest ranked vendor will be selected as the primary supplier to provide the aggregate materials as needed. If the primary supplier is unable to meet the specifications of the VOR for any reason, a secondary supplier with the second highest ranked evaluation will be called upon. The results of the evaluation is as follows: • e East District Granular BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Glenn Windrem Trucking 97.9 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 Dufferin Aggregates 84.7 James Dick Construction Limited 81.1 Brock Aggregates 80.8 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 76.3 Strada Aggregates 75.9 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 72.5 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and TBG Environmental Inc. are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and TBG Environmental Inc. as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. West District Granular BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Dufferin Aggregates 89.9 Glenn Windrem Trucking 85.9 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 James Dick Construction 82.6 Brock Aggregates 80.5 Strada Aggregates 78.8 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 76.3 Nelson Aggregates 72.6 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 72.5 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Dufferin Aggregates and Glenn Windrem Trucking are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Dufferin Aggregates as the primary supplier, and Glenn Windrem Trucking as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. East District Armour Stone BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Glenn Windrem Trucking 89.2 B Town Group 88.2 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 82.5 Bot Aggregates Ltd. 81.9 Dufferin Aggregates 80.1 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 76.9 J.C. Rock Ltd. 74.1 297 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. West District Armour Stone BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 B Town Group 87.5 Glenn Windrem Trucking 87.4 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 Bot Aggregates Ltd. 81.9 Dufferin Aggregates 81.8 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 79.2 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 76.9 J.C. Rock Ltd. 74.1 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that B Town Group and Glenn Windrem Trucking are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to B Town Group as the primary supplier, and Glenn Windrem Trucking as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. East District Rip -rap BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Glenn Windrem Trucking 98.4 B Town Group 91.5 Bot Aggregates Ltd. 86.5 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 J.C. Rock Ltd. 84.2 Dufferin Aggregates 83.6 Brock Aggregates 79.9 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 77.9 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 74.1 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 62.3 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. West District Rip -rap BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Glenn Windrem Trucking 95.4 B Town Group 89.3 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 Dufferin Aggregates 84.3 J.C. Rock Ltd. 81.1 Brock Aggregates 80.3 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 77.9 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 71.8 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 62.3 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. East District Round Stone BIDDERS Weighted Score out of 100 Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 86.5 TBG Environmental Inc. 78.2 Brock Aggregates 74.1 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. West District Round Stone BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 87.1 TBG Environmental Inc. 85.8 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel 76.1 Brock Aggregates 73.7 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and TBG Environmental Inc. are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and TBG Environmental Inc. as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA's requirements. 299 FINANCIAL DETAILS Based upon a review of projects scheduled for implementation during this contract period, the approximate value of the materials is as follows; granular $1,200,000; armour stone $2,400,000; rip rap $1,900,000; and round stone $900,000. An increase and decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All suppliers understand both the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The aggregate will be supplied on an 'as required' basis with no minimum quantities guaranteed. Funds for the contract are identified in TRCA's 2016 and 2017 capital budgets. Report prepared by Aaron J. D'Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza @trca.on.ca For Information contact: James Dickie, extension 416 - 844 -3987 Emails: jdickie @trca.on.ca Date: June 13, 2016 Attachments: 1 300 D rt n S 3 CD 7 rt 301 L n d n d o W p CD W W A N C) ca W '� N W W Z U! O < O S 0 N O < O S n O n A m d n C n x �' N ,n m CL m G D 0 d 3 < W_ y m 3 < W_ to 0 CD CL 0 CL m m D rc m 3 p rc D N n m G v7 m to fc .N. fc 3 3 m m 'N m m m W 3 m m m d to c m a m d to a m v7 m m m fc A^ y m .,. U2 RD O d C) n R N tC d p d m G n m x m A m CL a �o io m S n A 3 jF -13 -13 3 t» t» to t» t» t» t» to to to to t» t» t» to t» tri N A W W fT W V A V N N W O W O W T N N y W O W J A J W fT W J W O W N N d IV O IV Ut N O O VV V V O O O o O O O F W O O N O O A W W N O O O O O O F 0 �% 0 N R N O' O' j A fef j f9 fA fA fA fA f9 fA fA E9 O � f9 M 69 fA fA f9 fA f9 � i W N N N N N N o.D N N N N N w o D W W N fT N m W W Oo 3 V N N W W (O W � N O O N O N V N O O O fJ W N V O O y y w % d x m m 1� 1� O + N W O m + N W 3 W W V Go A J bo W W N W m (T O W (T m OJ N m W� O O O O d d 1 � 2 n N Z C i N m Z c Z C i N 2 n N Fm 3 :1] n m 3 X n N W A O N (T IV J d S N iL f1i W A O OJ W A J Q W It D Z p % O % O Ln 00 N CA V 1rm D irk D 233 233 x w 3 w 3 -190 � o fA W EA N (fl N EA W fA N df fA N 4A N fA � ry C d? N di N fA W ifl N EA N fA N M lii N A m O W (O OI O> W q C S m O N N m O O N Q N �< m 'd Cy c A N pro <re 'c 33 c33 �a�i3 Em3 N A W O W f0 W T W Q m W O N N m (G W N S S IV A S N Cy C M N 1r� tires 233 233 xw3 xm3 d N d % % W A 301 BIDDER Armour Stone East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10002059 1 -2 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks/Tonne 2 -4 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks/Tonne 3.5 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off - loading with forks/Tonne TBG Environmental Inc. $52.50 $50.00 $47.50 Glen Windrem Trucking $63.50 $63.50 $63.50 J.C.Rock Ltd.. $59.50 $64.50 $64.50 Dufferin Aggregates $111.15 $62.15 $57.15 B -Town Group $61.00 $59.05 $58.55 C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $58.50 $58.50 $58.50 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $67.30 $63.23 $63.23 Bot Aggregates Ltd. $78.50 $73.50 $73.50 BIDDER Armour Stone West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10002060 1 -2 tonne Stackable 2 -4 tonne Stackable 3 -5 tonne Stackable Armour Armour Stone by Armour Stone by Stone by Flatbed Trailer, Flatbed Trailer, including Flatbed Trailer, including including wood blocks for wood blocks for off- wood blocks for off- off - loading with forks /Tonne loading with forks /Tonne loading with forks /Tonne TBG Environmental Inc. $52.50 $50.00 $47.50 Glen Windrem Trucking $66.50 $66.50 $66.50 J.C.Rock Ltd. $59.50 $64.50 $64.50 Dufferin Aggregates $108.00 $59.00 $54.00 B -Town Group $62.00 $60.08 $59.50 C.D.RYoung's $63.47 $63.47 $63.47 Aggregates Inc. Cut Above Natural Stone $67.30 $63.23 $63.23 Ltd. Bot Aggregates Ltd. $78.50 $73.50 $73.50 302 BIDDER Rip -Rap & Gabion East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10002061 100.200mm Gabion by Trlaxle TrucklTonne 150 -300mm Gabion by Tri -axle TrucklTonne 300 -600mm Rip -rap by Tri-axle Truckrronne 400 -800mm Rip-rap by Tri -axle TrucklTonne TBG Environmental Inc. $25.50 $25.50 $33.50 $33.50 Glen Windrem Trucking $29.75. $31.25 $30.75 $3075 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel $36.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 J.C.Rock Ltd. $28.50 $28.50 $30.50 $30.50 Dufferin Aggregates $35.07 $35.07 $39.37 $39.37 B -Town Group $33.58 $33.58 $31.65 $31.65 C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $31.95 $31.95 $45.95 $45.95 Brock Aggregates Inc. $41.75 $40.00 $40.00 $42.50 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $63.81 $63.81 $57.81 $57.81 Bot Aggregates Ltd. $29.50 $31.50 $34.50 $73.50 303 BIDDER Rip -Rap & Gabion West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10002062 100 -200mm Gablon by Triaxle TrucklTonne 150 -300mm Gablon by Triaxle TmcklTonne 300 -600mm Rip -rap by Tri -axle TrucklTonne 400 -800mm Rip -rap by Tri -axle Truck/Tonne TBG Environmental Inc. $25.50 $25.50 $33.50 $33.50 Glen Windrem Trucking $31.80 $34.00 $32.50 $32.50 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel $34.00 $43.00 $53.00 $53.00 J.C.Rock Ltd. $30.50 $30.50 $32.50 $32.50 Dufferin Aggregates $35.17 $35.17 $37.97 $37.97 B -Town Group $35.50 $35.50 $33.05 $33.05 C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $31.95 $31.95 $45.95 $45.95 Brock Aggregates Inc. $38.00 $41.00 $42.00 $43.00 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $63.81 $63.81 $57.81 $57.81 304 Round Stone / Boulders East Area of GTA BIDDER CONTRACT # 10002063 26 -75mm Round Stone 25 -75mm Round 250 -600mm 500- 1000mm Boulders by Tri -axle Truck /Tonne Stone by Tri -axle Round Stone by Tri -axle Truck Truck/Tonne by Tri -axle Truck (Tonne /Tonne TBG Environmental Inc. $34.00 $39.00 $44.00 $56.00 Glen Windrem Trucking $35.00 $39.00 $40.00 $40.00 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel $32.00 $34.00 $46.00 $46.00 Brock Aggregates Inc. $56.37 $56.37 $68.12 $71.62 304 305 Round Stone I Boulders West Area of GTA BIDDER CONTRACT # 10002064 25 -75mm Round Stone 25 -75mm Round 250 -600mm 500- 1000mm Boulders by Tri -axle Truck /Tonne Stone by Tri -axle Round Stone by Tri -axle Truck Truck/Tonne by Tri -axle Truck /Tonne /Tonne TBG Environmental Inc. $25.50 $25.50 $33.50 $33.50 Glen Windrem Trucking $38.75 $41.50 $43.50 $43.50 Blythe Dale Sand & Gravel $32.00 $34.00 $46.00 $46.00 Brock Aggregates Inc. $35.13 $37.00 $57.13 $62.63 305 RES. #A98 116 - TRCA INVESTMENT POLICY Policy Update — June 2016. An updated investment policy is presented for the Authority's approval. (BAAB Res. #C8 116) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the TRCA Investment Policy, as appended, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Rules of Conduct allow for the investment of surplus funds with the One Investment Program, and accordingly section 2.12 be amended and section 2.12.3 be added, so that it reads as follows: "2.12 to authorize the investment of money not required immediately by the Authority in accordance with the policies established by the Authority: 2.12.1 in treasury bills, bonds, debentures or other evidences of indebtedness of or guaranteed by the Government of Canada or the Province of Ontario; and 2.12.2 in term deposits, investment certificates, debentures or any other evidences of indebtedness of any chartered bank, financial institution or corporation; and 2.12.3 in the One Investment Program." CARRIED RES. #A99 116 - 2015 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The 2015 audited financial statements are recommended for approval. (BAAB Res. #C9 116) Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the transfer of funds from reserves to surplus in the amount of $2,428,000, as outlined in Note 11, "Accumulated surplus" to the financial statements (Attachment 1), be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the 2015 audited financial statements, as presented in Attachment 1, be approved, signed by the Chair and Secretary- Treasurer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and distributed to each member municipality and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, in accordance with subsection 38 (3) of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED 306 RESMA100 /16 - BELL CANADA REQUEST FOR PERMANENT EASEMENT Town of Wh itch urch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Duffins Creek Watershed, CFN 22428. Receipt of a request from Bell Canada to provide a permanent easement for an existing telecommunication equipment cabinet, located north of Main Street, west of Mill Street, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Duffins Creek watershed for the purposes of accessing and maintaining an existing Bell equipment cabinet. (Executive Res. #843116) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Paul Ainslie WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Bell Canada to provide a permanent easement for maintenance of an existing Bell Equipment Cabinet, North of Main Street and West of Mill Street, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, Duffins Creek watershed; AND WEHERAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Bell Canada in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.0064 hectares (0.02 acres), more or less, be granted to Bell Canada for maintenance of an existing telecommunication equipment cabinet, said land being Part of Lots 5 and 47, Registered Plan 70, Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville, designated as Parts, 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand & Gibson Ltd., under their Job No. 150 -0149, dated June 23, 2015, subject to the following conditions: (a) the permanent easement price is $10,300.00; (b) Bell Canada is fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims arising from injury, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of any maintenance; (c) any terms or conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or solicitor; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C. 27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining of any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 307 RES. #A101 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Westhill Redevelopment Company, CFN 55969. Acquisition of property located east of Leslie Street and north of Bloomington Road, in the Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res. #844116) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 7.132 hectares (17.624 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Leslie Street and north of Bloomington Road, said land being Part of Lot 12, Concession 2 and Part of Lots 11 and 12, Concession 3, designated as Block 81 on a Draft Plan of subdivison prepared by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, Job # 2013 -017, dated August 4, 2015, in the Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York, together with a conservation easement containing 0.910 hectares (2.25 acres) designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Draft R -Plan prepared by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, Job # 2013 - 017 -5, dated May 4, 2016 be purchased from Westhill Redevelopment Company; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A102 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Section II item 8.1 — Water -based Activities, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/16, held on June 10, 2016, be received. CARRIED OF; Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A103/16 - TRCA DAMS AND FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE Report on the Ecological Impact and Mitigation. To report on the ecological impact of TRCA -owned flood infrastructure on the surrounding environment and the existing strategies to mitigate these impacts. The potential for, and challenges to, environmental improvement measures are also identified. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the ecological condition report on TRCA Dams and Flood Control Infrastructure be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns 25 flood control structures including dams, channels and dykes. These structures, many of which were built for flood control and /or recreational purposes, have altered significant areas of natural watercourses and riparian habitat. As TRCA's mandate includes providing both flood protection and protecting natural areas, TRCA must ensure that the infrastructure fulfills its function, while simultaneously continuing the significant effort to mitigate the negative impacts of existing flood infrastructure. This report will outline the major environmental upgrade projects conducted on /around TRCA's flood infrastructure and identify possible future projects. At Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, amended Resolution #A138/15 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on ecological health of the water control structures and reservoirs owned by TRCA. RATIONALE TRCA currently owns 11 dams and 14 flood control structures throughout its jurisdiction. These structures were either constructed by TRCA for flood control purposes or they were obtained through various greenspace acquisitions. Dams Of the 11 dams owned by TRCA, three were constructed for flood control purposes. Claireville Dam, Stouffville Dam and G. Ross Lord Dam were built to protect downstream communities from flooding. The remaining dams were constructed for recreational purposes or were legacy dams built for powering mills and other industrial purposes. Because these structures were contained within land acquisition areas and greenspace dedications, TRCA has taken ownership of these historical dams. TRCA's Engineering Services section is currently assessing and upgrading the dams to meet current safety guidelines developed by the Canadian Dam Association and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. It is well documented that dams have a significant negative impact on the environment. Some adverse conditions created by dams include the following: • Dams block the natural migratory route for fish that can interrupt spawning cycles and cause fish populations to decline. Daily movement patterns are also interrupted. 309 • Nutrients are prevented from being transported downstream which can starve the downstream watercourse of critical energy necessary for healthy ecosystems. • Dams prevent sediment from moving downstream which can impact riparian zones and spawning beds. Increased erosion can occur downstream as sediment is no longer replenishing shoreline areas. • Sediment in reservoirs, especially at urban dam sites, can be contaminated with toxic material such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other industrial by- products. Contaminant levels increase over time and can be harmful to organisms in and around the water. • Dams create large, slow moving, unshaded bodies of water that can raise the temperature of the water and can become harmful to fish and other organisms. Thermal increases also can alter the chemistry of the water which can create algae blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen levels. Reservoirs can often become toxic to native species and promote increases in non - native /undesirable and invasive species. • Submerged decomposing vegetation in reservoirs can release naturally occurring mercury into the water which can then be ingested by fish and other organisms. • Upstream habitats are flooded by the reservoirs. TRCA recognizes the adverse effects of dams on river ecosystems and has taken measures to mitigate them on structures where possible. In some cases, the only method to restore the full ecological function of the riparian system would be to decommission the dam altogether, provided there is no increase to flood risk. The restoration of the newly reconnected rivers would have immediate positive ecological impacts while reducing TRCA's liability in terms of public safety as infrastructure ages. Attachment 1 lists TRCA's dams with corresponding existing mitigation strategies and potential future ecological improvements. Flood Control Structures In addition to dams, TRCA owns 14 flood control structures consisting of channels, dykes and flood walls. These structures were designed to prevent flooding under a previous engineering philosophy that favoured hardened infrastructure to control and convey floodwater. At that time neither the impacts to, nor the benefits of, the natural systems were considered. During the 1960's and 1970's when these structures were built the prevailing engineering technique was to "hardscape" natural watercourses by lining them with concrete and stone. Flood control channels were designed to maximize flow by increasing the cross sectional area of the river and removing natural features that can impede flow. In some cases the watercourse was straightened. Unfortunately, the result was highly altered and highly constrained channels allow very few options for ecological improvements. All natural features including trees, vegetation and sediment within the channels must be removed to maintain flood capacity. One option to improve the ecological condition of a channel is to remove it and replace it with a natural channel. However, in order to maintain the same level of flood conveyance the natural channel would have to be substantially wider than the existing flood channel. Inmost locations the adjacent land is not available for widening. Replacing a flood control channel with a natural channel would also be very costly. Another option, which has been adopted by TRCA, is to leave a buffer zone at the top of the concrete channel where trees are allowed to remain. This buffer zone has a minimal effect on flood conveyance. The tree canopy can shade the water in the channel reducing thermal impacts. Trees also provide habitat for other animals and plants thereby improving the 310 environmental health of the riparian zone. Allowing trees to remain also improves the aesthetics of the flood control channel. Dykes and flood walls are elevated engineered structures that prevent flood waters from entering areas prone to flooding. Dykes are engineered out of soil, and flood walls are constructed of masonry or concrete. Concrete flood walls are constructed in areas where there is limited space as concrete walls have a much smaller footprint than an earthen dyke. Flood walls have limited potential for ecological improvements but earthen dykes can become naturalized allowing ecosystems to establish themselves. Almost all of TRCA's earthen dykes have naturalized to some extent. Attachment 2 identifies the current ecological impacts of flood control infrastructure, as well as current and potential opportunities for mitigation. CONCLUSION Current regulation of dams and flood infrastructure construction requires the designer to consider all negative ecological impacts and include mitigation techniques to reduce harm. Fish passage, sediment management, water quantity and quality are all considered when designing a new flood control structure. With the shift in paradigm from isolated site design towards large systems thinking, the construction of flood control infrastructure has evolved where comprehensive measures that simultaneously consider conveyance needs as well as habitat health and sustainability are considered. One example of this is the lake- connected wetland component of the Don Mouth Naturalization program where both environmental health and flood mitigation were considered in the design of this structure. Unfortunately, the majority of TRCA's existing dam and flood control inventory were originally designed at a time where environmental impacts were not fully considered. TRCA will continue to identify opportunities to mitigate ecological impacts caused by these structures. However, ecological improvements must be engineered and installed in a manner that does not compromise the flood protection function of the structure. Report prepared by: Craig Mitchell, 647 212 -2410 Emails: cmitchell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Craig Mitchell, 647 212 -2410 Emails: cmitchell @trca.on.ca Date: April 4, 2016 311 Attachment 1 Dam Ecological Improvements and Mitigation Potential Ecological Mitigation Projects (Year Strategies Implemented to Date Built Peel Re ion Claireville Several shoreline improvements have been Fishway potential is low because of the large Dam installed around the reservoir including size of Claireville Dam. There are numerous (1964) riparian planting and fish habitat structures. in- stream barriers downstream that have not been mitigated and therefore providing fish passage at Claireville Dam would have limited benefit to fish migration. Albion Hills Dam control structure was modified to A naturalized channel in place of the dam Dam create a bottom draw intake to prevent would reconnect natural spawning areas for (1960's) thermal impacts downstream of the dam. local and migratory fish populations. Taylor Dam was removed upstream of Albion Hills Dam in 2003. Glen Haffy Reservoir is stocked annually to create Dredging may be required to improve fish East Dam recreational fishing opportunities. habitat (1960's) The potential to convert flow control structure to a bottom draw type intake to reduce thermal impacts downstream should be investigated. This would eliminate the need for future dredging operations. Glen Haffy Reservoir was dredged in 2005 to improve Converting the flow control structure to a West Dam fish habitat. bottom draw type intake would reduce (1960's) Reservoir is stocked annually to create thermal impacts downstream. This would recreational fishing opportunities. eliminate the need for future dredging operations. Palgrave In 2001 a fishway was constructed to allow Water quality is poor. During summer Dam fish to bypass the dam. months algae blooms are common. (Early The reservoir was dredged in 2001 to Agricultural runoff is a possible source of 1900's— improve fish habitat and recreational nutrient loading. Nutrient uptake /reduction rebuilt activities. technologies could be implemented to reduce 1983 ) impact on reservoir. City of Toronto G. Ross Reservoir has naturalized providing good Fishway potential is low as there are Lord Dam riparian habitat. numerous in- stream barriers below the dam (1974) preventing the connection to native fish populations. The size of the dam would make construction of a fishway costly. Black Reservoir is mostly naturalized. Fishway potential is low. There are Creek Dam numerous in- stream barriers downstream that (1960) would have to be mitigated before a fishway would be effective at this site. Durham Region Secord TRCA has completed several improvement Limited potential for ecological improvements. Dam projects including removing two small water Poor condition of the structure would make (1930'S) control structures from tributaries flowing MNRF approval for modifications difficult. into the reservoir. Osler Dam Area surrounding the reservoir and A fishway would have limited benefits (1934) embankment is mostly naturalized. because the dam is located very high in the headwaters of East Duffins Creek. The fishway would only facilitate access to a very small reach of the watercourse. 312 Dam Ecological Improvements and Mitigation Potential Ecological Mitigation Projects (Year Strategies Implemented to Date Built York Re ion Milne Dam In 2003 a fishway was constructed to allow Limited potential for ecological improvements. (1969) fish to bypass the dam. Most impacts have been mitigated. Winter drawdown of reservoir was eliminated to promote healthy year round fish populations. Reservoir has naturalized. Stouffville Dam operations were modified in 1990 by There is potential for a fishway to link the Dam eliminating winter drawdown of the upper and lower reaches of the creek. (1969) reservoir to promote healthy year round fish Possibility of converting structure to bottom populations. draw would reduce thermal impacts. Extensive marshes /wetlands in reservoir provide excellent bird and fish habitat. 313 Attachment 2 Structure Composition Ecological Potential Future Mitigation (Year Built) Improvements /Conditions Projects Implemented to Date Peel Region Brampton Concrete Areas above concrete channel Channel improvements are Channel trapezoidal have naturalized. proposed as part of channel (1952) channel upgrades. Conceptual design includes naturalized low flow channel, vegetated banks and restored riparian zones. Bolton Channel Earth Area around channel and berm is Channel area is mostly natural (1983) embankment mostly naturalized. and fish barriers have been Weir in channel was notched to removed. There is little potential allows fish passage. for additional habitat/environmental improvements. Etobicoke Dyke Earth The dyke's slopes are grass There is little potential for (1967) embankment covered and mowed regularly. naturalization as the dyke is Some large trees have been adjacent to sport fields and is planted along dyke. used by ark visitors. Tyndall Flood Gabion and Channel bank has naturalized. Limited potential for additional Wall 1980 masonry wall ecological improvements. Mimico /Malton Gabion Area above channel has Channel maintenance in 2016 Channel trapezoidal naturalized with mature tree cover. will leave a naturalized buffer (1972) channel Channel bottom has naturalized. zone at the top of the channel. Woodbridge Rip rap Channel bottom has naturalized Potential for a fishway at the Channel channel providing fish and invertebrate baffle chute. (1962) Concrete habitat. baffle chute Baffle chute prevents fish passage upstream into the East Humber watershed. City of Toronto Black Creek Concrete Areas above the concrete channel Concrete channel limits Channel trapezoidal have naturalized. possibility of ecological (1963) channel Low level channel has not been improvements or mitigation dredged allowing substrate to provide habitat for fish and invertebrates. Scarlett Channel Concrete Areas above the concrete channel Concrete channel limits (1967) trapezoidal are naturalized. possibility of ecological channel Low level channel has not been improvements or mitigation dredged allowing substrate to provide habitat for fish and invertebrates. Sheppard Concrete Areas above the concrete channel Concrete channel limits Channel trapezoidal are naturalized. possibility of ecological (1969) channel Low level channel has not been improvements or mitigation dredged allowing substrate to provide habitat for fish and invertebrates. 314 Structure Composition Ecological Potential Future Mitigation (Year Built) Improvements /Conditions Projects Implemented to Date Malvern Gabion basket Channel has mostly naturalized. Some areas of the channel are Channel heavily eroded. Repairs would 1972 improve riparian conditions. Yonge /York Mills Concrete and Buffer zone maintained at top of Two large drop structures block Channel gabion channel to preserve tree canopy passage of fish. Bypassing these (1959) trapezoidal over river during channel drop structures with fishways channel maintenance. would be very costly as they are part of existing bridge systems. There are also other barriers downstream that prevent fish from connecting to Lake Ontario. Potential for fish bypass is low. Durham Region Ajax Dyke Earth Dyke has naturalized. Site is mostly natural forest and (1983) embankment meadow. Limited potential for further improvements. Pickering Dyke Earth Dyke has naturalized. Site is mostly natural forest and (1983) embankment meadow. Limited potential for further improvements. York Region Stouffville Gabion basket Channel bottom has naturalized Open space on either side of the Channel providing fish and invertebrate channel offers potential for (1969) habitat. widening and restoration to a natural watercourse. 315 RES. #A104/16 - PINE VALLEY DRIVE STORM HEADWALL AND SPILLWAY RESTORATION PROJECT TRCA Contracted by the City of Vaughan. Receipt of report on agreement between City of Vaughan and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to address erosion issues caused by a City -owned stormwater outfall located just outside of Boyd Conservation Area on Pine Valley Drive. Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT the agreement between City of Vaughan and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for correction and restoration works at Boyd Conservation Area be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Pine Valley Drive storm sewer system and outfall was constructed in the early to mid- 1990's to service approximately 13 hectares of residential development. The outfall drains to a natural draw on a forested slope on the east side of TRCA's Boyd Conservation Area, and over the 15 to 20 years since its construction, has caused substantial down - cutting resulting in a large erosion scar, the loss of several mature trees as well as damage to the Humber Valley Heritage Trail. Further, deposition of sandy soil on roadways and parking areas has required constant maintenance from the staff at the Conservation Area. In January 2012, AMEC was retained by the City of Vaughan to complete the Pine Valley Drive Stormwater Management Enhancement Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, and to subsequently complete the detailed design for the Preferred Alternative. In March 2016, Vaughan City Council approved that the City enter into an agreement with TRCA to undertake the delivery of the project for an upset amount of $475,000 plus HST. RATIONALE The project is being carried out in Boyd Conservation Area, which is owned and managed by TRCA. It is therefore beneficial for TRCA to facilitate the delivery of the remedial work in an efficient and expeditious manner. Among the reasons Vaughan City Council supported the delivery of this project by TRCA are: • As good stewards of the environment, TRCA will have full control of the project and its implementation schedule considering the public usage of Boyd Conservation Area. • TRCA will be responsible for all monitoring and warranty of the completed work. • TRCA will implement the project in the manner it was developed and designed including all mitigating measures. FINANCIAL DETAILS City of Vaughan has confirmed availability of the required budget not to exceed $475,000.00 (plus HST) to allow for the remedial work necessary for the Pine Valley Drive Storm Headwall and Spillway Restoration Project. Funding will be made available in account 111 -22. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will use the detailed designs prepared by AMEC for the implementation of erosion control measures needed to correct stormwater impacts at the Pine Valley Drive Storm Headwall and Spillway and in Boyd Conservation Area. 316 The scope of work for the project consists of two parts: Management and implementation of the project - The implementation of the project consists of the installation of site appropriate sediment controls followed by earth works involving the use of heavy equipment. Aggregate and geotextiles to be utilized in the project will be delivered to the site (through Boyd Conservation Area) and will be purchased per TRCA's Purchasing Policy. The work will be implemented at four locations: headwall, plunge pool, spillway and the Humber Heritage Trail. 2. Restoration of the natural features of the site and tree planting - Following construction, all disturbed areas will be top- dressed with topsoil and seeded with site appropriate seed. Following construction, native trees and shrubs will be planted in the fall when they are supplied by TRCA's nursery. Existing fence and railing at the headwall will be returned in a state of good repair. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails: nracette @trca.on.ca For Information contact: John DiRocco, extension 5231 Emails: jdirocco @trca.on.ca Date: Click here to enter a date Attachments: 1 317 Attachment 1 - Pine Valley Drive Storm Headwall And Spillway Restoration Project, Overview 318 Pine Valley Drive Storm Headwall and Spillway Restoration Pro ject OStorm Sewer Outlet and Headwall Erosion Scar - Spillway -��- East Humber River = Major Road Local Road Assessment Parcels Disclaimer The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. TRCA takes no responsibility for errors at omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and erections at any time without notice. For further information about the data on this map contact the TRLA GIS Department at (416) 661 -6600. Data provided by Ori is Copyright, Queens printer for Ontario. Other data provided at used is copyright by their respective owners. Date: 6 /8/2016 U 70 140 To Meted Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City* RES. #A105/16 - CONFIDENTIAL BOARD MATERIAL Handling of Confidential Board Material after the Matter has been Approved. Receipt of staff report outlining policies and procedures for handling of confidential board material, after it has been dealt with at a board meeting, and handling of freedom of information (FOI) requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the staff report dated June 10, 2016 on Confidential Board Material be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, the Authority directed staff to report back on the procedures for handling confidential board material after the matter has been dealt with by a TRCA board, including a request made by an outside party to review the material by a freedom of information request. TRCA is able to deal with matters in camera by right of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act), and TRCA's Administration Regulation and Rules of Conduct. Section 30(1)(a) of the CA Act prescribes that: 30. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority shall make regulations, (a) providing for the calling of meetings of the authority and prescribing the procedure at those meetings; In this regard, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approved TRCA's Administration Regulation in 1992 which includes provision for the following exemptions for holding meetings in absence of the public, which is in keeping with the exemptions for the same in the Ontario Municipal Act: 15. All matters arising out of Authority meetings, and supporting technical reports shall form part of the public record and shall be available for public review immediately upon request. Exceptions to the foregoing include the following matters: (a) personnel records, (b) on -going property negotiations; (c) court cases in which the Authority is involved; (d) discussions which could adversely affect the interests of a third party. In addition, TRCA's Executive Committee may convene a Hearing Board meeting to deal with permit applications under Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, where staff is not recommending approval of the application. Conservation authorities are given powers to conduct deliberations of the Hearing Board in camera under the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and the hearing guidelines approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. In addition, the Authority maintains a Rules of Conduct which govern activities at TRCA board meetings and outlines the following procedures for dealing with confidential material: 319 33. Confidential minutes will be produced for all discussions which are held in private session ( "in camera') where a resolution is approved. Public minutes will state the reason for confidentially as per the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Act. At such time as the items considered in camera can be made public, the relevant resolution(s) will be included as part of a regular Authority agenda for information. In keeping with these regulations, staff undertakes the following actions when dealing with confidential material at a TRCA board meeting: 1. Staff lists the confidential report on the agenda of a meeting and cites the reason for confidentiality from 15(a) -(d) of TRCA's Administration Regulation. 2. The staff report is circulated to Members separately from the regular agenda as the regular agenda is posted publically on TRCA's website. 3. Discussion may be held at the meeting in camera by motion. 4. The committee rises and reports from the in camera session, and if the resolution can be made public at the time it will be reflected as such in the minutes, but if not it will remain confidential and a resolution will be included in the public minutes to approve the staff report and direct staff to report back at such time as the item is complete and may be made public. 5. The background staff report remains confidential, but confidential minutes are developed by the clerk, maintained for TRCA records and are circulated to the Members. 6. If the resolution remained confidential under item #4, then staff will report back when the item can be made public with an information report that publically presents the previously confidential resolution to the Members for receipt as well as provides some general information on the status of the issue, as directed under above -noted section 33 of TRCA's Rules of Conduct. 7. There may be some items that remain confidential in perpetuity. In addition to the above procedures, at Executive Committee Meeting #7/16, held on September 13, 2013, TRCA staff was directed by the Committee to report back with an information summary on the results of all future OMB hearings. As such, TRCA brings an annual combined summary report of OMB hearing results, as well as separately reports back on individual hearings if there is timely information of interest to the Members and the public. MFIPPA TRCA is subject to MFIPPA and implements a Records Management policy and Records Retention Schedule in complying with MFIPPA. Release of TRCA's confidential material is governed by this Act. Under MFIPPA there are many reasons that a public agency shall release information when requested, as well as exemptions which may be applied to withhold release of records. One such exemption is Section 6(1)(b) — Draft by -laws, etc. which states: 6. (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record that, (b) reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public. For this exemption to disclosure to apply, the institution must establish that: 1. a council, board, commission or other body, or a committee of one of them, held a meeting, and 320 2. a statute authorizes the holding of the meeting in the absence of the public, and 3. disclosure of the record would reveal the actual substance of the deliberations of the meeting. Past orders (decisions) of the Information and Privacy Commission (I PC) have found that: 1. "deliberations "refer to discussions conducted with a view towards making a decision; 2. "substance "generally means more than just the subject of the meeting. Pertaining to #3 above, IPC Order MO -1344 stated: "...the third requirement would not be satisfied if the disclosure would merely reveal the subject of the deliberations and not their substance (see also Order M -703). "deliberations" in the context of section 6(1)(b) means discussions which have been conducted with a view to making a decision (Orders M -184, M -196 and M- 385)" "It is clear from the wording of the statute and from previous orders that to qualify for exemption under section 6(1) (b) requires more than simply the authority to hold a meeting in the absence of the public. The Act specifically requires that the record at issue must reveal the substance of deliberations which took place at the meeting." Further, Section 4(2) of MFIPPA states the following which suggests the entire record may not be able to be exempted, but rather that which falls under an exemption: Where an institution receives a request for access to a record that contains information that falls within one of the exemptions under sections 6 to 15, the head shall disclose as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information that falls under one of the exemptions. Requests under the Act are dealt with by the Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, who is designated as TRCA's Information and Privacy Officer (Head). If an FOI request is made for access to information from a board meeting that was dealt with in camera and has not been released publically, TRCA's Head of FOI must consider all of the above factors in determining if MFIPPA clause 6.(1)(b) may be applied to an in camera staff report and resolution. It is clear in orders of the IPC that staff may not be able to withhold release of an entire record strictly by means of the fact that it was listed on the agenda as an in camera item, but instead may redact the portions of the record which reveals the substance of the deliberations but not the subject, unless that is pertinent to the substance. As with all records, the Head will also consider all other exemptions in MFIPPA to determine if any other exemptions may be applied to portions of the record. Examples of such exemptions that may be used, but are not limited to, are as follows: 7.(1) Advice and Recommendations: if the disclosure could reveal advice or recommendations of an officer or employee of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution. However, disclosure cannot be denied using 7(1) if the record contains: factual material; environmental impact statement or similar record; etc. 8.(1) Law Enforcement: if the disclosure would reasonably be expected to interfere with: a law enforcement matter; an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result; etc. 321 9.(1) Relations with Governments: if the disclosure would reasonably be expected to reveal information the institution has received in confidence from the levels of government outlined in MFIPPA. 10.(1) Third Party Information: if the disclosure could reveal a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, from a third party. 11. Economic and Other Interests: related to the institution from whom the information is requested. 12. Solicitor - client Privilege 2015 FOI Activity Summary Under MFIPPA TRCA received on average 42 FOI requests for information annually over the past five years. These requests are predominantly enquiries in regard to submissions to TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended. However, an FOI request can be made for any record that has been created or received by TRCA. TRCA's 2015 FOI Activity Summary is outlined in Attachment 1. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca Date: June 10, 2016 Attachment: 1 322 Attachment 1 TRCA 2015 Freedom of Information Activity Summary In 2015, TRCA received 30 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In addition, three FOI requests from 2014 were completed in 2015, so as a result this summary is in reference to all 33 requests. All of the requests related to "general records" as opposed to "personal information ". The latter refers to personal information TRCA has collected concerning the applicant. Of the 33 requests made, 15 requests were from individuals or their agents, and 18 were from business. Of the 33 requests responded to in 2015, 29 were responded to within the 30 day limit required under the Act. Two requests took 31 - 60 days and two took 61 - 91 days. Extensions were needed in some cases because of the volume of records to be searched and prepared, and due to the information requested affecting a third party resulting in a duty to consult prior to release of records. In response to these 33 requests, the following was disclosed: 1. all information was disclosed in four cases; 2. information was disclosed in part in 20 cases; 3. no responsive records existed in nine cases. In 19 situations where general information was disclosed, personal information was removed for privacy purposes. Examples of the personal privacy exemption being applied include copies of cheques which may be on file and personal telephone numbers. The Act requires that a $5 fee be included with each application. Also, the Act allows TRCA to charge for search, reproduction, preparation, shipping, computer costs, and invoice costs (and others permitted by regulation). In 2015, TRCA collected fees of $527.20, and $8.20 of fees were waived. 323 Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A106/16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT item 10.3 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/16, held on June 10, 2016, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:51 a.m., on Friday, June 24, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 324 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #6/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, July 22, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member Justin Di Ciano Member Chris Fonseca Member Maria Kelleher Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member RES. #A107/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, be approved. CARRIED 325 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Scott Bryk, Executive Director, Trees for Life, in regard to The Highway of Heroes Living Tribute. RES. #A108116 - PRESENTATION Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT above -noted presentation 5.1 be referred to staff. CARRIED 326 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A109/16 - NATIONAL DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM Approval to pursue further funding for flood risk mitigation projects through the National Disaster Mitigation Program. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS the Government of Canada has established the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP), allocating funding toward initiatives aimed at reducing the impacts of flooding; AND WHEREAS the NDMP provides an excellent opportunity to address funding gaps for flood and hazard mitigation and to accelerate flood mitigation initiatives across Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction to support TRCA's partner municipalities; AND WHEREAS some matching funding for NDMP projects is available through TRCA's capital budget for Water Risk Management; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff, in partnership with TRCA's municipal partners, continue to pursue National Disaster Mitigation Program funding to accelerate flood risk mitigation projects; THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with municipal staff to share information from NDMP projects and where applicable, request financial support for special projects outside of TRCA's capital budget process; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority in 2018 and 2020 to provide a summary of the work that has been completed with funding from the NDMP. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2015, the federal government established the National Disaster Mitigation Program, allocating $200 million over five years toward initiatives aimed at reducing the impacts of natural disasters, specifically flooding. The objectives of the federal program are to: a) focus investments on significant, recurring flood risk and costs; and b) advance work to facilitate private residential insurance for overland flooding. Of the earmarked funds, $183.8 million has been allocated as contribution funds to be cost - shared with provinces and territories. Although provincial and territorial governments are the eligible recipients of the funds, they may collaborate with, and redistribute funding to, other eligible entities, which include municipal or local governments and other public sector entities, including conservation authorities. As the holders of delegated responsibility for flood management at a watershed scale, conservation authorities are ideally - positioned project partners in this endeavor. 327 Funds are allocated to approved projects on a cost - sharing basis; the project proponents must contribute 50% of the project costs from existing or confirmed funding. Projects are selected for funding through a competitive, merit -based process at the federal level, and are also prioritized at the provincial level by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Projects must fall within one of the four eligible streams to receive funding from the NDMP: 1) Risk Assessment; 2) Flood Mapping; 3) Flood Mitigation Planning; 4) Investments in non - structural and small -scale structural mitigation projects. The above streams are defined by the NDMP guidelines, which also detail eligible and ineligible expenses. TRCA can thus utilize NDMP funding to accelerate applicable flood mitigation initiatives funded from TRCA's capital budget for Water Risk Management. For the initial call for funding in 2015- 2016, TRCA was successful in securing $305,000 in NDMP funding for projects in the Risk Assessment and Flood Mapping streams. This funding is supporting the following projects, to be completed by March 2018: • A comprehensive update to TRCA's Flood Vulnerable Areas database, creating a new geospatial tool to support mitigation analysis, emergency planning, public communication, and the prioritization of future risk reduction projects. • Two - dimensional hydraulic modelling for high -risk areas, including for the Rockcliffe Special Policy Area (SPA) (Black Creek) and Pickering /Ajax SPAS (Duffins Creek). • A key component of this funding will be devoted to the acquisition of UDAR base mapping for improved accuracy and utility. It is important to note that information generated through an approved NDMP project is required to be shared with the Government of Canada. The information that arises out of an approved NDMP project may be copied and made available to Canada's government institutions, any province, foreign state, international organization or any other entity to promote a better understanding of disaster mitigation in Canada and support their emergency management activities Public Safety Canada has already informed proponents that the next call for proposals will be in September 2016 and it is anticipated that call for proposals will continue to be announced 1 -2 times per year. RATIONALE TRCA is mandated with responsibilities to reduce risk to life and property damage caused by riverine flooding in the Greater Toronto Area. TRCA has implemented a variety of measures to address flood risks in their watersheds, including: • regulation of land development in floodplains; • interfacing with municipal land use planners to solve urban redevelopment constraints and infrastructure upgrading for resilient communities; • development of floodplain mapping and hydrologic modelling; • development of flood risk and mitigation plans; • operation of a "Flood Forecasting and Warning" program, which includes the issuance of flood warning messages; 328 monitoring of watershed conditions (including streamflow, precipitation, snowpack and meteorological data); operation of flood control structures; and providing technical support and advice to assist municipalities in the development of emergency management plans to minimize flood risks. Funding from the federal government through the NDMP complements TRCA's existing mandate, as outlined in the table below, and provides an opportunity to fill funding gaps to address outstanding needs. NDMP Project Stream TRCA Flood Risk Management Activities 1. Risk Assessment Estimated floodline mapping, Flood Vulnerable Area database updates 2. Flood Mapping Regulatory floodplain maps, updated hydrology studies, updated 1 D and 2D hydraulic models 3. Flood Mitigation Planning Flood remediation environmental assessments, feasibility studies, etc. 4. Investment in non - structural and small- Emergency plans, flood risk education scale structural mitigation projects workshops, real -time gauging improvements, berms, channels, and other small -scale flood infrastructure In order to ensure eligibility and also strategically address the criteria against which projects will be weighed at the provincial and federal level, TRCA proposes to continue applying for funding from the NDMP, using the following criteria to determine whether or not a project should be included in the NDMP funding request: 1) Availability of matching funds: the project must have a funding source within TRCA's budget process, or source matching funds through a partner municipality, in order to meet the 50% cost - sharing criteria. 2) The project must meet the NDMP Project Stream definition and provide a benefit that is directly relatable to reducing flood risk — i.e.: the main purpose of the project must be the reduction of flood risk. 3) The project location (where applicable) must represent a high degree of flood risk. 4) Projects must continue to demonstrate that TRCA is working with our municipal partners to address priority areas. Project funding applications will be developed over the next four years based on the above - noted criteria. At the provincial and federal level, projects are only assessed against others within the same stream. TRCA's Engineering Services staff will identify projects of similar nature and scope and will further group them together as a program under each funding application. Where projects are site - specific, the benefitting area must represent both a high degree of flood risk, and an alignment with municipal priorities. The degree of risk for site specific projects will be informed by the updated Flood Vulnerable Areas database, as well as previously identified priority areas in the Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Strategy. Examples of projects that may be pursued include: • updates to hydrology and hydraulic models using UDAR information; • two- dimensional hydraulic modeling studies for high risk areas; • floodplain mapping updates and extension studies to utilize best available technology and account for future extreme weather events; 329 • increasing the density of the real -time gauging network; • improved real -time flood forecasting tools; • feasibility studies or environmental assessments for flood mitigation measures; • improved risk communication tools and channels. FINANCIAL DETAILS Eligible expenses relating to TRCA's proposed projects include, but are not limited to: • Flood mapping and forecasting. • Purchase of equipment used to undertake mitigation or support the implementation of permanent structural mitigation measures. • Consultant fees. • Risk and vulnerability assessments. • Disaster mitigation planning. • Public flood risk awareness programs. • Planning and feasibility activities for structural mitigation. • Small -scale structural mitigation. • Improvement or modernization of existing permanent structural measures. Certain costs are ineligible for NDMP funding, such as: • Costs relating to events and equipment which are considered to be the routine responsibility of provincial ministries or first responder agencies such as police, fire and ambulance. • Ongoing operation and maintenance cost for NDMP initiatives following completion of the project. • Administrative costs which are not directly related to a specific NDMP project. • Hospitality costs. • Mitigation projects that would yield only temporary measures (ie: sandbags). • Mitigation projects that would create an ongoing need for funds from the federal government or its recipient that cannot be absorbed in their current budget process. • Projects that address needs that are not related to prevention /mitigation. The following table outlines the anticipated funding intended to be allocated as matching funds to the NDMP program over the next four years from TRCA's capital budget for Water Risk Management (accounts 127 -90 Floodline Mapping and 107 -02 flood protection and remedial studies). Municipality Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Durham $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Peel $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Toronto $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 York $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 330 In addition, if priority projects are identified through this process, for which matching funds are not available from TRCA's capital budget, TRCA staff intend to approach interested municipal partners to request additional funding outside the capital budget process, as required, to support special projects applicable to the National Disaster Mitigation Program. Report prepared by: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220 Emails: rrajabali @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220, Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350 Emails: rrajabali @trca.on.ca, sdhalla @trca.on.ca Date: July 5, 2016 331 RESMA110 /16 - ONTARIO'S CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN Summary Update. Update on provincial climate change action plan as it relates to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and partner municipalities. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to follow changes in provincial climate policy and program implementation, engage as appropriate with the Province of Ontario and provide future updates to the Authority as implications to TRCA and partner municipality operations and activities become clearer. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/16, held on April 1, 2016, Resolution #A14/16 directed staff to continue to monitor and report back on milestone developments concerning provincial climate change policy and program implementation. In May 2016 the Climate Change Mitigation and Low - carbon Economy Act, 2016 passed through the Provincial Legislature and entered into legislation. The Act establishes Ontario's greenhouse gas reduction targets in law, and sets out the policy framework for achieving them: 15% below 1990 levels by 2020 • 37% below 1990 levels by 2030 • 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 The Act also provides a framework for reviewing and increasing emission reduction targets, as well as establishing additional interim targets (e.g. 2025; 2035, etc). A central component of the policy framework to 2020 and beyond is the implementation of a cap- and -trade program in collaboration with California and Quebec. Ontario's cap- and -trade program would regulate more than 80 per cent of the Province's total emissions by requiring industry, fossil fuel electricity generators, and distributors of transportation and heating fuels to hold emissions credits equal to their total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions outside of the cap- and -trade program, such as those in agriculture, forestry and other land use, are proposed to be covered indirectly by an offset system which the Province has yet to release details on. While large industrial and institutional emitters are set to receive credits free of charge on an interim basis, distributors of heating and transportation fuels, as well as electricity generators would be obligated to purchase permits via provincially- administered quarterly auctions starting January 1 2017, the costs of which will be passed- through to consumers of these fuels. This means that Enbridge and Union Gas will be the largest auction participants at the outset. Funds raised through these quarterly auctions will be deposited into the new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA), which fund GHG reduction initiatives included in the Climate Change Action Plan. 332 Ontario Climate Change Action Plan — Key Highlights The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) released its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in early June 2016. The CCAP details how cap- and -trade proceeds, deposited in the GGRA, will be spent on initiatives related to: energy use, land use and buildings, infrastructure, transportation, industry, agriculture and forestry, waste management, education and training, and research and innovation. The Act requires the Province to provide annual progress reports for achieving mitigation targets and to update the CCAP every five years. Green Bank ($875 million -$1.1 billion) One of the key announcements to emerge out of the 2016 CCAP is the creation of a new Green Bank for homeowners and businesses. Capitalized by revenues from the cap- and -trade program, the Green Bank would boost investment in clean - technology and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and other low carbon technologies. The Green Bank would help homeowners and businesses (particularly small and medium -sized enterprises) understand the scope of available grants and incentives for low carbon retrofits, and access low interest financing. The Green Bank would work with the financial sector to aggregate small projects to reduce risks for third -party financiers. Up to $1 billion has been set aside from GGRA to help fund the industry side of the Green Bank. In developing a provincial Green Bank, the Province is following the lead of international jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Australia and a number of US states including New York, Vermont and Connecticut. The "delivery model" for the Green Bank will be finalized in 2016 through further analysis of Green Banks in other jurisdictions, and in consultation with existing natural gas and electricity utilities. Transportation ($1.141.75 billion) Within the transportation sector it is noteworthy that the Province opted not to develop a zero- emissions vehicle mandate, which is an approach used in California that requires automakers to produce a certain percentage of zero emissions vehicles for sale. The Province instead opted for an incentive -based approach to encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles ($140 -$160 million), install charging stations ($80 million) and for fuel distributions to increase use of biofuels ($100 -$155 million). The 2016 CCAP also commits investment to support active transportation infrastructure ($150 -$225 million), and for the freight transportation sector to purchase low carbon vehicles ($125 -$170 million) and build out a low carbon fueling network ($75 -$100 million). Given Ontario's position as a major auto production centre, the Province has committed to investing in the creation of a new Global Centre for Low Carbon Mobility ($100 -$140 million), to be based at an unnamed post- secondary institution in Ontario. Also noteworthy is the commitment of GGRA investment to accelerate the deployment of Metrolinx's Regional Express Rail program ($355 -$675 million). Buildings and Homes ($2.1 -$3 billion) There is a strong focus on multi -unit residential buildings, with social housing ($300 -$500 million) and apartment ($300 -$400 million) retrofits a major priority. There is also significant capital for retrofitting public institutions such as schools, post- secondary institutions and hospitals ($400 -$800 million). There is additional capital available for homeowner retrofits ($500 -$600 million) as well as for the construction of net -zero homes ($180 -$220 million), which CCAP states will become mandatory for all new residential home construction by 2030. It is unclear whether the Green Bank referred to above will be the delivery model for these investments. 333 The 2016 CCAP also provides funding for energy audits of pre -sale homes (both new and existing), with the resulting energy rating now required to be included in real estate listings ($200 -$250 million). Related to this is a new requirement for energy reporting and benchmarking for large multi -unit residential and commercial buildings. Finally, the Province will create a new low carbon content requirement for natural gas, which should stimulate a market for renewable natural gas from the waste and agriculture sectors. Land -Use Planning ($280 -$350 million) The initiatives laid out in the 2016 CCAP around land use planning include legislative changes to empower municipalities to set Green Development standards in areas other than building construction. The Province also intends to consult and propose amendments to the Planning Act to make climate change a provincial interest, and make climate change mitigation and adaptation mandatory in official plans Complementing this intended requirement, CCAP includes a commitment to develop guidance for consideration of climate change in municipal policies and programs. Initiatives also include the creation of a Challenge Fund to support emission reduction projects proposed by municipalities that already have community energy plans and GHG inventories in place. Projects will get matching funding, with a total of $250 -$300 million set aside for this new program starting in 2017/2018. In addition to this Challenge Fund is a Climate Change Partnerships Fund ($7 million) to support partnerships with community organizations, institutions, and the private sector to design and deliver low carbon initiatives. Community energy planning is a prominent focus of this section, with funding for the development of plans and training /guidance to help communities access energy use data for their planning and energy use mapping. There is also support for collaborative data driven approaches to carbon reduction such as: district wide mapping of gas, electricity, heating /cooling, water, and transport to enable district -wide decisions. Government ($165 -$175 million) The 2016 CCAP establishes a new GHG reduction target for the Ontario Public Service (OPS) of 50% below 2006 levels by 2030, with a commitment to developing a long -term strategy to move toward carbon neutrality in the long -term. To achieve this ambitious target, CCAP includes commitments to increase opportunities for telecommuting by OPS staff, as well as scale -up the greening of the provincial government's vehicle fleet and other procurement. The Province opted not to extend this requirement to the broader public sector but will arguably be setting the example for other government sectors and potentially influence wider - spread adoption of carbon neutral operations across other levels of government. Agriculture, Forests and Lands ($55 -$65 million) The 2016 CCAP commits to developing a land use carbon inventory to assess the potential of agriculture, forestry and other land uses to sequester carbon, as well as a Forest Carbon Policy Framework to support the development of a carbon offset market to work in conjunction with the cap- and -trade program. This section of CCAP also reiterates the Province's commitment to expanding the Greenbelt, protecting grasslands, and supporting tree planting efforts (with specific and substantial increases in urban areas, as well as to disseminate guidance on how to consider climate change in environmental assessments. 334 Potential Implications for TRCA and Partner Municipalities There is considerable consultation to come on initiatives such as the Green Bank, the carbon offset system, and on cap- and -trade program details post 2020, before the final details and implications are known. However, it is clear that the broad scope of initiatives across major emitting sectors, backed by reinvestment of revenues from the cap- and -trade program, makes CCAP the most ambitious climate change policy document seen to date in Ontario. This 2016 CCAP is clearly directed at the urban and suburban climate challenge in the Greater Golden Horseshoe with large investments focused on the major sources of emissions: personal transportation and the building sector. The Province will be under considerable pressure to roll -out the large number of initiatives and consultation processes in an efficient manner over the next several years, and will be looking to develop and engage in partnerships with local government to support implementation. TRCA and partner municipalities are well - positioned to provide implementation support and help channel investment flowing from the GGRA to transform built infrastructure and increase green infrastructure across the region. For example, much of the investment committed for electric vehicle and active transportation infrastructure should flow directly through municipal government authorities, as should dollars allocated to transform social housing stock. Funding for urban tree planting is also an area where municipal governments and conservation authorities will need to take a leading role. Existing TRCA programs such as the Ontario Climate Consortium, Partners in Project Green, Sustainable Neighbourhoods Action Plan, Community Transformations and Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program can help partner municipalities leverage provincial investment by supporting partnerships, research and innovation, generating actionable evidence, and supporting identification of effective GHG reduction actions and priority projects for collective impact. Municipalities that already have corporatelcommunity energy plans or climate change policies with GHG emission inventories in place will be able to access the Climate Change Challenge Fund ($250 -$300 million) and secure matching funding for their initiatives. The 2016 CCAP also commits funds to support municipalities with development of community energy and GHG inventories. Beyond the financial opportunities, the 2016 CCAP also commits to the development of a range of tools which should help municipalities drive down emissions while also supporting other economic and social objectives such as reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. For example, proposed amendments to the Municipal Act and City of Toronto Act would enable municipalities to require electric vehicle charging stations in surface parking lots as well as set Green Development Standards beyond new building construction. CCAP would also provide tools to support the pilot implementation of congestion management plans and "low emissions zones" such as those in place in London, UK and Stockholm, Sweden. For TRCA, other conservation authorities (CAs) and municipalities across the Province, there may be opportunities to engage as part of the development of policy to support the provincial carbon offset system. CCAP commits to the development of a Land Use Carbon Inventory as well as a Forest Carbon Policy Framework. The role of CA and municipally -owned lands in sequestering carbon is not mentioned in the context of the future carbon offset system, however policy advocacy in this regard should be a priority initiative for CA's and partner municipalities, particularly if funding to increase tree planting efforts is accessed and applied to CA and municipal lands. 335 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE There is an opportunity for TRCA and partner municipalities to proactively engage with MOECC to better understand some of the municipally- oriented initiatives announced under the 2016 CCAP such as the Climate Change Challenge Fund and the Climate Partnerships Fund. There is also a need to engage with the Province on the development of the Forest Carbon Policy Framework so that the value of CA and municipally -owned lands are recognized from a carbon sequestration standpoint. Staff will continue to monitor policy developments, engage directly with MOECC staff to seek further information and guidance around the aforementioned initiatives relating to municipal government implementation, and report back to the Authority when further details and analysis are available. Report prepared by: Ian McVey, 416- 451 -1420 Emails: imcvey(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ian McVey, 416 -451 -1420 Emails: imcvey(a)trca.on.ca Date: July 22, 2016 RES. #A111116 - TRCA WETLAND BALANCE MONITORING PROTOCOL Authority approval of TRCA's Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol, a technical guideline developed to support Appendix D: Water Balance for Protection of Natural Features of TRCA's Stormwater Management (SWM) Criteria document (2012) and The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT item 7.3 — TRCA Wetland Balance Monitoring Protocol be deferred to Authority Meeting #7/16, scheduled to be held on September 23, 2016. CARRIED 336 RESMA112 /16 - INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE EVALUATION TOOL A Partnership with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and Ryerson University. Research partnership with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and Ryerson University to support the development of an Integrated Water Resource Evaluation Tool Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: John Sprovieri WHEREAS Ryerson University has an Urban Water research centre focused on advancing the science around urban water issues and has proposed a research project with a theme around integrated water management systems in partnership with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (Waterfront Toronto); AND WHEREAS Waterfront Toronto, a longstanding partner with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has agreed to fund phase 1 of this research and requested TRCA to participate as an in -kind partner; AND WHEREAS TRCA is generally seeking to advance our state of knowledge and practice in the proposed research theme; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA establish formal partnerships with Waterfront Toronto and Ryerson University specifically to enable the development of an Integrated Water Resource Evaluation Tool and maximize applicability across the TRCA jurisdiction; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with outcomes of Year 1 and project approach determined for Year 2. CARRIED BACKGROUND In early 2015, the Urban Water Institute at Ryerson University presented a proposal to Waterfront Toronto on the theme of integrated urban water management strategies that might have application to areas subject to revitalization along the waterfront. In early 2016, Waterfront Toronto confirmed their interest in funding the initial phase of the research and then engaged TRCA to also participate as an in -kind project partner. Discussions were also had with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), who confirmed interest as a stakeholder, and with Toronto Water who confirmed support by way of in -kind contribution and may be prepared to increase its support for later stages of the project. The project seeks to develop an Integrated Water Resource Evaluation Tool (the Tool) that would primarily assist municipal planners and engineers, and other interested stakeholders, to evaluate and refine the design of water management systems that could integrate multiple options such as innovative water technology options, low impact development (LID) tools and water reuse. The Tool is essentially a decision - making support framework that captures and considers the complex interrelationships and interactions of integrated urban water management strategies and determines if a given design approach will achieve a desired benefit(s), and at what cost. With innovation as a central theme to this research, the Tool will enable the consideration of decentralized water services and identify potential benefits such as: • recovering energy and nutrients; • reducing energy consumption; • increasing resiliency to climate change. 337 The preferred design options will be selected based on a set of evaluation criteria developed in consultation with project stakeholders and informed by subject matter expertise together with a comprehensive literature review of global best practices. Preliminary work on the literature review has already started but official project initiation is anticipated for August or September 2016. The anticipated overall project timeline is two years, with the following deliverables: Year 1 (a) literature review; (b) stakeholder workshop and summary reports; (c) finalization of evaluation criteria; and (d) decision - making support system framework. Year 2 (a) the Tool; (b) application of the Tool to Villiers Island, Toronto as a case study; (c) final report, with technical manual; and (d) final presentation. The project partners for Year 1 include Waterfront Toronto, Ryerson University and TRCA. The stakeholder group includes the project partners, MOECC, Toronto Water as well as other invited municipalities and conservation authorities. The project partners for Year 2 are proposed as Toronto Water and Ryerson University, with Waterfront Toronto and TRCA only retaining their roles as stakeholders; all other stakeholders would remain the same. All project partners agree that the Tool would be transferable, with no license fee, to other Waterfront Toronto precincts and to other parts of the City of Toronto, TRCA jurisdiction and other areas of Ontario, serving the objective of market transformation. RATIONALE With the urgent challenge that climate change poses to all of us and our growing cities, there is a collective need to better understand and rigorously consider municipal servicing designs which take advantage of multiple benefits that work to save energy and increase system resilience to climate change and extreme weather. This partnership represents the opportunity to deepen that knowledge and commit to a collaborative process that accesses leading -edge research, strengthens coordination amongst municipal partners, and delivers a consistent approach in identifying and evaluating the suite of common opportunities and barriers — from policy to operations - associated with integrated urban water management. TRCA's Living City Policies, Key Principle 7 asserts TRCA's priority interest around "incorporating innovative city design to optimize long term economic, social, cultural, human health and environmental benefits." This project is consistent with and directly helps implement TRCA's policy. Further, with TRCA participating as a project partner, staff can best ensure internal expertise and experience is appropriately translated, and connection to municipal stakeholders is comprehensive such that intentions for future knowledge mobilization and transfer are optimized. 338 Finally, planned investigations led by TRCA's Research and Climate Programs section already involve quantitatively examining more holistic and integrated approaches to water management that can be implemented to reduce flood, erosion and water quality issues under different land use and climate change scenarios. This direction of priority research, currently focused in Peel Region, is expected to benefit from insights gained through this proposed partnership and research outcomes. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project budget is divided into two parts: Year 1 ($74,550) and Year 2 ($66,000). Waterfront Toronto will be providing full funding for Year 1 through a transfer of payment to TRCA. TRCA will then administer these funds as a grant directly to Ryerson University. Having TRCA undertake the role of fund administrator to Ryerson University was the preferred arrangement by Waterfront Toronto as it took advantage of TRCA's extensive experience in partnering with academic institutions. TRCA will receive a 5% administrative fee as cost recovery and provide in -kind support as a steering committee stakeholder and facilitate the broader stakeholder engagement. All of these tasks are not considered major investments of staff time. No funding commitment is in place for Year 2; however, it is the intent of Waterfront Toronto and Toronto Water to pursue a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund under their "feasibility study' category. If the grant application is not successful, other funding options will be considered by partners to complete Year 2 deliverables (delivery of the tool, case study and final report). Year 2 of the project will be re- scoped or not proceed until such time as funding is secured. Therefore, there is no financial commitment by TRCA for Year 2, however staff would participate in discussions and apply reasonable effort to identify a scenario that allows this research to be completed in the desired timeframe. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In recognition of the benefits outlined above related to assessing innovative and integrated urban water designs, it is recommended that staff be directed to enter into partnerships with Waterfront Toronto and Ryerson Urban Water, coordinate the necessary agreements to ensure Year 1 research activities and deliverables can be completed, and report back to the Authority with outcomes of Year 1 and project approach determined for Year 2. Report prepared by: Fabio Tonto, extension 5613 Emails: ftonto @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Fabio Tonto or Christine Tu Emails: ftonto @trca.on.ca; ctu @trca.on.ca Date: July 22, 2016 339 RES. #A113/16 - GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Agreement for Collaboration on Electric Vehicle Charging Station Installations. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, through Partners in Project Green: A Person Eco- Business Zone program, has received a request from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to collaborate on the installation of 32 electric vehicle charging stations on Airport lands, using grant funding provided through the Ministry of Transportation's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario program. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) have successfully collaborated for over two decades to advance the protection and restoration of natural resources in TRCA watersheds including the development of "Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone ", an initiative to develop North America's largest eco- business zone on the industrial lands surrounding Toronto Pearson International Airport; AND WHEREAS TRCA is in receipt of a request from the GTAA to enter into an agreement to facilitate the procurement and installation of electric vehicle charging stations with funding made available from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO); AND WHEREAS GTAA's initiative complements Partners in Project Green's Open EV Network original goal of installing 100 charging stations and influencing the largest rollout of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSA) in the GTA; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a transfer payment agreement (TPA) with MTO to receive and use $2.685 million, made available through the Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario (EVCO) program, to fund the installation and operation (for a five -year term) of 32 electric vehicle charging stations at four locations on GTAA lands by March 31, 2017; THAT TRCA enter into an agreement with the GTAA to facilitate the procurement and installation of electric vehicle charging stations with funding made available from MTO; THAT TRCA's agreement with GTAA be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the agreement shall be for five years; (ii) that TRCA and GTAA shall collaboratively procure and install the electric vehicle charging stations subject to TRCA's procurement policies; (iii) that GTAA shall be solely responsible for maintaining and operating all electric vehicle charging stations and related assets and services; (iv) that GTAA shall be responsible for any permitting approvals required for the construction and operation of the electric vehicle charging stations; (v) that GTAA shall be accountable for and prepare all information required for reporting back to MTO; (vi) that GTAA shall be responsible for any costs incurred in excess of the TPA funding amount; 340 (vii) that GTAA shall brand charging station installations with TRCA program logos, include them as part of TRCA's Open EV Network of existing charging stations in the Greater Toronto Area, and provide TRCA access to station use data; and (viii) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program In accordance with objectives laid out in Ontario's Climate Change Strategy, the Province of Ontario is investing $20 million from the Green Investment Fund to support the build -out of a network of public electric vehicle charging stations. This expansion in charging infrastructure across the Province will help address "range anxiety," a common concern of consumers regarding the distance electric vehicles can travel compared to traditional vehicles. By building a more robust network of public chargers across Ontario, electric vehicle owners can now plan longer trips with more confidence that a charging station is as readily available as a gas station is. A shift to low- and zero- emission vehicles is vital to the fight against climate change and achieving Ontario's greenhouse gas pollution reduction target of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. From December 2015 to February 2016, the EVCO grant program, administered through the Ministry of Transportation, solicited public and private sector partners to submit funding applications and strategies to develop a network of fast - charging stations in cities, along highways and at workplaces, condominiums, and public places across Ontario. Twenty -seven successful applicants were notified regarding their funding eligibility in April 2016 and are expected to install 280 Level 2 charging stations (2 -7 hour charge) and 213 Level 3 charging stations (20 -30 minute charge) by March 31, 2017. Partners in Project Green's Open EV Network Since 2008, the GTAA and TRCA have been collaborating through Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco- Business Zone program, a joint initiative to build the largest eco- business community in the world. In 2014, Partners in Project Green's energy performance team undertook a collective project to boost the adoption of electric vehicles via the installation of networked Level 2 charging stations across the GTA. To date, TRCA's Partners in Project Green staff has currently overseen the successful installation of 84 networked Level 2 charging ports, working with 15 organizations and six service providers. Greater Toronto Airports Authority The GTAA has always been proactive in taking a systems approach to tackling climate change. They have halved their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since 2006 and are aiming to achieve an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. Toronto Pearson Airport already has 90 Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations installed at various locations on their lands, and a fleet of electric cars to facilitate low emission mobility for their passengers and employees. 341 Recognizing TRCA's experience with electric vehicle charging station procurement and installation, our aligned objectives to facilitate the adoption of low emission transportation, and our 20 -year long- standing relationship, the GTAA reached out to TRCA with a request for partnership on this landmark project. The project is anticipated to cost $4.3 million and the GTAA has budgeted $1.7 million of their own funds to carry out these charging station installations. GTAA was successful in their grant application to MTO's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program, and obtained $2,685,000 to subsidize the installation for 22 Level 2 and 10 Level 3 charging stations at the GTAA locations noted in the table below. Upon entering into an agreement with the GTAA, TRCA will receive and manage these funds and provide valuable support to procure the charging station infrastructure and associated services. Location ID Location Level 2 EVSE Level 3 EVSE GTA 1 8 Network Road, Mississauga 0 5 GTA 2 3111 Convair Drive, Mississauga 2 5 GTA 3 6301 Silver Dart Drive, Mississauga T3 10 0 GTA 4 6301 Silver Dart Drive, Mississauga T1 10 0 TOTAL 22 10 RATIONALE The Open EV Network project has resulted in TRCA's Partners in Project Green staff developing a vast amount of electric vehicle supply equipment expertise and resources, which would be invaluable if made available to the GTAA to optimize their infrastructure selection and procurement process and ensure successful achievement of their project objectives. The original goal of the Open EV Network project was to install 100 charging ports. Currently at 84, the addition of 32 branded and networked charging stations would allow Partners in Project Green to meet this milestone achievement and be recognized as influencing the largest rollout of EVSE in the GTA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon TRCA approval, the necessary other approvals required to bring this agreement into effect will be pursued. FINANCIAL DETAILS The execution of this agreement will not have any ongoing financial impact to TRCA. Report prepared by: Adam Vaiya, 416 - 275 -8377 Email: avaiya(a)trca.on.ca For Information Contact: Adam Vaiya, 416- 275 -8377 Email: avaiyaptrca.on.ca Date: July 5, 2016 342 RESMA114 /16 - KOBEN SYSTEMS INCORPORATED Proposal to Install and Operation Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, City of Toronto. Receipt of a request from Koben Systems Incorporated to enter into an agreement to install and operate 21 electric vehicle charging stations at 14 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned or leased sites using funding awarded to Koben Systems Incorporated through the Ministry of Transportation's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario program. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Koben Systems Incorporated (KSI) to enter into an agreement to install and operate 21 electric vehicle charging stations at 14 TRCA -owned or leased sites using funding awarded to KSI through the Ministry of Transportation's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario program; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into an agreement with KSI for the installation and operation of 21 electric vehicle charging stations at 14 TRCA -owned or leased sites; THAT the agreement with KSI be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the agreement shall be for five years; (ii) that TRCA shall have the option to purchase the assets for nominal consideration upon the completion of the agreement; (iii) that KSI shall be responsible for any permitting approvals required for the construction and operation of the electric vehicle charging stations; (iv) that KSI shall be responsible for any costs associated with the construction and installation of the electric vehicle charging stations and related infrastructure; (v) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the agreement, including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program In accordance with objectives laid out in Ontario's Climate Change Strategy, the Province of Ontario is investing $20 million from the Green Investment Fund to support the build -out of a network of public electric vehicle charging stations. This expansion in charging infrastructure across the Province will help address "range anxiety," a common concern of consumers regarding the distance electric vehicles can travel compared to traditional vehicles. By building a more robust network of public chargers across Ontario, electric vehicle owners can now plan longer trips with more confidence that a charging station is as readily available as a gas station is. A shift to low- and zero - emission vehicles is vital to the fight against climate change and achieving Ontario's greenhouse gas pollution reduction target of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. 343 From December 2015 to February 2016, the Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario (EVCO) grant program, administered through the Ministry of Transportation, solicited public and private sector partners to submit funding applications and strategies to develop a network of fast - charging stations in cities, along highways and at workplaces, condominiums, and public places across Ontario. Twenty -seven successful applicants were notified regarding their funding eligibility in April 2016 and are expected to install 280 Level 2 charging stations (2 -7 hour charge) and 213 Level 3 charging stations (20 -30 minute charge) by March 31, 2017. Koben Systems Incorporated Koben Systems Incorporated is a market leader in electric vehicle (EV) products, services and upstream infrastructure. They have been working with TRCA's Partners in Project Green program since 2014 as one of six service providers providing turn -key EV charging solutions for participants in the Open EV Network collective project. This project has resulted in the successful installation of 84 networked Level 2 charging ports with 15 organizations. KSI was awarded $11.4 million of the $20 million, or 57 per cent, of the total EVCO funding allocated to roll -out the network of public electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) across Ontario. By March 31, 2017, KSI is expected to install 193 Level 2 and 144 Level 3 charging stations. TRCA was one of many organizations included in KSI's grant funding application to MTO's EVCO program, alongside food service companies like McDonalds and Tim Hortons, and property managers like Triovest. Electric Vehicles and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority TRCA has recently purchased their third plug -in electric vehicle, and charges it on one of four EV charging ports at 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan. Since these EV charging ports have been installed, it is estimated that TRCA has conserved more than 2,700 litres of gasoline and 5.3 tonnes of equivalent carbon dioxide (t eCO2). Electrifying fleet vehicles can play a significant role in meeting TRCA's Corporate Sustainability Targets, such as becoming carbon neutral by 2025 and having 50% of the vehicle fleet using alternative fuels by 2020. Ontario currently produces the vast majority of its electricity from sources which emit little to no greenhouse gases (GHG), such as nuclear, hydro, wind, etc. Therefore, a carbon footprint reduction of over 90% can be achieved by driving an EV as opposed to a gas powered vehicle. TRCA is also looking to source an increasing amount of electricity from renewable sources, thereby increasing the GHG emissions reduction associated with using electric fleet vehicles. Driving an electric vehicle has significant cost avoidances over gasoline powered vehicles. While savings are dependent on the fuel economy of the vehicles being compared, TRCA can expect 60 to 70 per cent in cost avoidances on fuel. In addition EVs use less lubricants and moving parts resulting in additional maintenance savings over gas powered vehicles. With the currently limited range of EVs and frequently required long distance commutes between TRCA conservation areas and education centres, electric vehicle charging infrastructure would be a valuable asset across TRCA's property portfolio of owned and leased facilities to enable longer commutes using EVs and alleviate range anxiety amongst employees using electric fleet vehicles. 344 Finally, the proposed EV charging stations shall be networked making them visible on mobile devices used by all EV drivers. As these stations will be installed at the majority of TRCA's conservation areas and education centres they will help drive more community members across TRCA's watersheds to a TRCA location allowing them to immerse themselves in the natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities that is The Living City. The 14 TRCA sites where the charging stations will be installed are outline in Attachment 1. RATIONALE Entering into a lease agreement with KSI to install 21 EV charging stations at 14 TRCA -owned or leased locations will result in the following benefits to the organization: • installation of EV charging station infrastructure valued at approximately $515,000; • ability to accommodate longer distance electric fleet vehicle commuting; • progress toward Corporate Sustainability Targets; • increased conservation area and education site visibility on charging station network platforms; • achievement of Partners in Project Green's 100 EV Charging Port target; • demonstrate progress on the following objectives in TRCA's Building The Living City: 10 -year Strategic Plan: • Green the Toronto region's economy; • Accelerate innovation; • Facilitate a region -wide approach to sustainability; • Build partnerships and new business models; • Gather and share the best urban sustainability knowledge; and • Measure performance. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon Authority approval, the necessary other approvals required to bring the lease into effect will be pursued. FINANCIAL DETAILS KSI shall be responsible for any costs associated with the construction and installation of the electric vehicle charging stations and related infrastructure. The execution of this agreement is not expected to have any significant financial impact on TRCA. Report prepared by: Adam Vaiya, 416- 275 -8377, Jae R. Truesdell, 416 - 305 -2690 Email: avaiva(ZDtrca.on.ca, jtruesdellMrca.on.ca For information contact: Adam Vaiya, 416- 275 -8377, Jae R. Truesdell, 416 - 305 -2690 Email: avaiva(&trca.on.ca, jtruesdell(aDtrca.on.ca Date: July 6, 2016 Attachments: 1 345 Attachment 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority E ui ment Site Name Address L3 L2 1 Albion Hills Conservation Area — Chalet 16500 Regional Road 50, Caledon 0 1 Albion Hills Conservation Area — Beach Parking Lot 0 1 2 Head Office 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan 1 2 3 Black Creek Pioneer Village 1000 Murray Ross Parkway, Downsview 1 2 4 Bruce's Mill Conservation Area 3291 Stouffville Road, Stouffville 0 1 5 Boyd Conservation Area 8739 Islington Avenue, Woodbridge 0 1 6 Glen Haffy Conservation Area 19245 Airport Road, Caledon 0 1 7 Heart Lake Conservation Area 10818 Heart Lake Road, Brampton 0 1 8 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area 1100 Whites Road, Pickering 1 1 9 Indian Line Campground 7625 Finch Avenue, Brampton 0 1 10 Glen Rouge Campground 7450 Kingston Road, Scarborough 0 1 11 Claireville Conservation Area 8180 Regional Road 50, Brampton 0 1 12 Kortri ht Centre for Conservation 9550 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge 0 2 13 Claremont Field Centre 4290 Westney Road N., Goodwood 0 1 14 Swan Lake Centre for Conservation and Innovation 1229 Bethesda Side Road, Richmond Hill 0 1 Total 3 18 KEN RESMA115116 - L'AMOREAUX AND LOWER DUCK SWMP CLEAN -OUT AND RESTORATION PROJECT City of Toronto Stormwater Management Ponds Partnership and Award of Contracts Related to Stormwater Management Pond Sediment Dredging. Award of contracts for the supply and delivery of solidification reagent, and for the disposal of stockpiled sediments as L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck stormwater management ponds. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received approval in 2013 to form a partnership with City of Toronto for the clean out of seven stormwater management ponds (SWMPs); AND WHEREAS TRCA has successfully cleaned out five SWMPs under this partnership; AND WHEREAS two SWMPs remain to be cleaned out, L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #10001800 for the disposal of industrial /commercial SWMP dredgeate for L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Ground Force Environmental Inc. for a total cost not to exceed $1,324,566.90, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10001801 for the supply and delivery of solidification reagent for L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Diversity Technologies Corporation (Di- Corp), at a total cost not to exceed $412,753.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the total cost of both contracts as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contracts including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2013, the City of Toronto's Toronto Water Division approached TRCA to seek opportunities to assist with the management of the City's SWMPs. At Authority Meeting #7/13, held on September 27, 2013, Resolution #A141/13 approved the TRCA partnership with City of Toronto for the clean -out of the seven identified SWMPs. Thus far, five SWMPs have been completed with the last two, L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs, to be cleaned out this summer. TRCA has over 35 years of experience in the planning, design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of SWMP projects. TRCA is ideally suited to carry out SWMP maintenance for municipal partners because of the full range of services offered internally: design, approvals, survey, public consultation, implementation and site restoration. Both of these SWMPs are within sensitive greenspace, and L'Amoreaux is an online pond with potential effects on downstream habitat. TRCA has the unique expertise to manage the challenges and environmental considerations of SWMP maintenance under these conditions. 347 The L'Amoreaux SWMP is located northwest of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue in Scarborough and is approximately 0.2 ha in size. Located within High Park, northwest of Parkside Drive and The Queensway, Lower Duck SWMP is approximately 0.81 ha in size. Contract #10001800 The City's Toronto Water division currently manages, operates and maintains dozens of SWMPs including wet ponds, wetlands and dry ponds. These SWMPs are accumulating sediment and deteriorating, thus requiring maintenance and sediment removal (clean -out) in order to be restored to their design specifications. The performance of these ponds is a function of sediment accumulation and storage, which are critical to the holding and treating of stormwater, protecting the surrounding areas from localized flooding and improving downstream water quality. As part of the scope of work for this project, the sediment accumulated in each pond will be dredged, stockpiled and mixed with the polymer. Once the character of the sediment becomes like that of wet - cement, it is loaded into tri -axles for off -site hauling to an appropriate disposal facility. TRCA estimates that there is an accumulation of up to 1,248 m3 of sediment to be removed in order to restore the L'Amoreaux SWMP to its original specifications. Based on field assessments, approximately 11,100 m3 of sediment needs to be removed from Lower Duck SWMP. Contract #10001801 A solidification reagent is a powdered, inorganic mineral formula used for the solidification and stabilization of high aqueous wastes. It is typically composed of a clay based mineral infused with a food grade polymer. Solidification reagents are used to solidify high aqueous materials to meet slump requirements allowing for transportation as a solid. The polymer is needed in SWMP clean -out projects as a solidifying agent for the saturated sediment of drained ponds. The polymer alters the consistency of the sediment to a more solid form, making it possible to excavate and load into a tri -axle for disposal to a certified facility. These types of polymers are highly specialized products often used in other types of industries (drilling, mining, etc.). This polymer brand (Earth Pro Mud Terminator) was vetted through TRCA's Sustainable Technologies group to verify its impact on aquatic ecosystems. The Earth Pro Mud Terminator polymer was evaluated to be safe (based on the available information) and was successfully used for the clean -out and restoration of the Annie Crescent SWMP in Ajax. Approximately 16.5 tonnes (36,400 Ibs) of polymer is needed for the clean out of the L'Amoreaux SWMP and 140.5 tonnes (310,800 Ibs) is needed for the clean -out of Lower Duck SWMP. RATIONALE Contract #10001800 The Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10001800 was publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo.com on June 6, 2016 for the haulage and disposal of sediment material from the L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs. The document was downloaded for review by 20 vendors. One addendum was issued on June 16, 2016. As a condition of the RFQ, only bidders that operate under a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) and attended the mandatory site meeting were considered to undertake the disposal of the sediment. REFOO The Quotations were received on June 24, 2016 and formally opened by TRCA staff (Jane Veit, Judith Reda and Natalie Racette) on the same day with the following results: Contract #10001800 L'Amoreaux & Lower Duck SWMP Clean -Out and Restoration Project Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate BIDDER TOTAL (Plus HST) Bid Score Ground Force Environmental Inc. $1,324,566.90 95% Sierra Excavating Enterprises Inc. $1,375,350.50 82% WM. Petrie and Sons Contracting Ltd. $1,215,755.00 Disqualified The three bids received were evaluated and scored based on the bidder's price (50% of score), relevant work experience (30 %), and a check of the bidder's references (20 %). In addition, bidders were required to provide a valid MOECC license for their proposed disposal facility. The bidder WM. Petrie was disqualified because their relevant work experience and bidder references did not provide adequate assurance of their ability to undertake the scope of work. In addition, their proposed disposal facility did not have a Certificate of Approval or Environmental Compliance Approval registered with the MOECC's directory. As such, WM. Petrie's bid did not meet TRCA's specifications. TRCA reviewed the remaining two bids against its own cost estimate and has determined that the next lowest bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined on the contract documents. Ground Force Environmental Inc. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Ground Force Environmental Inc. be awarded Contract #10001800 for the disposal of SWMP dredgeate at the L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMPs for a total cost not to exceed $1,324,566.90, plus 25% contingency of $311,141.73 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications. Contract #10001801 The Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10001801 was publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo.com on June 6, 2016 for the supply and delivery of solidification reagent for the L'Amoreaux and Lower Duck SWMP clean -out projects. The document was downloaded for review by 11 vendors. The Quotations were received on June 17, 2016 and formally opened by TRCA staff (Jane Veit, Judith Reda and Natalie Racette) on the same day with the following results: 349 Contract #10001801 L'Amoreaux & Lower Duck SWMP Clean -Out and Restoration Project Supply and Delivery of Solidification Reagent BIDDER TOTAL (Plus HST) Diversity Technologies Corp $412,753.00 MORS Refining Systems Inc. $434,008.68 Ground Force Environmental Inc. $458,304.00 TRCA reviewed the bids received against its own cost estimate and has determined that the lowest bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined on the contract documents. Diversity Technologies Corp. is capable of supplying and delivering the product as required. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Diversity Technologies Corp. be awarded Contract #10001801 for the supply and delivery of the solidification reagent for a total cost not to exceed $412,753.00, plus 25% contingency of $103,188.25 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST. FINANCIAL DETAILS The costs for both Contract #10001801 and Contract #10001800 are 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto, within accounts 113 -26 (L'Amoreaux SWMP) and 113 -27 (Lower Duck SWMP). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Both the SWMPs will be dredged mechanically and restored upon completion. Only contractors operating under an MOECC Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) are eligible to undertake the disposal of the sediment. TRCA will execute the contract, including: management of the awarded disposal contractor on site, certification of each load leaving the site, issuance of bills of lading to each truck, verification of the disposal site's MOECC ECA, and random checks to follow trucks from dredging site to disposal site. These activities ensure the chain of custody of the dredged sediment from the SWMP to the licensed disposal site operating under an MOECC ECA. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in August at L'Amoreaux SWMP and in October at Lower Duck, upon receipt of all approvals and the availability of resources. Each pond will be de- watered during the dredging, and will be managed to ensure the pond is providing stormwater management function during this time period. Report prepared by: Lauren MacNeil, extension 5383 Emai Is: Imacneil @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366; John DIRocco, extension 5231 Emails: Toninger @trca.on.ca, jdirocco @trca.on.ca Date: June 30, 2016 350 RES. #A116/16 - CITY OF MISSISSAUGA Conveyance of Land and the Small Arms Inspection Building for Community Facility Purposes, 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Ontario Waterfront, CFN 56232. Conveyance of lands and Small Arms Inspection Building to the City of Mississauga for the development of a community facility located at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Ontario waterfront. Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a proposal from City of Mississauga for the conveyance of land improved with the Small Arms Inspection Building for development of a community facility at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Ontario waterfront; AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Mississauga in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA -owned land containing 4.04 hectares (10 acres), more or less, required for the development of a community facility, said land being part of Part Lot 5, Concession 3 SDS, located at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, be conveyed to the City of Mississauga; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00; THAT the approximately $2.6 million in contributions from the Regional Municipality of Peel, the Government of Canada and the balance of funds remaining from the original purchase and rehabilitation of the site be transferred to the City of Mississauga for rehabilitation of the building subject to the approval of the Regional Municipality of Peel and Government of Canada; THAT the City of Mississauga is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT the said conveyance be subject to any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or solicitor; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016, Resolution #A268/15 was approved as follows: 351 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquired the culturally significant Small Arms Inspection Building in 1992, as part of a larger strategy to create a regional waterfront park; AND WHEREAS the Small Arms Inspection Building was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, by City of Mississauga Council on May 13, 2009, AND WHEREAS the designation under the Ontario Heritage Act places responsibility on TRCA as the building owner, to protect the building and the structure's key heritage attributes; AND WHEREAS TRCA has secured a total of approximately $2.5 million from contributions from the Region of Peel, the Government of Canada and the balance of funds remaining from the original purchase and rehabilitation of the site, towards a total estimated cost of phase one of the building restoration of $5.0 million; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit a formal request to the City of Mississauga for support of a partnership project between the Government of Canada, Region of Peel and TRCA, that will include a City funding commitment of $2.5 million to support partial rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building and up to $1 million over five years, towards the ongoing operation of the building; THAT staff enter into discussions with City of Mississauga staff to negotiate the terms and conditions of the support, which may consider the option of transferring legal ownership of the building from TRCA to the City; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back at Authority Meeting #4116, scheduled to be held on April 22, 2016, to confirm the City of Mississauga's response to TRCA's request for support. The subject lands form part of a 16 hectare (39 acre) parcel of land which was acquired from Canada Post Corporation in 1992. The property is located on the south side of Lakeshore Road East at the border of the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto. The property has frontage of approximately 440m (1,444 ft.) on Lakeshore Road East and bounded on the eastern and southern borders by Marie Curtis Park, which is owned by TRCA and managed by the City of Toronto. Further to the southwest of the site are the Lakeview Water Pollution Control Plant and the former Lakeview Generating Station. The site contained a number of buildings at the time of acquisition and all of the buildings have since been demolished with the exception of the Small Arms Inspection Building and the existing water tower. These are the last remaining structures of the larger Small Arms Limited munitions plant built in 1940 to provide support to Allied Forces during World War II. Since the time of the original purchase of the site in 1992, plans have been developed and approved for the major new Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project which is now under construction adjacent to the site, through an effort of Credit Valley Conservation and TRCA as supported by the Region of Peel. 352 The Small Arms Inspection Building is situated on the northwest corner of the property at the foot of Dixie Road. The building includes over 4,000 mz (43,000 ftz) with three distinct components: a two - storey front former administration wing, a bridging section with one - storey and two - storey components, and a rear one - storey former inspection plant. The front bridging sections of the building are constructed of a load- bearing clay tile structure with a flat roof and clad in red brick veneer. The rear portion of the building is one - storey, with high ceilings, a flat -roof with skylights supported by timber post and beam system, double brick masonry and bands of steel- framed windows. The Small Arms Inspection Building was designed by Allward and Gouinlock Architects to provide inspection and administrative purposes to the larger Small Arms Limited munitions plant. In 2009, City of Mississauga designated the building as being of cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Region of Peel currently holds an easement over the frontage of the Small Arms Inspection Building for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Hanlan Feedermain. The Region also has a temporary working easement east of the Small Arms Inspection Building for staging and construction. The work on the feedermain is scheduled for completion by end of 2016. The City of Mississauga's proposal is for the conveyance of approximately 1.62 hectares (4 acres) of land surrounding the Small Arms Inspection Building for the development of a community facility. Initially the building will be managed as a satellite location to the Carmen Corbasson Community Centre, with the aim of building the capacity of a local organization and /or locating an existing group to manage and operate the facility within five years. The City of Mississauga plans to renovate and upgrade the existing Small Arms Inspection Building in two phases: Phase 1 would include the southern portion of the building and Phase 2 includes the northern portion of the building. In addition to the Small Arms Inspection Building, the City of Mississauga is requesting conveyance of an addition parcel of land (2.43 hectares [6 acres], more or less) for parking and for a use that would offset the restoration, maintenance and operating costs of the Small Arms Inspection Building. The City will include the building and additional parcel of land in their proposed Inspiration Lakeview Innovation Corridor Feasibility Study to inform their long term vision and Phase 2 of the building. Proposed Uses The proposed uses for the 4.04 hectare (10 acre) parcel would be consistent with the existing Lakeview Local Area Plan and the Arsenals Lands Master Plan which continues to be developed as a collaborative project by City of Mississauga and TRCA. These uses include: • commercial schools (This would include non - commercial school programming, with the understanding that such use would require the necessary planning amendments); • community facilities, including art studios and art galleries; • conference centre; • restaurants; and • secondary offices. Uses should educate citizens and /or support environmental stewardship, conservation and passive /active recreational activities and address other community needs as they emerge through further discussions and potential partnerships. Additional reports will be provided for the information of the Board in the future as City of Mississauga's plans for the site are finalized. On May 26, 2016 City of Mississauga Council adopted resolution GC- 0459 -2016 as follows 353 1. That staff from Realty Services Section of the Corporate Services Department be authorized to negotiate the conveyance of the Small Arms Inspection Building municipally known as 1352 Lakeshore Road East and a potential development block (5 acres) from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA') to the City of Mississauga as outlined in the Corporate Report dated May 26, 2016 from the Commissioner of Community Services. 2. That a by -law be enacted authorizing the Commissioner of Community Services and the City Clerk to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and all documents ancillary thereto, between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA'), as Vendor and the Corporation of the City of Mississauga ("Mississauga), as Purchaser, for the acquisition of 1352 Lakeshore Road East and a 5 acre development block for a nominal ($2.00) consideration and on terms acceptable and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor. RATIONALE The use of the Building does not directly align with TRCA's facility needs or long term office accommodation strategy. Given the historical and community significance of the Small Arms Inspection Building and associated lands, TRCA and the City of Mississauga agree that a conveyance to the City of Mississauga would provide a greater opportunity for restoration, programming and operation of a community facility. The preliminary vision for the facility includes a combination of office, studio and community space that promotes arts, culture, heritage, scientific research, idea exchange and small business opportunities which more accurately align with City of Mississauga programing requirements. These include: • Building and sites alignment to the City of Mississauga proposed Inspiration Lakeview Innovation Corridor; • Potential to satisfy cultural space needs as identified through the Cultural Infrastructure and Creative Spaces Strategy; and • Permitted uses under the existing City of Mississauga Official Plan, and the Lakeview Local Area Plan (Policy 13.1.9.4): commercial schools; community facilities, including art studios and art galleries; a conference centre; restaurants; and secondary offices. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA and the City of Mississauga have collaborated for the last number of years with the aim of obtaining federal, provincial and community funding and other support for the restoration and development of a community facility on the subject lands and housed within the existing building. To date, approximately $2.6 million dollars has been committed toward the capital restoration of the building and grounds, with up to $1 million being supplied through the federal government's 'Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program'. A contribution of at least $1 million by the City of Mississauga is necessary to secure the federal contribution. In addition, TRCA has approximately $1.1 million dollars in funds received from the Region of Peel for the securement of the building along with approximately $500,000 remaining from the original purchase for rehabilitation of the site. City of Mississauga has requested that the $2.6 million dollars currently held by TRCA be transferred to the City of Mississauga in order to support the project. The transfer of the funding is subject to the approval of the Region of Peel and federal government. For Information contact: Brandon Hester, extension 5767; Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: bhester(aotrca.on.ca; jtruesdell(aDtrca.on.ca Date: July 14, 2016 Attachments: 1 354 Attachment 1 r� 0 0 r� 00�\ Subject Property 1 J Legend d Toronto and Region O/d ® S!i Conservation for The Living City- _ PEE L d d w w r QV RESMA117 /16 - PROVINCIAL REVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT Phase Two of Three. Update on the Province of Ontario's Phase Two of the Conservation Authorities Act review and summary of preliminary messages and priorities to be included in TRCA comments for submission to the Province by September 9, 2016. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has released Phase Two of its three -phase review of the Conservation Authorities Act by putting forward a set of proposed priorities and actions for public comment on the Environmental Registry (EBR #012 - 7583); AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff are participating in the provincial consultation process for providing a response to the proposed priorities and actions; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the following report providing an overview of the Phase Two review and staff's preliminary messages and priorities to be included in TRCA's response be received; THAT this report be circulated to TRCA's municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario for their information in formulating their own responses to the EBR posting, due September 9, 2016; THAT Authority Members be requested to reach out to their own networks of stakeholders to gather support for provincial recognition of conservation authorities' integral role in assisting its partners in building sustainable communities; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority in September 2016 on TRCA's final EBR submission. CARRIED BACKGROUND Conservation Authorities Act Review — Phase One In 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) initiated a review of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) to ensure that the Act is meeting the needs of Ontarians in a modern context. The Province's stated objective for the review was to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities that may be required in the face of a constantly changing environment. As the first phase in the Ministry's review process, a discussion paper was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR). The discussion paper focused stakeholder feedback on the governance, funding mechanisms and the roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities (CAs) and included a series of questions to solicit comments on each of the three theme areas. At Authority Meeting #8/15, held on September 25, 2015, Resolution #A168/15 approved TRCA's submission to the Province. A copy of TRCA comments was also circulated to partner municipalities. TRCA comments were submitted to the EBR on October 19, 2015. The main recommendations from the TRCA submission on Phase One of the Act's review were the following: 356 • Establish a provincial directive or memorandum of understanding to clarify roles and responsibilities of CAs and recognize their important contribution to meeting provincial and municipal objectives. • Establish a new multi- agency liaison body for stronger collaboration among CAs, provincial ministries and municipalities. • Maintain MNRF's oversight of appealed s.28 permit decisions separate from the OMB. • Amend section 28 to strengthen the ability of CAs to enforce their regulation. • Review the list of eligible expenditures recognizing activities contributing to multiple ministries' objectives. • Provide specific language to clarify and modernize the levy provisions in the Act Conservation Authorities Act Review — Phase Two As per the normal EBR process, the Province does not respond directly to comment submissions. However, as part of Province's Phase Two of the review, on May 12, 2016, they released "Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal" on the EBR comprising a proposed set of priorities and actions based on the feedback received from stakeholders in Phase One. The Province's proposed priorities are as follows: PRIORITY #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability PRIORITY #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency PRIORITY #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement PRIORITY #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms PRIORITY #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province For each priority, the Province has also issued a series of proposed actions to be taken by the Ministry to address their priorities. There are four to five actions per priority listed in the provincial document: Conserving our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal. Shortly after the release of the priorities and actions, the Province issued invitations to Conservation Ontario and to the CEO /CAOs of southern Ontario CAs for stakeholder engagement sessions. TRCA staff attended these sessions; they were well attended by neighbouring CA staff, Conservation Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, some representatives of aboriginal communities, the agricultural sector and the building and land development industry. The main messages voiced at these sessions were that the Province's priorities were to maintain the broad mandate of CAs but to be clear on the mandate, to increase funding to CAs but to keep service standards and accountability high, to facilitate greater collaboration and coordination among CAs and provincial and municipal partners, and to recognize that CAs work with a number of different ministries aside from MNRF. Conservation Ontario (CO) has been engaged with the Province through Phase Two and through the previous phase of the Act's review. As well as attending the engagement sessions, CO has produced an array of correspondence for all CAs meant to assist them in responding to the proposed priorities and actions. Over the past few months, TRCA's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has been participating in CA Act working group discussions and sessions with CO staff and other CA general managers to formulate a collective response to the provincial priorities and actions. 357 In addition, the Province established a stakeholder advisory group to provide initial feedback to the proposed priorities. TRCA's CEO and four other general managers from the CA Act working group were selected to participate on the Province's stakeholder advisory group. Along with several other stakeholder agencies, they met on May 16 and 17, 2016 with MNRF staff and former parliamentary assistant, Eleanor McMahon. CO reported that during this meeting, the CA members encouraged the discussion to focus less on the details of CA regulations and more on the critical state of our natural resources and opportunities for creating increased capacity for resilience of natural resources. In July 2016, CO distributed to all CAs its draft response to the Province's priorities and actions with a request for comments in time for their next CO Council meeting. Once the CO response is finalized and endorsed by their Council, it will constitute their submission to MNRF through the EBR. Summary of TRCA's Preliminary Comments for Submission to the Province To date, TRCA staff have formulated the following draft, preliminary comments to inform our EBR submission in response to the Province's suggested priorities and actions. The preliminary comments are premised on staffs opinion that the Province's Phase Two proposed priorities and actions do not speak entirely to TRCA's previous comments in Phase One. As a result, the preliminary comments are aligned with many of the same messages that were included in TRCA comments on the first phase of the review. • Maintain the broad mandate of CAs as outlined in the Act; • Recognize, validate and strengthen the important and diverse role CAs play as local implementation agents helping to achieve a number of provincial and municipal objectives; • Establish a collaborative approach that recognizes the important partnerships CAs have with numerous provincial, municipal and local stakeholders; • Establish a sustainable and equitable funding model; • Ensure the Act and its administration allow CAs to support emerging natural resource management issues including the directions of the proposed amendments in the Four -Plan Provincial review; • Facilitate CA service excellence. Staff have also drafted some preliminary recommendations that could address these priorities as follows: • The Act's section 20 and 21 object and powers of a CA remain relevant and effective and do not require modification. TRCA suggests that the Act remain broad and that additional direction or interpretation occur within a policy directive. • Acknowledge that the Act enables CAs to work collaboratively with the Province, municipalities and other watershed stakeholders in the delivery of programs and services to achieve healthy watersheds and to anticipate and respond to local and emerging sustainable community needs or issues. • Establish an inter - agency liaison body for stronger collaboration among CAs, multiple provincial ministries and municipalities that encourages partnership and innovation in building sustainable communities resilient to the effects of urbanization and climate change. This body could serve to further a dialogue on mutual areas of interest in natural resources and growth management; for example, nature -based recreation and education, aboriginal engagement and cultural heritage. 358 • For the inter - agency liaison body to guide the development of a provincial directive, policy or memorandum of understanding that would affirm CAs' valuable roles in managing natural hazards, natural heritage and other sustainability measures and to continue to grow healthy, resilient urban and rural communities. Looking forward, the broad range of local expertise that CAs possess will be needed to address emerging sustainability issues at watershed and regional scales. • Amend the current funding formula for CAs to increase financial contributions from the Province by drawing on funds from multiple ministries that are either partnering with, or are serviced by CAs. This new point of funding would augment current municipal funding for CAs. • In consultation with the Province and municipalities, create a new toolkit for funding mechanisms (in addition to current municipal funding) to support areas of mutual interest such as trail planning, natural heritage protection, adaptive re -use, open space maintenance, stormwater management and other needs of highly urbanized jurisdictions. • Amend Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to update and enhance compliance mechanisms in order to allow CAs to effectively uphold their regulatory responsibilities and to support the provincial interest in natural hazard management. • Undertake minor amendments to the Act for modernizing administrative processes to better reflect current best practices and align with other more current legislation. In addition to adding to and refining these draft comments, TRCA staff are also reaching out to various TRCA partners and the public to engage them in the review and gather support for TRCA's comments. This is being accomplished in conjunction with TRCA Communications staff to publish a summary of TRCA's preliminary comments on the TRCA website and distributing the summary to TRCA partners where opportunities arise. DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to work on TRCA's submission for the Phase Two EBR posting and report back to the Authority in September with the final submission. The release of the Priorities and Proposed Actions represents the second phase in the MNRF's three -phase review of the Conservation Authorities Act. Comments collected will be used by the Ministry to inform the development of specific changes to the existing legislative, regulatory and policy framework. Once recommendations for these specific changes are completed by the Province, the third and final phase of the CA Act review will begin through further public consultation. Through TRA's website and by reporting back to the Authority in September 2016, TRCA will keep members and watershed stakeholders informed on the status and process of this initiative and TRCA's responses. Additionally, TRCA will continue to participate on the Conservation Ontario CA Act Review Working Group. Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763, Noah Gaetz, extension 5348 Emails: mburns(?i)trca.on.ca, ngaetz(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416- 667 -6290 Emails: bdenneV(oDtrca.on.ca Date: July 22, 2016 359 RES. #A118 /16 - PROVINCIAL FOUR -PLAN REVIEW Summary of Proposed Amendments. Providing a summary and initial staff observations of the proposed amendments to the four provincial plans, as released by the Province of Ontario for comments. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the staff report on the Provincial Four -Plan Review be received. AMENDMENT RES. #A119 /16 Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to extend the commenting period. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the staff report on the Provincial Four -Plan Review be received; THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to extend the commenting period. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2015, the Province initiated a coordinated review of four provincial land use plans - Greenbelt Plan (GBP), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan). An Advisory Panel led by David Crombie was appointed to coordinate this review and recommend necessary plan amendments. TRCA submitted formal comments to the Province on May 28, 2015, as approved at Authority Meeting #6/15 by Resolution #A99/15 on June 26, 2015. Following this submission, staff continued to engage with Advisory Panel members and provincial staff to promote and expand upon TRCA's comments. With input from 17 town hall meetings and over 19,000 written submissions from various stakeholders, the Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the Province on December 7, 2015 through a 180 page report entitled, "Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015-2041". Six strategic directions encompassing the inter - related ideas that work together to achieve the objectives of the four plans were identified: 1. Building complete communities; 2. Supporting agriculture; 3. Protecting natural and cultural heritage assets; 4. Providing infrastructure; 5. Mainstreaming climate change; and, 6. Implementing the plans. 360 TRCA staff reported on the recommendations from the Advisory Panel at Authority Meeting #11115, as approved by Resolution #A245/15 on January 8, 2016. Staff summarized the key elements of particular interest to TRCA for each of the six strategic directions and highlighted potential issues, areas of concern and recommendations regarding needed improvements. These recommendations can be found in the left column of the chart in Attachment 1. Current Status of the Four Plan Review Provincial staff assessed the Advisory Panel's report and formulated proposed amendments to the four plans, which were released on May 10, 2016, for a further round of public and agency consultation. Of the Advisory Panel's 87 total recommendations, all 56 of the core recommendations were incorporated into each of the four revised plans, to varying degrees. The Province has set a September 30, 2016 deadline for providing feedback to the proposed plan amendments. In addition to holding public open houses across the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) from May until July, 2016, the Province is guiding public consultations for the revised plans through an overarching document entitled, "Shaping Land Use in the Greater Golden Horseshoe — a Guide to the Proposed Changes ". Much like the Advisory Panel's report, this guide articulates the principal changes through key themes and illustrates how the plans have been synthesized into a cohesive regional land -use planning framework. Because the four plans work together to help build complete communities, manage growth, curtail sprawl, support economic development and protect the natural environment, they have been harmonized to the extent possible to have consistent policies and terminology. TRCA staff has summarized below the eight key themes of the four plans, as identified by the Province, and highlighted changes of particular relevance to TRCA, in accordance with each corresponding theme. Building Complete Communities The amended plans seek to build "complete communities' by increasing intensification within built -up areas, particularly around transit and urban growth centres, while also providing greater protection for agricultural land and natural heritage features. Key changes aimed at achieving these objectives include: • Increasing minimum intensification targets for new residential development occurring annually in existing Built -up Areas to 60% (up from 40 %); • Increasing minimum density targets for Designated Greenfield Areas from 50 to 80 residents and jobs per hectare (density calculations exclude natural heritage features, floodplains, certain types of infrastructure); • New specific minimum density targets within Major Transit Station Areas and policies for Priority Transit Corridors; • Stronger environmental and planning criteria needed when assessing the feasibility of Settlement Area boundary expansion, including requiring master plans for water /wastewater and stormwater management (SWM) plans to be informed by watershed planning. Supporting Agriculture The revised plans emphasize the importance of the agricultural system as a key contributor to the quality of life and economic well -being of the GGH. The plans seek to protect and enhance the agricultural sector and land base more effectively through the following changes: • Requiring the Province to work with municipalities to identify and map an Agricultural System; • Requiring municipalities to minimize impacts on the Agricultural System; 361 Clarifying the types of uses permitted in prime agricultural areas to align with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 (e.g., on -farm diversified uses such as home industries and agri- tourism); Exempting structures associated with certain agricultural and related uses from undertaking natural heritage or hydrologic evaluations, while ensuring ecological impacts are minimized. Protecting Natural Heritage and Water Under the proposed changes, natural heritage, hydrologic and landform features and systems would be further protected, maintained and improved, particularly within areas not currently governed by the Greenbelt by: • Requiring municipalities, partnering with conservation authorities (CAs), to undertake integrated watershed planning to protect, improve or restore water quality and quantity within watersheds; • Requiring municipalities to identify and protect Key Hydrologic Areas (KHAs) in their official plans; • Providing Greenbelt -level protection for Natural Heritage Systems (NHS), Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHFs), Key Hydrologic Features (KHFs) and KHAs outside Settlement Areas; • Directing municipalities to avoid Settlement Area expansion into natural features /systems with important water features, where possible; • Encouraging municipalities to develop fill /soil re -use strategies and sustainably manage excess soil /fill through planning approvals; • Requiring the Province to collaborate with municipalities to map a NHS for rural lands outside the Greenbelt and municipal Settlement Areas. Growing the Greenbelt New policies in the Greenbelt Plan describe ways in which the Greenbelt can be expanded by: • Including 21 major river valleys and seven associated coastal wetlands as designated Urban River Valleys (URVs). Within TRCA's jurisdiction, this includes Duffins and Carruthers creeks (including their coastal wetlands), as well as additional Rouge tributaries, Don and Humber rivers and Etobicoke Creek; • Exploring additional opportunities to grow the Greenbelt and considering requests from municipalities to increase the Greenbelt within Protected Countryside and /or Urban River Valleys. Addressing Climate Change The revised plans recognize the importance of addressing climate change and have included new policy directions aimed at more effectively responding to and mitigating its effects by: • Requiring municipalities to implement climate change policies in their Official Plans; • Requiring municipalities to undertake more comprehensive SWM planning in Settlement Areas and for Major Development to assess impacts of climate change on infrastructure; • Encourage municipalities to increase infrastructure resiliency and use green infrastructure and low impact development techniques to reduce risks and costs associated with extreme weather events. Integrating Infrastructure The proposed changes seek to better integrate infrastructure and land use planning by: • Requiring Infrastructure corridors to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on KNHFs, KHFs and KHAs; 362 • Requiring water and wastewater master plans to demonstrate no negative impact on water quality and quantity and assimilative capacity when expanding water and wastewater services; • Requiring comprehensive SWM studies before expanding settlement boundaries or permitting major development; • Encourage infrastructure vulnerability risk assessments, asset management plans and climate change adaptation strategies as useful tools to help mitigate the impacts of climate change. Improving Plan Implementation The plans were established at various times, apply to different geographic areas and contain distinct but complementary objectives. The Province proposes to integrate and align the plans with the local and provincial planning frameworks (e.g., PPS, source water protection, Big Move, etc.) by making policies consistent, using cross - pollinating terminology, harmonizing themes and synchronizing municipal implementation timelines. In support of this objective, the following changes are also proposed: • New guidance materials and supplementary direction will be produced by the Province to help map the natural heritage and agricultural systems and implement watershed planning, SWM, and the creation of greenhouse gas inventories; • Clarification that intensification and density targets would not require or enable growth beyond what is permitted under the PPS for special policy areas and other "hazardous lands ". Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement Accurate data, reliable information and widespread feedback are essential to ensuring provincial policy objectives are implemented effectively and intended goals can be achieved. To promote awareness of the proposed changes, measure their ongoing performance and increase engagement from stakeholders, the Province proposes to do the following: • Establish a comprehensive monitoring program to measure the effectiveness of the plans; • Require municipalities and CAs to provide data for monitoring and performance indicators; • Ensure all Plan Schedules are reviewed (and potentially updated) every five years after plans take effect. ANALYSIS By virtue of the proposed plan amendments, the Province has demonstrated a coordinated effort to harmonize land use policies, synchronize language and terminology, and align the plans within Ontario's broader policy framework. The enriched policy direction correlates directly with TRCA's land use planning, watershed management and Regulatory roles and aligns well with TRCA's The Living City Policies document (as approved by the Authority in November, 2014). To help assess the degree to which TRCA's previous key recommendations were incorporated into the proposed plans, staff undertook a preliminary evaluation of the significant changes (right column of Attachment 1). Many of the proposed key changes (evident in the eight themes summarized above) are consistent with topics of interest identified in TRCA's previous comments to the Province. These areas include: climate change, green infrastructure, low impact development, SWM plans /retrofits, integrated watershed planning, and excess fill/ soil re -use. TRCA has and continues to demonstrate expertise and exhibit leadership in these areas, ideally situating TRCA to assist partnering municipalities and stakeholders to interpret and implement the amended plans. 363 TRCA's foremost recommendations appear to have been considered and implemented to varying degrees by the Province. Watershed planning is identified as an essential component of land use planning and growth management, and policies requiring watershed planning have been strengthened; the Greenbelt is to be expanded to include URVs as a component of the NHS and further expansion of the Greenbelt will be considered; natural heritage and water systems are recognized as critical elements of climate change mitigation; increased flexibility has been provided for agricultural uses while attempting to ensure environmental impacts are minimized; and, some provincial direction is provided to help ensure excess soil /fill is managed sustainably. Upon initial review, TRCA staff has identified areas of the four plans where additional analysis is required prior to the issuance of TRCA's formal comments to the Province. These areas include, but are not limited to, the following: • Integration of Natural Heritage Systems in Watershed Planning: The NHS does not appear to be acknowledged as a component of watershed planning. Integration should be considered and consistent terminology (i.e. "watershed plan ", "watershed planning ") is needed. Clarity is required for how NHS identification and mapping (to be done by the Province) will be integrated, if it is to be done as a separate task outside of the watershed planning process (watershed planning to be done by municipalities, in partnership with CAs); • Defining Complete Communities: While achieving "Complete Communities" is a focal objective in the four plans, the formal definition that is provided is very narrow in scope. Broadening of the definition of Complete Communities should be considered to describe all aspects of healthy and sustainable communities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such as clean water, clean air, functioning natural systems and green infrastructure, access to greenspace, walkability and transit access, low carbon lifestyles, and others. • Large Scale Fill: Given the potential negative impacts on natural systems and hazards that may result from large -scale fill, policy language could be strengthened to require best practices to sustainably manage excess fill and /or include a clearer legislative provision requiring compliance. Additional technical direction from the Province should demonstrate how municipalities and industry can manage fill more effectively. This should include a clearer definition of what constitutes "large scale fill" relative to "adverse effects' on the "natural environment "; • ORMCP — "Grandfathered" Applications: The transition provisions of the ORMC Plan and Act need to be reviewed. Applications submitted under the Planning Act prior to the promulgation of the ORMCP (2001) where no decision has been made should no longer be exempt from complying with the full suite of policies in the ORMCP. More importantly, the ORMC Act should also be amended to require that approvals issued prior to the ORMCP coming into effect and not yet acted upon, be revised and subject to the full Plan, or at minimum the section 48 prescribed provisions. Examples continue to arise across the ORM of subdivisions approved in the 1970s, '80s and '90s that permit these developments in wetlands and other significant environmental features. • Agricultural Exemptions for Natural Heritage Evaluations (NHEs): Further analysis is needed to assess if the criteria for "ensuring ecological impacts are minimized" provides sufficient environmental protection in lieu of an NHE, when considering certain structures on agricultural lands; the policy is also potentially confusing as compliance with the criteria to demonstrate that an NHE is not needed, would seem to require an NHE to support the demonstration. 364 • Climate Change: The stand -alone section in the Growth Plan titled `Climate Change' (4.2.1.0) seems too brief and vague. Although it requires municipal Official Plans to contain climate change policy, it only encourages implementation of those policies. This section needs to be strengthened and tied back to other climate change policies in the remainder of the Plan. • Recognizing Role of CAs: As numerous amendments will impact the operational roles and Regulation of CAs, and CA expertise and information will be increasingly relied upon to implement the plans (i.e., watershed planning, mapping, NHS, SWM), the role of CAs should be more directly acknowledged throughout the plans; • Implementation: As enhanced policy direction is to be implemented by municipalities (partnering with CAs) through a "municipal comprehensive review ", supplementary provincial support for effective implementation is needed as soon as possible. Engagement with stakeholders in the development of guidance documents is critical for effective implementation. • Complementary Recommendations: These types of recommendations from the Advisory Panel report are ones that, due to their nature, must be addressed outside of the Plans themselves. These include establishing a Provincial Secretariat to coordinate and facilitate implementation, creating an oversight forum to monitor and report on implementation, and /or developing additional provincial programs, technical guidelines, stakeholder involvement and funding mechanisms. Additionally, municipal Official Plan conformity amendments should be shielded from Ontario Municipal Board appeals to reduce the time and cost burden placed on municipalities to defend provincial policies. Many of these issues have not yet been addressed, or if addressed, not in sufficient detail. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff is engaged in this policy analysis work as per the normal course of their duties. No additional funding is proposed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Attend technical workshops and open houses offered by the Province on the four revised plans (ongoing); • Continue to coordinate internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the integration of previous comments, identify key changes and formulate new strategic recommendations (ongoing); • Provide preliminary feedback to Conservation Ontario to coordinate CA comments to the Province (July 12); • Meet with Region of Peel and provincial staff to discuss NHS mapping, protection and consideration of a provincial approach to addressing site - specific "take -out" requests (July 14); • Provide the Authority with a detailed report of TRCA's comments to the Province (September 23); • Submit formal comments to the Province, in accordance with their deadline (September 30). Report prepared by: Jeff Thompson, extension 5386 Emails: jhompson @trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett @trca.on.ca Date: July 5, 2016 Attachments: 1 365 Attachment 1 4 -Plan Review July 22, 2016 Key Issue Themes Previously Identified by TRCA Proposed Positive Improvements Related to TRCA Comments The Growth Plan should require the completion of Municipalities, partnering with Conservation Authorities (CAs), are now comprehensive integrated studies assessing the cumulative required to undertake integrated watershed planningto protect, improve or impacts of long -term development on flood risk, erosion and restore water quality and quantity and inform decisions on new /expanded water quality at watershed and subwatershed scales and Y infrastructure (3.2.1, 3.2.6.2; 3.2.7.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.4.5); Settlement identify mitigation targets and actions for implementation at Area expansion and Major Development now require feasibility assessments subsequent stages of the development process. informed by watershed planning and stormwater management (SWM) to assess flood risk vulnerability (2.2.8.2, 3.2.7.2, 4.2.1.3). The Growth Plan should acknowledge that growth planning The Growth Plan acknowledges that growth must align with the needs to be based on the capacity of the watershed to hydrological capacity of watersheds to maintain ecological integrity; maintain its ecological integrity while accounting for the Settlement Area expansion must now be informed by watershed planning changing hydrologic conditions caused by development (i.e., and SWM to ensure the assimilative capacity of receiving water bodies is acknowledging that flood remedial plans and flood remediation not exceeded and flood risk vulnerability is addressed (2.2.1.5, 2.2.8.1); infrastructure may be necessary in order to allow for New and expanded infrastructure now requires water /wastewater master intensification to occur). plans and SWM to be informed by watershed planning (3.2.1, 3.2.6.2; 3.2.7.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.4.5); Areas serviced by inland lakes, rivers, or groundwater now require an EA to ensure expanded capacity is not exceeded (2.2.8.2). The plans should include tools to support their day -to -day The Province has committed to issuing guidance material and technical implementation, including: permits under the Conservation guidelines to assist planning authorities and decision - makers with Authorities Act and municipal by -laws under the Municipal Act N implementing the policies of the four plans, beginning in 2018 (Growth Plan (i.e., tree cutting, fill, and erosion and sediment controls); 4.1, ORMCP — Implementation). Municipalities are now encouraged to increased funding for land acquisition, private land stewardship develop fill /soil re -use strategies and sustainably manage excess soil /fill activities and Environmental Farm Plans. through planning approvals (Growth Plan 4.2.9.2, 4.2.9.3). The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ( ORMCP) and Although the term "Conservation Projects' is still used throughout the Greenbelt Plan (GBP) should allow for existing CA facilities to ORMCP, a definition is not provided. A definition from TRCXs Living City provide environment -based recreation, education and tourism Policies Document could be incorporated. opportunities. CAs require flexibility to offer public uses complementary to organizational objectives to generate k revenues and achieve financial sustainability while maintaining /upgrading facilities to ensure they operate at the highest standards and are accessible to all. A definition for "Conservation Projects" should be added to support and confirm CA land uses and provide additional flexibility. The ORMCP and GBP should provide increased flexibility and To encourage economic opportunities on agricultural lands and support economic opportunities to agriculture and rural livelihoods viable rural economies, additional uses are now permitted in prime (i.e., bed and breakfast establishments, home businesses, agricultural areas (e.g., "on -farm diversified" uses such as home industries dwellings for farm workers, nature -based tourism and value Y and agri - tourism); Municipalities are now required to map (with the added agriculture), as long as the uses were subject to meeting Province) and protect an Agricultural System and Agricultural Support the environmental policies and tests of the plans. Network (Greenbelt Plan 1.2.2.1, 3.1,3.2; ORMCP Part III - 22,23,26; Growth Plan 4.2.6.1, 5.2.2.2). The policy requirements for transportation, infrastructure and The terminology of the ORMCP has been changed from "transportation, utility development activities in the ORMCP should have clearer infrastructure and utilities" to "Infrastructure "; Further direction has not direction on how to "demonstrate the need" for infrastructure been provided on how to "demonstrate the need" for an assessment of "no projects and assessment and there is "no reasonable real alternatives "; No policy requirements have been added regarding alternative ", a key test to allowing infrastructure in the Natural enhancement and ecological compensation when Key Natural Core and Linkage Area designations. An increasing number of Heritage /Hydrologic Features or cultural heritage is negatively impacted by Environmental Assessments for large infrastructure projects infrastructure planning and siting; The ORMCP has been revised to clarify (major highways, pipelines) potentially cut across natural ow that Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Evaluations apply to Infrastructure, as features. These projects need to be thoroughly assessed for described in s.41; New policy has been added requiring infrastructure and need, location and alternatives to minimize environmental upgrades /extensions to be supported by appropriate studies (e.g., impacts and reduce sprawl into the outer ring of the Growth infrastructure master plans, watershed planning) that demonstrate SWM, Plan. Additionally, policy requirements should be added to the water supply and assimilative capacity, and long -term financial feasibility plans to provide enhancement and ecological compensation (11.3.4, 12.3.4, 22.2.3, 32.3, 41). when Key Natural Heritage /Hydrologic Features are negatively impacted by infrastructure planning /siting. • s RES. #A120 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek Watershed 2143087 Ontario Limited, CFN 53934. Acquisition of property located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #850116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Blase THAT 3.737 hectares (9.234 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, designated as Part 12 on Plan 40R- 28897, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from 2143087 Ontario Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A121 /16 - RENEWAL OF LEASE WITH EMPIRE COMMUNITIES (2183 LAKESHORE BOULEVARD) LTD. Marina Parade Drive, City of Toronto, CFN 49033. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto and Empire Communities (2183 Lakeshore Boulevard) Ltd. for renewal of an existing lease for a condominium sales office on Marine Parade Drive at Lakeshore Boulevard West, City of Toronto. (Executive Res. #851116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Blase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of lands being Part of the bed of Lake Ontario in front of Lot D, Range D, City of Toronto (TRCA Lands); AND WHEREAS the TRCA -owned lands have been turned over to the City of Toronto for management, in accordance with the terms of an agreement dated October 11, 1972; 367 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA concur with the City of Toronto renewing the lease of TRCA -owned lands with Empire Communities (2183 Lakeshore Boulevard) Ltd. for a term of three years; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the lease, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED RES. #A122116 - DONALDA GOLF CLUB - EXTENSION OF LEASE City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 24456. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to extend an existing lease with Donalda Golf Club on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority owned lands, for the operation of a golf course located adjacent to York Mills Road and east of Don Mills Road, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #B52116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of Part of Lot 7, Concession 3 and Part of Block A, Plan 6098, being Parts 1 to 16, Plan RS -1247; Part 14, Plan 64R -7900 and Parts 1 to 7, Plan 64R -1699, in the City of Toronto (TRCA Lands); AND WHEREAS the TRCA Lands have been previously turned over to the City of Toronto for management purposes, in accordance with the terms of an agreement dated June 14, 1961; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA concur with the City of Toronto extending the lease of TRCA Lands with the Donalda Golf Club for a term of 25 years commencing on January 1, 2036 and ending on December 31, 2060, for the purpose of operating a golf course; THAT said lease be subject to any requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.13, as amended; THAT said lease be subject to an Official Plan amendment; THAT said lease be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED • i RES. #A123/16 - HOSPICE VAUGHAN - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA -OWNED LAND City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed , CFN 52745. Receipt of a request from Hospice Vaughan to enter into a lease of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned land for up to 50 years less a day, required for the construction and operation of a hospice located on Islington Avenue, north of Rutherford Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B53116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Hospice Vaughan to enter into a lease agreement to construct and operate a hospice facility located on Islington Avenue, north of Rutherford Road, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to enter into a lease with Hospice Vaughan in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a lease with Hospice Vaughan for the use of 1.1 hectares (2.8 acres), more or less, said land being Part of Lots 16 and 17, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York; THAT the lease with Hospice Vaughan be subject to the following terms and conditions: a) that the term of the lease be for up to 50 years less a day; b) that consideration be the nominal sum of $12.00 per annum plus HST; c) that the lease be subject to any necessary Planning Act approvals; d) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff at the expense of Hospice Vaughan; THAT said lease be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 369 RES. #A124/16 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Request for Conveyance of Land for the Expansion /Extension of Major Mackenzie Drive West, East and West of Regional Road 27, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 55690. Receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York for conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned lands required for the expansion and extension of Major Mackenzie Drive West, east and west of Regional Road 27, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B54116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York for conveyance of land for the expansion and extension of Major Mackenzie Drive West, east and west of Regional Road 27, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of York in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT two parcels of TRCA -owned land containing 2.08 hectares (5.14 acres), more or less, required for the expansion /extension of Major Mackenzie Drive West, east and west of Regional Road 27, being part of Block 68, Plan 65M -3738, designated as Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 on Plan 65R -35522 as well as part of Lot 19, Concession 8, designated as Part 3, 4, 5, and 8 on Plan 65R- 35529, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be sold to the Regional Municipality of York; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition to all legal, survey, and other cost be paid by the Regional Municipality of York; THAT the Regional Municipality of York is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or cost of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, form this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigating measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Regional Municipality of York; THAT a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval, in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the Regional Municipality of York prior to commencement of construction; THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; 370 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approval and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A125/16 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for License Agreement, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 56071. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto on behalf of Angas Farm and Nursery Limited to concur with a license agreement required for the erection of a directional sign on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority lands managed by the City of Toronto, located east of Albion Road and north of Wilson Avenue, in the City of Toronto, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #B55 116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of Parcel 1- 2, Section M527 Part of Lots 1 and 2, Plan M527, being Part 1 on Plan 66R -6895, located east of Albion Road and north of Wilson Avenue, in the City of Toronto (TRCA Lands); AND WHEREAS TRCA is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto on behalf of Angas Farm and Nursery Limited ( Angas Farm) to enter into a license agreement in order to erect a sign on TRCA -owned lands; AND WHEREAS the TRCA lands have been previously turned over to the City of Toronto for management purposes, in accordance with the terms of an agreement dated June 14, 1961; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA concur with the City of Toronto entering into a License Agreement with Angas Farm to place a sign on TRCA -owned lands for a period of three years, commencing July 1, 2016 until June 30, 2019. AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 371 RES. #A126/16 - OUTFRONT MEDIA CANADA L.P. - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA - OWNED LAND 7060 Jane Street, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 56093. Receipt of a request from Outfront Media L.P. to lease Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned land required for the construction and operation of two electronic advertising signs located at 7060 Jane Street, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #856116 & Res. #857116) Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Outfront Media Canada L.P. ( Outfront Media) to enter into a lease agreement to construct and operate two electronic advertising signs located at 7060 Jane Street (Black Creek Pioneer Village North), City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed; WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Outfront Media in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a lease with Outfront Media for the use of approximately 50 square feet, more or less, said land being Part of Lot 1 Concession 5, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York; THAT the lease with Outfront Media be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the lease be for five years, with three further renewal options of five years each, at TRCA's sole option; (ii) that consideration be the greater of: (a) $60,000.00 per annum plus HST, or (b) 35% of annual gross revenues plus HST; (iii) that Outfront Media shall be responsible for any permitting approvals required for the construction and operation of the electronic advertising signs; (iv) that Outfront Media shall be responsible for any costs associated with the construction and operation of the electronic advertising signs and associated equipment; (v) that TRCA receive up to 5% of the available advertising time at no cost to TRCA; (vi) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; (vi) that the sign not be illuminated between 11 pm and 7 am. THAT an archaeological review be completed with any mitigative measures be carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff at the expense of Outfront Media; THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents; 372 THAT revenue generated by the sign located at 7060 Jane Street be allocated to a TRCA "send a kid to camp" account and those funds be used to help subsidize students from high priority neighbourhoods attend educational programs and day camps at Black Creek Pioneer Village; AND FURTHER THAT future revenues from other sign locations also be allocated to the "send a kid to camp" account to send students from high priority neighbourhoods to TRCA facilities, and /or to be used for other community benefits projects supported by TRCA and local Councillors. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A127/16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Section II item 8.1 — Lidar Data, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/16, held on July 8, 2016, be received. CARRIED 373 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A128116 - CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED PLAN Update on Activities in Year 1 of the Watershed Planning Process. Update on activities in Year 1 to develop the watershed plan for Carruthers Creek in partnership with the Regional Municipality of Durham. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the update on activities in Year 1 to develop the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan be received; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of the staff report be provided to the Region of Durham, the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6115, held on June 26, 2015, Resolution #A106/15 was approved, which authorized staff to enter into a service agreement with the Region of Durham to complete a watershed plan for Carruthers Creek. Staff was directed to report to the Authority annually, and at the end of Phase 1, or more frequently as need arises, as well as at the completion of the watershed plan. Phase 1, scheduled for 2015 and 2016, consists of field work to characterise the watershed's flora and fauna, hydrology, hydrogeology and headwater drainage features. The technical work to characterise Carruthers Creek and adjacent lands to date will provide new insights into the features and functions of this small watershed. Phase 2 (2017 and 2018), will focus on scenario modelling, watershed plan development and community engagement. This report covers an update on year one activities of the watershed plan development process, which was completed between July 2015 and June 2016. Update on 2015 -2016 Activities The watershed plan is proceeding on time and on budget. TRCA reports on a monthly basis to the Region, in addition to ongoing discussion with Planning staff at Durham Region for updates and project administration. Key activities include: • A project kick -off meeting with municipal stakeholders, including three staff from the Region of Durham, three staff from the Town of Ajax, and one staff from the City of Pickering; • Over 80% of the watershed has been surveyed for terrestrial plant and animal species; • In order to better understand flow levels in the creek, two new stream gauges were installed, for a total of three gauges; • A significant population of redside dace, a small fish listed as a species at risk in Ontario was found in the middle reaches of the creek; • GIS data consolidation and management began, and will continue throughout the watershed plan process, so the most current information is available and accessible; • Baseline hydrogeological data was gathered by consolidating information from various sources; 374 Two watershed tours were conducted, one with the City of Pickering and the other with the Town of Ajax. In early 2016 a peer review panel was convened to comment on the field work approach used in 2015, and the planned approach to the second season of field work in 2016. The peer review exercise confirmed TRCA's methodology, and assured staff that the technical work has no major gaps. The review panel had positive feedback on the approach, and helpful suggestions of additional academic collaboration for TRCA to consider, which could inform TRCA's field work planning. Advice was also offered on lessons learned when completing the recent watershed plan for neighbouring Lynde Creek. As a result of reviewing the first year's work, technical staff identified an additional component to include in the watershed plan, within the existing budget. A fluvial geomorphology study will be completed in order to understand the processes at work in the stream system. This study will assist TRCA in developing guidelines to ensure existing geomorphic processes are not impacted by potential future development. If urban development were to occur, watershed and stream reach level influences and the overarching recommendations would be refined. Field observations have shown that Carruthers Creek withstood the high flow events resulting from a major storm in 2015, however water levels fluctuate significantly in the middle and lower reaches. There are lands and natural heritage features in the watershed which are healthy, and even a few rare species making their home in and around Carruthers Creek. As expected, there are also areas of the watershed where the natural heritage features are not as robust and resilient. Data collection for the second field season is now underway. Data review and interpretation will be completed in late 2016. Following the completion of the Phase 1 work in 2016, TRCA and Durham Region staff will provide a summary of the report of the findings to their respective board and committee, as well as re- engage with key stakeholders, including TRCA's municipal partners at Ajax and Pickering. Alignment with Emerging Provincial Planning Framework Durham Region's investment in the development of Carruthers Creek watershed plan is timely and will be of great benefit to the Region given the Province of Ontarios's proposed updates to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Greenbelt Plan which were released in May 2016. Proposed policy amendments in these two provincial plans are designed to better protect natural heritage and water, including a requirement for watershed planning across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Greenbelt Plan stipulates that: Watershed plans shall include, but are not limited to, the following components: a) A water budget and conservation plan; b) Land and water use and management strategies, c) A framework for implementation; d) An environmental monitoring plan; e) Requirements for the use of environmental management practices and programs, fl Criteria for evaluating the protection of water quality and quantity, and key hydrologic features and functions; and g) Targets on a watershed or sub - watershed basis for the protection and restoration of riparian areas and the establishment of natural self - sustaining vegetation. 375 The 2016 proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe outlines the major components of watershed plans as follows: Watershed planning typically includes: • a water budget and conservation plan; • nutrient loading assessments; • consideration of climate change impacts and severe weather events; • land and water use management strategies; • an environmental monitoring plan; • requirements for the use of environmental management practices and programs; • criteria for evaluating the protection of quality and quantity of water,• • the identification and protection of hydrologic features, areas and functions and the inter - relationships between or among them; and • targets for the protection and restoration of riparian areas. Given TRCA's extensive experience in watershed planning, staff will ensure that Carruthers Creek watershed plan will meet or exceed the provincial requirements for watershed planning outlined in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Greenbelt Plan. RATIONALE The Region of Durham and TRCA recognise the preparation and implementation of watershed plans as an effective tool in the protection of the Region's natural heritage and water resources. The Region requested TRCA to complete a watershed plan for Carruthers Creek (Durham Region Report #2015- P -16). The Carruthers Creek watershed plan is being developed through a four year process, which commenced in 2015. FINANCIAL DETAILS This is a multi -year planning process with a budget of $299,397 in 2015; $299,731 in 2016; $275,176 in 2017; and $215,127 in 2018. The total of $1,089,431, will be funded by the Region of Durham through a service agreement with TRCA, through account 120 -80. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff continue the characterisation work of Phase 1 in 2016. The current state characterisation consists of a terrestrial biological inventory, monitoring stream gauges and analysing data, stormwater management studies, hydrologic modelling, hydrogeology monitoring and modelling, a headwater drainage features inventory, and GIS data coordination. Planning and development review and analysis, project management, and ongoing coordination with Durham Region staff will occur throughout both phases of the watershed planning process. Stakeholders will be consulted, and broader community engagement will occur in 2017 and 2018. Long -term environmental monitoring of the watershed will continue after the plan is completed. Report prepared by: Maryam Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: mnassar(@trca.on.ca For information contact: Maryann Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: mnassar(dtrca.on.ca Date: July 4, 2016 376 RES. #A129/16 - WAUKESHA WATER DIVERSION APPLICATION Update on the Great Lakes Compact Council Decision of June 21, 2016. To provide an update on the Waukesha water diversion application. Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT this update on the Waukesha water diversion application be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #1/16, held on March 11, 2016, Resolution 89/16 was approved, in part, as follows: ...THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT due to the potential significant negative impacts to Great Lakes Basin, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) does not support the Waukesha Water Diversion Application in its current form and requests that the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Water Resources Compact Council further investigate future implications of this application through transparent and full public engagement,,... The City of Waukesha, located in southeast Wisconsin 17 miles west of Lake Michigan, seeks an exception from the prohibition of diversions under the Great Lakes —St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and Great Lakes —St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. The Compact and Agreement prohibit diversions of Great Lakes water, with limited exceptions. One exception allows a "community within a straddling county," such as Waukesha, to apply for a diversion of Great Lakes water. On January 7, 2016, and under the guidelines of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Water Basin Resources Compact, the State of Wisconsin presented the City of Waukesha Diversion Application to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WNDR). In the application the State of Wisconsin proposed the annual diversion of 38.2 million litres of water per day from Lake Michigan. After reviewing the application, the WDNR Resources recommended approving the application and forwarded its recommendation to the Great Lakes — St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body (comprised of the Great Lakes governors and Canadian premiers). Regional Body Recommendations On May 18th, 2016, after significant deliberation, the Regional Body representing the Great Lakes Compact Council agreed that the City of Waukesha's water diversion application could win approval if certain conditions in the interstate agreement are met. The Regional Body found that the Originating Party has the authority to manage the Applicant's Diversion of Basin water, and the Originating Party will manage and regulate the Diversion pursuant to the requirements in Agreement Article 201 ¶ 3.c and Compact § 4.9.3.c, including all conditions of this Declaration of Finding, including without limitation, the following specific Conditions on the Diversion: A. The Applicant will implement the Diversion in accordance with the overarching principles of the Agreement and Compact. 377 B. The Applicant must continue to implement and enforce all elements of its current water conservation and efficiency plan (and any future revisions) in the Recommended Diversion Area, in order to meet or exceed if possible the 10% demand reduction due to the implementation of the water conservation and efficiency plan. This plan must be updated at a minimum of once every ten years. C. Some existing deep aquifer groundwater wells may be maintained by the Applicant to be used only under emergency conditions, but only for the duration of the emergency. These wells shall not be used as part of the Applicant's regular water supply under any circumstances. The Applicant will meet all water quality discharge standards in accordance with state and federal law, including during those periods when the deep aquifer wells are used for emergency purposes. D. The Recommended Diversion Area shall be as described in Section 11.5 and depicted in Attachment 1, and the amount of water diverted from the Basin by the Applicant shall not exceed the Recommended Diversion Amount. No part of the Diversion of water from the Basin authorized as the Recommended Diversion Amount may be used by the Originating Party or the Applicant for any territory outside of the Recommended Diversion Area. E. The Application, the Originating Party's Technical Review and other comments submitted during the Regional Review process identified adverse consequences that would be caused by increased use of shallow or deep groundwater to meet the Applicant's water supply needs as part of the basis for concluding that no other reasonable water supply alternatives were acceptable, thereby justifying the Recommended Diversion Amount for the Recommended Diversion Area. These adverse consequences included: (i) impacts to certain surface water resources and wetlands, (ii) continued extraction and dispersion of radium into the environment, and (iii) withdrawal of groundwater from the Lake Michigan watershed and discharge into the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) without return flow. As a condition of the recommendation of the Diversion, WDNR should use all of its available legal authority to prevent the same or substantially similar consequences from any other groundwater withdrawals within the Recommended Diversion Area. F. The Application, the Originating Party's Technical Review and other comments submitted during the Regional Review process identified that the Recommended Diversion Amount for the Recommended Diversion Area with return flow will produce net benefits within the Lake Michigan watershed due to the hydrological connection between the MRB and the Lake Michigan watershed. As a condition of recommendation of the Diversion, WDNR should use all of its available legal authority to prevent any other groundwater withdrawals that would reverse this benefit. G. The Applicant must implement a comprehensive pharmaceutical and personal care products recycling program and continually use the best available methods to encourage the further reduction of such products into the wastewater as recommended by the Originating Party. H. For a minimum of 10 years from the beginning of return flow to the Basin, the Applicant must implement a scientifically sound plan to monitor the mainstem of the Root River to determine changes that may have resulted from return flow (such as volumes, water temperatures, water quality and periodicity of discharge) in order to adapt future return flow to minimize potential adverse impacts or maximize potential benefits to water dependent resources of the Basin source watershed (Le., Lake Michigan). 378 The Applicant must complete an annual report that documents the daily, monthly and annual amounts of water diverted and returned to the Lake Michigan watershed over the previous calendar year ( "Annual Report"). An Annual Report must be submitted by the Originating Party to the Regional Body by the due date established by the Regional Body for the Annual Water Use Reporting to the Great Lakes water use repository, and include a section on the implementation and effectiveness of the water conservation and efficiency program. The Annual Report must also be made available to the public on the Applicant's webpage. J. The Applicant must return to the Root River, a Lake Michigan tributary, a daily quantity of treated wastewater equivalent to or in excess of the previous calendar year's average daily Diversion. On any days when the total quantity of treated wastewater is insufficient to meet this target, all treated wastewater must be returned to the Root River. K. The Applicant must obtain, and be in compliance with, all necessary federal and state permits and approvals from the Originating Party and other relevant governmental agencies before beginning the Diversion, and all of the above conditions imposing obligations upon the Applicant must be incorporated into the state permit or approval as legally enforceable provisions under the Originating Party's state law. Compact Council Approval The Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council (Compact Council) approved, with conditions, the City of Waukesha's Great Lakes diversion application on June 21, 2016. The Compact Council is composed of the Governors of each of the eight Great Lakes States. Conditions of approval include: a reduced water supply volume of 8.2 million gallons per day and a smaller diversion area that includes only the area currently served by the Waukesha Water Utility. Other conditions include monitoring wastewater impacts to the Root River, and annual reporting to the Great Lakes states and provinces on the diversion. The City of Waukesha may now begin to obtain all required federal, state and local permits and approvals for diverting Lake Michigan water. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will issue a final diversion approval once all required permits are issued. The final diversion approval will include all conditions of the approval required by the Compact Council. The City plans to divert Lake Michigan water from the Oak Creek Water Utility and discharge treated wastewater to the Root River. With the Compact Council approval, the City would be able to start applications for permits and approvals, including, but not limited to: • determination of Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) compliance with a final Environmental Impact Statement; • the Wisconsin Public Service Commission's Construction Authorization for construction required to implement the diversion; • Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit for wastewater discharge to the Root River; • Wisconsin Chapter 30 permits for pipeline stream crossings and Root River outfall; • Water Supply Service Area plan approval; and • WDNR public water systems construction plan approval. 379 The WDNR expects that, barring unforeseen delays, once the City has submitted all necessary application materials, the timeline to issue all WDNR permits and approvals could be six months to a year. Implications and next steps for TRCA and partners Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has released a statement stating that they are extremely disappointed in this decision. In their opinion it sets a dangerous precedent that leads to more and more cities and counties all around the basin in the U.S. and Canada qualifying for Great Lakes and St. Lawrence water. The Cities Initiative firmly believes the application does not meet the terms of the Compact. Waukesha will provide water to areas outside the City, will likely damage the Root River with the return flow, and has a reasonable alternative to treat their groundwater as many other communities in Wisconsin and neighboring states are doing. The Cities Initiative is exploring its options to maintain the utmost protection of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. TRCA staff will continue to monitor how the City of Waukesha and the State of Wisconsin honour the terms of the agreement. It is anticipated that the Province of Ontario and its representatives will also be closely monitoring this precedent setting decision in context of Ontario's Great Lakes objectives. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca Date: July 12, 2016 Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A130/16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended, item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/16, held on July 8, 2016, be received. CARRIED i l TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:01 a.m., on Friday, July 22, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 381 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #7/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, September 23, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Justin Di Ciano Member Jennifer Drake Member Ron Moeser Member Gino Rosati Member RES. #A131/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016, be approved. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHAIR Ronald Chopowick declared a conflict of interest in regard to Delegation 4.1 and Correspondence 6.1 pertaining to the Vaughan Mainline Expansion Project as he owns shares in TransCanada Pipelines Limited. 382 DELEGATIONS 4.1. A delegation by Patrick Leys, Manager, Pipeline Projects, TransCanada Pipelines Limited, in regard to the Vaughan Mainline Expansion Project. 4.2. A delegation by Judith Wright of 410 -195 Lake Driveway West, Ajax, in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. 4.3. A delegation by David Hogg of 2 Garnett Drive, Ajax, in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. RES. #A132 /16 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above -noted delegation 4.1 be received. RES. #A133 /16 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above -noted delegations 4.2 and 4.3 be received. CARRIED CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE 6.1. A letter dated September 1, 2016 from Patrick Leys, Manager, Pipeline Projects, TransCanada Pipelines Limited, in regard to the Vaughan Mainline Expansion Project Attachment 6.2. A letter dated September 4, 2016 from Furio Liberatore, and the residents of Carville Corners, in regard to 230 Grant Trunk Avenue, Vaughan. Attachment 6.3. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from David Hogg, Resident, Ajax, in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. Attachment 6.4. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from Jennifer O'Connell, MP, Pickering- Uxbridge in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. Attachment 6.5. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from Pat Brown, Councillor, Ward 4, Town of Ajax, in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. Attachment 6.6. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from Mark Holland, MP, Ajax in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. Attachment 6.7. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from Burkhard Mausberg, CEO, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. Attachment 6.8. A letter dated September 20, 2016 from Gordon McKay, Past Co -Chair of Citizens for Caruthers, in regard to item 7.1 - Provincial Four -Plan Review. 383 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A134 /16 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the committee go into closed session to discuss correspondence 6.1 and item 11.3.2 — Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest as they pertain to ongoing property negotiations. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES. #A135 116 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES. #A136 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff be directed to not sign the disputed value agreement requested by TransCanada Pipelines Limited in correspondence 6.1; THAT correspondence 6.1 be referred to staff to continue negotiations and TransCanada Pipelines Limited be requested to resume negotiations to achieve a fair and reasonable value that is respectful of the long term value of these lands to the community; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back at Authority Meeting #9/16, scheduled to be held on November 18, 2016. CARRIED RES. #A137 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT above -noted correspondence 6.2 be referred to Executive Committee Meeting #8116, scheduled to be held on October 14, 2016. CARRIED RES. #A138 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Michael Di Blase Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above -noted correspondence 6.3 — 6.8 be received. CARRIED 966MA CORRESPONDENCE6.1 September 1, 2016 Delegation Request TransCanada In business to deliver TransCanada Attn: Vaughan Mainline Expansion Project 200 Bay Street 20 Floor, South Tower Toronto, Ontario M5J 2A Phone: 1.844.933.0960 Email: vaughan _mainline @transcanada.com TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) respectfully requests the opportunity to present to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Board of Directors on September 23, 2016. The purpose of this request is to appear before the Board and request that the TRCA enter into an agreement that would afford both the TRCA and TransCanada more time to determine fair compensation for the land rights TransCanada requires on the TRCA's lands to develop the Vaughan Mainline Expansion Project (VME Project). On August 4, 2016 the National Energy Board (NEB) approved the VME Project and its route. As explained more fully below, TransCanada has been negotiating with TRCA staff for several months to acquire the land rights necessary to construct and operate the VME Project. While both parties have been working hard to reach agreement, the sole issue on which they have been unable to agree is compensation. As a result, we are requesting that the TRCA Board agree to enter into a disputed value agreement with TransCanada, which as discussed further below, preserves the TRCA's position on compensation and extends the time available for the parties to negotiate further, while simultaneously providing TransCanada the necessary rights to enter the TRCA lands to construct and operate the VME Project. Although TransCanada would prefer to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution with the TRCA on this issue, due to the VME Project's construction schedule and contractual in- service date, TransCanada has had to begin the process of applying, pursuant to the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), for a right -of- entry order (ROE) from the NEB for the required TRCA lands, unless an agreement can be reached expeditiously. Background TransCanada is proposing to construct, own and operate the VME Project which would be located in the City of Vaughan and Region of York, Ontario. The proposed VME Project will include the construction of approximately 12 kilometres of 42 -inch diameter pipeline for the purpose of transporting natural gas from the northern terminus of the King's North Connection (KNC) Pipeline Project (currently under construction) near the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Huntington Road to TransCanada's existing Line 200 -3 pipeline, near the intersection of Kirby Road and Kipling Avenue. The VME Project's purpose is to provide additional supplies of natural gas to Eastern Canada to meet demand contracted by natural gas customers including local distribution companies. The VME Project traverses two (2) TRCA parcels located on rural lands which are part of the Nashville Conservation Reserve. The two TRCA parcels are located at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection of Kirby Road and Huntington Road. TransCanada requires 4.673 acres of permanent pipeline easement and 10.330 acres of temporary workspace (TWS) on one TRCA parcel, and 3.736 acres of permanent pipeline easement and 1.747 acres of TWS on the other, in order to construct and operate the VME Project. The property sketches depicting the necessary land requirements for both TRCA parcels are attached. KFOOR A summary of key milestones in the VME Project review process is provided below: Date Milestone November 10, 2015 TransCanada filed its VME Project Application with the NEB. January 11, 2016 The NEB determined that TransCanada's Application was complete and could proceed through the assessment process. February 10, 2016 The NEB issued Hearing Order GH- 001 -2016, explaining the procedures the NEB would follow for assessing the VME Project. February 24, 2016 The NEB hosted a Town Hall Information Session to inform stakeholders of the NEB's role, the hearing process and how to participate, as well as the Participant Funding Program. April 27, 2016 The NEB held a Community Meeting in Vaughan where all Participants (Commenters, Intervenors and TransCanada) had an opportunity to present an oral statement expressing their views on the Project directly to the NEB. June 14 -16, 2016 The NEB held an oral hearing in Vaughan. August 4, 2016 The NEB approved the VME Project after considering TransCanada's application and submissions, as well as all written submissions and oral statements submitted and presented on the record by all other Participants. On or before The NEB's written reasons for decision are anticipated to be released. September 9, 2016 Discussions with the TRCA Valuation TransCanada has been in ongoing consultation with TRCA staff through correspondence and face -to -face meetings since March 2015 concerning the VME Project, including TransCanada's easement and TWS requirements on the two TRCA parcels. TransCanada has accessed both TRCA parcels on several occasions to conduct surveys for environmental assessments, routing feasibility, and for valuation purposes. On April 27, 2016 TransCanada served the TRCA with notices as required under Section 87 of the NEB Act identifying and providing the values of the parcels, and provided copies of TransCanada's land acquisition packages together with appraisal reports prepared by Altus Group (Altus) for the two TRCA parcels. In valuing TransCanada's land requirements on the two TRCA parcels, Altus employed the "Direct Comparison Approach ", comparing the subject lands to sales of other similar properties in the area. On this basis, Altus expressed the opinion that the market value for TransCanada's land requirements on the TRCA lands is $25,000 per acre. It is TransCanada's understanding that the TRCA's appraiser, D. Botterro and Associates Limited ( Bottero), appraised TransCanada's land requirements on the TRCA lands using the Industrial Land Rate (ILR) method, as defined in the TRCA's appraisal terms of reference. This hypothetical assumption and extraordinary limiting condition required Botterro to assume that the TRCA lands represent a two -to -five acre parcel of vacant, serviced industrial land, shovel -ready for development, subject only to site plan approval and building permits. TransCanada maintains that the instructions provided to Boterro in the TRCA's terms of • •� reference to appraise the TRCA lands using the ILR method results in a highly skewed and grossly overstated value of $1,250,000 per acre. The TRCA lands are zoned as "open space conservation /agricultural ", and are located outside the City of Vaughan's urban boundary. There are no two -to -five acre vacant, serviced industrial sites in the vicinity of the TRCA lands and, as such, TransCanada's opinion remains that the conclusions offered in the Bottero appraisal reports cannot be relied upon to represent fair compensation for the land rights TransCanada requires on the TRCA lands. Notwithstanding this, in an effort to reach agreement on compensation for land rights, and in response to comments received from the TRCA staff, TransCanada made a subsequent offer of settlement on a without - prejudice basis employing an "Across- the - Fence' approach. In order to prepare that settlement offer, TransCanada reviewed other recent valuations completed by Altus on lands in the immediate area, adjacent to the TRCA lands, as well as south across Kirby Road and east across the road allowance for Huntington Road. These values range in price from the low end for lands designated as "Natural Areas' within the Greenbelt (which are most similar to the TRCA Lands), to a mid -range for lands designated "Agricultural" or speculative Greenbelt lands, and a high end for lands designated "Agricultural ", "whitebelt" lands that are suitable for future development. Although the lands most comparable to the TRCA lands in the area are represented at the lower end of this price range, for the purpose of facilitating settlement on compensation, and on a without - prejudice basis, TransCanada made a settlement offer consistent with the mid -range values. It remains TransCanada's view that this offer is more than reasonable and any higher valuation cannot be supported on any reasonable basis. As of the time of this Delegation Request, that offer of settlement has been declined by the TRCA staff. Disputed Value Agreement During a meeting on July 6, 2016, TransCanada discussed with the TRCA staff the possibility of the TRCA entering into a disputed value agreement with TransCanada whereby the parties would enter into the easement and TWS agreements and agree to defer to a later date the determination of compensation for the land rights required for the VME Project. On July 22, 2016 TransCanada wrote to the TRCA staff requesting that they recommend this disputed value agreement approach to the TRCA Board. TransCanada proposed that the parties agree to enter into the land acquisition agreements for the consideration being offered by TransCanada (i.e., $25,000 per acre), but both parties would also agree that the execution of the documents and the payment of the consideration does not represent agreed -upon consideration. This approach would leave open the option for further negotiation or arbitration in accordance with the process set out in Sections 88 to 103 of the NEB Act. The benefit of this approach is that it avoids a protracted and costly regulatory process for both parties through the process under Section 104 of the NEB Act as discussed further below. As of the writing of this Delegation Request, the disputed value approach has been declined by staff of the TRCA. Based on discussions between TransCanada and TRCA staff on August 19, 2016, it is TransCanada's understanding that the TRCA has retained the services of GSI Real Estate and Planning Advisors Inc. (GSI) to provide the TRCA with further valuations for TransCanada's land requirements on the two TRCA parcels. TransCanada also understands that GSI anticipates delivering these valuation reports in several months' time. TransCanada is committed to continuing negotiating with the TRCA, however, due to the anticipated timing of receipt of these valuation reports, and TransCanada's need to maintain the VME Project construction schedule, TransCanada respectfully requests that the TRCA Board consider entering into a disputed value agreement with TransCanada. 387 The National Energy Board Roles and Responsibilities The NEB is Canada's federal pipeline regulator. It holds pipeline companies accountable for building and maintaining pipelines in a manner that is safe and protects the environment. At the outset of any TransCanada project under NEB jurisdiction, TransCanada must apply to the NEB for approval to construct and operate the applied -for project. The NEB reviews the application and decides whether the project is in the public interest and should be approved, and on what conditions. The NEB defines "public interest" as being inclusive of all Canadians and seeks to balance economic, environmental and social interests that change as society's values and mores evolve. When making an application to the NEB, TransCanada must follow the NEB Act and its regulations, as well as the NEB Filing Manual. Right- of -WaV Access In order to construct and operate the VME Project along the NEB - approved route, TransCanada is seeking to enter into an easement and TWS agreement with the TRCA. An easement (or right -of -way) is considered a non - possessory interest in the land of another. The holder of the easement interest in the land has the right to use the land of the landowner for the purposes stated in the rights granted. Under the NEB Act (Sections 86 & 87), this grant is subject to compensation. If an agreement for access to land cannot be reached between the landowner and the company, the company seeking an easement is able to apply to the NEB for a right -of- entry order. The NEB does not have any jurisdiction over matters of compensation. Compensation negotiations take place between the landowner and the company, but may be referred to Natural Resources Canada for arbitration if agreement cannot be reached (Sections 88 to 103 of the NEB Act). Typically, the compensation discussion involves the issues of fair market value or pattern of dealings and damages for use of the lands affected by the project. Compensation may also be available for, but is not limited to: • the use of any TWS; • any inconvenience or nuisance caused by the construction of the pipeline; • loss of use of the land; and • all damages suffered as a result of the operations of the company. The fair market value of the land is often determined by appraisers who assess the value of the land either for a specific parcel or for a certain area. Local rates and patterns of dealings are also considered when determining compensation. TransCanada has a long- standing record of negotiating fair compensation with landowners, and is committed to reaching an agreement that is satisfactory to both the landowner and TransCanada. However, ultimately if an agreement cannot be reached, the NEB Act provides for a right -of -entry process that is determined by the NEB. This is often referred to as the Section 104 process (referring to Section 104 of the NEB Act). RTOOFOO Right -of -Entry (Section 104) Process Since TransCanada is federally regulated it is not subject to Ontario expropriations procedures. However, there are procedures available under Section 104 of the NEB Act that permit the compulsory acquisition of land interests required for the VME Project. Although it is TransCanada's strong preference to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement for land rights, if such a land rights agreement cannot be reached, and in order to maintain its schedule and meet contractual commitments to customers, TransCanada may seek an immediate right -of -entry order from the NEB under Section 104 of the NEB Act. In the Section 104 process, the NEB deals only with land rights issues and not matters of compensation. As noted above, compensation is determined separately pursuant to the negotiation and arbitration processes described in Sections 88 to 103 of the NEB Act. For more information regarding the Section 104 process, please see the attached excerpt from the NEB Filing Manual "Guide V — Right -of -Entry Application (NEB Act s. 104) ", as well as the attached ROE Order the NEB granted in the context of the KNC project. Given months of unsuccessful negotiations between TransCanada and the TRCA staff, and TransCanada's obligation to maintain the VME Project schedule in order to meet contractual commitments, on August 30, 2016 TransCanada served the TRCA with notices pursuant to subsection 104(2) of the NEB Act. The notices set out the details of TransCanada's intended application for an order granting TransCanada the right to enter the lands as required for the Project. If the NEB were to grant TransCanada the rights -of -entry, TransCanada would be able to access the TRCA lands to construct the VME Project without an easement or TWS agreement with the TRCA. The right -of -entry order from the NEB would then be registered on title, and TransCanada would be able to proceed with the work. TransCanada and the VME Project team are committed to ongoing, meaningful engagement. The NEB has recently approved the Project and the route alignment following careful consideration of significant land constraints in the area and thorough consultation with, and the balancing of multiple competing interests of all stakeholders along the route. TransCanada does not take lightly the process of applying for a Section 104 right -of -entry, and only does so when all other options have been exhausted. Conclusion As mentioned above, it is TransCanada's strong preference to arrive at a mutually agreeable easement and TWS agreement with the TRCA for the VME Project. To date the only concern expressed by the TRCA staff to TransCanada is the amount of compensation offered by TransCanada to the TRCA for the required land rights. TransCanada is respectfully requesting to make a delegation to the TRCA Board at the September 23rd board meeting to ask that the TRCA Board enter into a disputed value agreement with TransCanada. This report submission is provided as a backgrounder in anticipation of the delegation. We would appreciate this opportunity to present, and welcome any questions or comments you may have prior. Patrick Lays, Manager, Pipeline Projects, can be reached at 403.920.2060 or patrick —leys @transcanada.com. i TronsConodo Pipelines Limited TransCanada VAUGHAN MAINLINE EXPANSION PIPELINE PROJECT In business to deliver PROPERTY SKETCH ONTARIO I I Il lilt i lI1 1 � VME1009 z l �} PT LTS 31, 32, 33, 34, & 35 Z CON 10 se TWP OF VAUGHAN Z PROPOSED 50m :0 ADDITIONAL POSp O PROo L OO i DOpp Rp2 _ O A N pN A P DO\N P001S70 t�W�QQs WATER TAO COURS pgo ol 5 VEGET > r osEO t CANgD�A 5 1140mOT P5o0mm'(o4P,1- pqC /F PINS nAARC D 01 /C RA,�WgY *z> O °C PROPOSED l ar ARID p� n �7 1 � <1 pP�p1S1U"P�Om \8 VAIN m 5 ROW Om PROP P1jE � I ���, 1?r, PF.RO OSEOI SINS A:. PP p1Z10NP\OOm AO r� POSED '(WS AREA REQUIRE: PROPOSED NPS 42 VME PIPELINE PROPOSED PERMANENT PIPELINE ROW: 1.891 ho. (4.673 cc.) PROPOSED NPS 42 VME HDD /TRENCHLESS PIPELINE PROPOSED PERMANENT PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) PROPOSED TWS: 1.482 ho. (1662 cc.) PROPOSED TEMPORARY WORKSPACE (TWS) PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TWS: 2.592 ho. (6.406 cc.) PROPOSED TWS FOR HOD PULLBACK /HDD PAD PROPOSED TWS FOR HDD PULLBACK: N/A PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD O PROPOSED TWS FOR HDD PAD: N/A PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD: 0.106 ho. (0.262 cc.) TOTAL TWS: 4.180 ho. (10.330 cc.) PARCEL: 291.136 ho. (719.412 cc.) PROPOSED PIPELINE ROW LENGTH: 1051m PROPOSED PIPELINE HOD LENGTH: N/A PROPOSED PIPELINE TRENCHLESS LENGTH: N/A P.I.N. No: 03350 -0099 (LT) SCALE 1:12000 OWNERS: THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY } J.D.BARNES DATE: REV. PARCEL No: VME1009 AUG 19, 2016 05 _� _ TCPL R/W No: ISSUED FOR COMMENT DWYER: KM ' HA PLOTTED: 19/06/2016 1\I5- 23 -W\46 - Ww ty 6Relcn» ( W6 ) \w61oo9 \wElooe- nRwTSO- ao99.a� TronsConodo Pipelines Limited TransCanada VAUGHAN MAINLINE EXPANSION PIPELINE PROJECT In business to deliver PROPERTY SKETCH ONTARIO _O EDGE WETLAND �. ,,,,,t„ or �0 Q VEGETA nON BUILDINGS ` \PERMAh'FNT WAREAD 780 :OZ ; �' pap O Z O WOODED AREA LTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 PL 1328; PT p y ,X LTS 31 & 32 CON 9; PT UNNAMED 1 ,tit✓+`'J RD ABUTTING LTS 3, 4 & 10 PL 1326 TWP OF VAUGHAN 20�p 'D h" A .,I'�' OOpA0C0 ?00 SEDFR COGRSF AD Di m $om �SfO T`tis�NA4 K�Rg I r O P ?' VEGETATTIION R PROPOS " ODngVA D WS C i AREA REQUIRED: PROPOSED NPS 42 VME PIPELINE PROPOSED PERMANENT PIPELINE ROW: 1.512 ho. (3.736 cc.) PROPOSED NPS 42 VME HDD /TRENCHLESS PIPELINE PROPOSED PERMANENT PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) PROPOSED TWS: 0.261 ho. (0.645 cc.) PROPOSED TEMPORARY WORKSPACE (TWS) PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TWS: 0.194 ho. (0.479 cc.) PROPOSED TWS FOR HOD PULLBACK /HDD PAD PROPOSED TWS FOR HDD PULLBACK: N/A PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD O PROPOSED TWS FOR HOD PAD: 0.252 ho. (0.623 cc.) PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD: N/A TOTAL TWS: 0.707 ho. (1.747 cc.) PARCEL: 80.900 ho. (199.908 cc,) PROPOSED PIPELINE ROW LENGTH: 865m PROPOSED PIPELINE HDD LENGTH: 628m PROPOSED PIPELINE TRENCHLESS LENGTH: N/A P.I.N. No: 03349-0124 (LT) SCALE 1: 7000 ] D BARNES OWNERS: THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION DATE: REV. CONSERVATION AUTHORITY _ "' °' ° ° WNFww Ow, W7 10, WY .N1, N I PARCEL No: VME3006 JUN 22, 2016 05 ' I- Ims "' -Mm , ft)... 492 "..,. TCPL R/W No: ISSUED FOR COMMENT mfE ; KM ' HA I PLOTTED: 22/06/49 10016 : \I5- 23-W\45 - W ty 6elchn (0) \WEID \W30 13- 2 40 Office national do 1'6nergie Fllh 392 RELEASE 2015-01 anual Cana&d .. .. . ..... Guide V — RIGHT -OF -ENTRY APPLICATION (NEB ACT s.1 04) Where a company does not acquire land required for the pipeline through negotiations with the landowner, it may apply to the Board for a right -of -entry order pursuant to the requirements of section 104 of the NEB Act and section 55 of the Rules. Goal The application contains documentation with respect to the right -of -entry process. The documentation addresses all matters related to the request for an immediate right -of -entry order demonstrating that landowners and others persons have been notified and their rights have been protected. Filing Requirements Section 104 of the NEB Act states: 104. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Board may, on application in writing by a company, if the Board considers it proper to do so, issue an order to the company granting it an immediate right to enter any lands on such terms and conditions, if any, as the Board may specify in the order. (2) An order under subsection (1) shall not be issued in respect of any lands unless the company making the application for the order satisfies the Board that the owner of the lands has, not less than thirty days and not more than sixty days prior to the date of the application, been served with a notice setting out (a) the date the company intends to make its application to the Board under subsection (1); (b) the date the company wishes to enter the lands; (c) the address of the Board to which any objection in writing that the owner might wish to make concerning the issuance of the order may be sent; and (d) a description of the right of the owner to an advance of compensation under section 105 if the order is issued and the amount of the advance that the company is prepared to make. Section 55 of the Rules states: 55 (1) To apply for a right of entry order under section 104 of the Act, a company shall, after serving the owner of the lands with the notice described in subsection 104(2) of the Act, file an application with the Board not less than 30 days and not more than 60 days after the date of service of the notice on the owner. Filing Manual 5V -1 393 (2) The application must be served on the owner of the lands on the same day that the application is filed with the Board. (3) The application must contain (a) a copy of the notice described in subsection 104(2) of the Act; (b) evidence that the notice has been served on the owner of the lands (i) not less than 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to filing the application with the Board, and (ii) in accordance with subsection 8(8) or in any manner ordered by the Board under the National Energy Board Substituted Service Regulations; (c) a schedule that is proposed to be made part of the order sought and that contains, in a form suitable for depositing, registering, recording or filing against lands in the land registry or land titles office in which land transactions affecting those lands may be deposited, registered, recorded or filed, a description of (i) the lands in respect of which the order is sought, (ii) the rights, titles or interests applied for in respect of the lands, and (iii) any rights, obligations, restrictions or terms and conditions that are proposed to attach (A) to the rights, titles or interests applied for in respect of the lands, (B) to any remaining interest or interests, or (C) to any adjacent lands of the owner; (d) a current abstract of title to the lands, a certified copy of the certificate of title to the lands or a certified statement of rights registered in the land registers for the lands; (e) a copy of section 56; and (� evidence that the application, including the information set out in sections (a) to (e), has been served on the owner of the lands. In addition to the requirements of section 104 of the NEB Act and section 55 of the Rules, applications shall also include the following information. 1. A summary of the land negotiation process conducted between the applicant and the owner of the lands for which a right -of -entry order is sought, including the dates of meetings held between the applicant and the owner of the lands; 5V -2 National Energy Board 394 2. The date of service of notice on the landowner pursuant to subsection 87(1) of the NEB Act; 3. If applicable, the date of service of notice on the landowner pursuant to section 34 of the NEB Act; and 4. A discussion of outstanding issues and the reason(s) that a voluntary agreement could not be reached. Guidance Pursuant to section 56 of the Rules, the landowner may file a written objection with the Board any time after receipt of the notice up to 10 days after the date the company files the right -of- entry application. In the event the Board approves the right -of -entry order, the order must be deposited in the appropriate land registry or land titles office, pursuant to section 106 of the NEB Act, prior to the company exercising its rights as granted by the right -of -entry order. The date of service of notice on the landowner pursuant to section 34 of the Act will provide the Board with confirmation that, where the lands that are the subject of the right -of -entry application are required for the detailed route of a project, the landowner was served notice of the filing of the PPBoRs for the detailed route. Next Steps.... File the completed application. Applicants are encouraged to include the completed relevant checklists from Appendix I. Filing Manual 5V -3 395 Guide V — Right of Entry Applications Filing In Application? Not in Application? # Filing Requirement References Explanation Requirements pursuant to section 104 of the NEB Act. Requirements pursuant to section 55 of the Rules. A summary of the land negotiation 1 process conducted between the applicant and the owner of the lands for which a right -of -entry order is sought. The date of service of notice on the 2. landowner pursuant to subsection 87(1) of the NEB Act. If applicable, the date of service of notice 3. on the landowner pursuant to section 34 of the NEB Act. A discussion of outstanding issues and 4. the reason(s) that a voluntary agreement could not be reached. APP -42 396 National Energy Board National Energy Board OF -Fac- Gas -T211- 2014 -02 09 11 December 2015 Mr. Sander Duncanson Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 450 -1st Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 5H1 Facsimile 403 - 260 -7024 T[1 is Mr. Ryan V. Rodier Office national de I'energie Senior Legal Counsel Law, Canadian Pipelines TransCanada PipeLines Limited 450 -1s` Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 5H1 Facsimile 403 - 920 -2310 Dear Mr. Duncanson, Mr. Rodier and Mr. Bisceglia: TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) King's North Connection Pipeline Project (Project) Application Pursuant to Subsection 104(1) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) Right of Entry (ROE) Mr. Emilio Bisceglia Bisceglia & Associates 7941 Jane Street, Suite 200 Concord, ON L4K 4L6 Facsimile 905- 695 -5201 On 4 November 2015, the National Energy Board (the Board) received an Application from TransCanada pursuant to subsection 104(1) of the NEB Act requesting an order granting TransCanada an immediate right to enter certain lands owned by 2236391 Ontario Ltd. (223 Ltd.). On 20 October 2015, 223 Ltd. acknowledged through counsel that it received the notice under subsection 104(2) of the NEB Act. At that time, 223 Ltd. provided an early objection to the Application. On 13 November 2015, the Board received 223 Ltd.'s objections and comments with respect to the Application. On 19 November 2015, the Board received TransCanada's reply to 223 Ltd.'s objection. The Board has reviewed TransCanada's ROE application, 223 Ltd.'s object and comments, and the form of Schedule submitted by TransCanada. TransCanada submitted that it attempted to negotiate in good faith with 223 Ltd. for the necessary rights to enter 223 Ltd.'s lands. In its objection, 223 Ltd. asserted that the amount TransCanada proposes to advance to 223 Ltd. by way of compensation is inadequate to compensate 223 Ltd. for the damages or impacts of TransCanada's operations; that TransCanada .../2 517 Tenth Avenue SW TelephoneMalephone : 403 - 292 -4800 Calgary, Alberta T2R DAB Facs1mile1Teleccpieur : 403 - 292 -5503 http:/1 .neb- one.gc.ca 517, AeAvenue l 7Cal gary (Alberta) T2R DAB Canada" n da Facsimlen leopeurr: 1- 87- 2588803 -2- failed to set out satisfactorily the basis of its calculation of compensation proposed to be advanced; and the ROE application is premature because 223 Ltd. is still in the process of negotiating with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation on the expropriation of adjoining lands. In its objection, 223 Ltd. did not raise concerns with the scope of land rights requested by TransCanada, the terms and conditions TransCanada proposed, or TransCanada's proposed timing or methods of construction. The Board has decided to grant a right of entry order with a Schedule primarily in the form requested by TransCanada. However, with respect to abandonment and decommissioning, the Board has amended clause 30) of the Schedule to reflect that abandonment of the pipeline will be subject to a separate approval from the Board. Pursuant to subsection 104(1) of the NEB Act, the Board has issued Order RE -T211- 001 -2015. Three certified copies of the Order RE -T211- 001 -2015 and Schedule attached to and forming part of the Order, are enclosed. The Board reminds parties that compensation issues are not under the Board's jurisdiction. Parties may proceed to settle compensation matters through a separate arbitration process administered by Natural Resources Canada. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of developing positive working relationships and offers Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) services which can assist parties to understand the other's point of view and improve communications. For more information on ADR anyone may contact the Board toll free at 1- 800 - 899 -1265. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Michelle Haug, Board Counsel at 403 - 299 -2707 or toll free at 1- 800 - 899 -1265. Yours truly, Original signed by L. George for Sheri Young Secretary of the Board Attachments s� AM National Energy Office national Board ' de I'energie ORDER RE -T211- 001 -2015 IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) and the regulations made thereunder; and, IN THE MATTER OF an application by TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) for an Order pursuant to subsection 104(1) of the NEB Act granting the right to enter certain lands in the Province of Ontario identified as PIN 03318 -0209 (LT) filed with the National Energy Board (the Board) under File OF -Fac- Gas-T211- 2014 -02 09. BEFORE the Board on 9 December 2015. WHEREAS, on l June 2015, the Board issued to TransCanada, Order XG -T211- 027 -2015 approving the King's North Connection Pipeline Project; AND WHEREAS on 4 November 2015, TransCanada filed an Application for an immediate right to enter lands identified as PIN 03318 -0209 (LT), (Lands), owned by 2236391 Ontario Limited (Landowner); AND WHEREAS on 20 October 2015, the Landowner acknowledged that it received the notice pursuant to subsection 104(2) of the NEB Act and provided an early written Objection (Objection) to the Application; AND WHEREAS on 13 November 2015, the Landowner filed a second written Objection to the Application; AND WHEREAS on 19 November 2015, TransCanada filed its reply; AND WHEREAS the Board has considered all submissions and is of the view that it is proper to issue the Order; IT IS ORDERED THAT: (a) TransCanada is granted the immediate right to enter certain lands identified as PIN 03318 -0209 (LT), in the Province of Ontario, which is more particularly described in the Schedule attached to and forming part of this Order; ./2 Z-1 -1101 -2- (b) Subject to paragraph (c) the terms and conditions of the right of entry are set out in the Schedule attached; and (c) The Schedule attached is subject to the provisions of the NEB Act and Regulations, as amended, including those pertaining to the abandonment of the operation of the subject pipeline and any subsequent direction of the Board with respect to abandonment and abandonment methods. NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD Original signed by L. George for Sheri Young Secretary of the Board RE -T211- 001 -2015 A Mil Attachment to Board Letter Dated 11 December 2015 Page 1 of 5 SCHEDULE RE -T211- 001 -2015 1. LANDS IN RESPECT OF WHICH ORDER IS SOUGHT LEGAL DESCRIPTION (a) PIN 03318 -0209 (LT) PT WI /2 LT 15 CON 9 (VGN) AS IN VA66773, EXCEPT PT 2 65R25529 & EXCEPT PT 1 EXPRO PL YR2223722; CITY OF VAUGHAN (the "Lands of the Owner ") (b) That portion of the Lands of the Owner shown as the Permanent Pipeline ROW on the drawings prepared by J.D. Barnes, Ontario Land Surveyors attached as Schedule A to this Appendix; and (the "Right -of- Way ") (c) That portion of the Lands of the Owner required for work space adjacent to the Right -of -Way, including any lands depicted as TWS, Additional TWS, HDD Pullback or Access Roads, on the drawings prepared by J.D. Barnes, Ontario Land Surveyors attached as Schedule A to this Appendix. (the "Temporary Work Space ") RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST APPLIED FOR IN RESPECT OF LANDS OF THE OWNER AND THE RIGHT -OF -WAY TransCanada requires the following rights: (a) the exclusive right, title, interest, license, liberty, privilege and easement on, over, upon, across, along, in, under and through the Right -of -Way to lay down, construct, operate, maintain, inspect, patrol (including aerial patrol), alter, relocate, remove, replace, reconstruct and repair a line of pipe together with all facilities or works of TransCanada useful in connection with or incidental to its undertaking, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all such pipes, drips, valves, fittings, connections, meters, cathodic protection equipment and other equipment and appurtenances, whether or not similar to the foregoing, as may be useful or convenient in connection therewith or incidental thereto for the carnage, transmission, conveyance, transportation and handling of oil, natural and artificial gas and other gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons and any product or by- product thereof (such line of pipe together with such related facilities or works being referred to herein collectively as the "Pipeline ") 401 Attachment to Board Letter Dated 11 December 2015 Page 2 of 5 (b) the right of ingress and egress at any and all times over, along, across and upon the Right -of -Way; (c) in cases of emergency, the right of access to and egress from the Right -of -Way at any and all times, over, along, across and upon the Lands of the Owner; (d) the limited but exclusive right, license, liberty, privilege and easement on, over, upon, across, along, in, and through the Temporary Work Space for the limited and strict purpose of carrying out any construction activities necessary for the construction of the Pipeline and for a period that is no longer than two years from the date which the Board grants any order under s. 104(1) of the Act in respect of the Lands of the Owner. Following this date, any registration of this interest in land in respect of the Temporary Work Space shall lapse and such interest shall then revert to the Owner; and (e) the right of ingress and egress at any and all times over, along, across and upon the Temporary Work Space for a period that is no longer than two years from the date which the Board grants any order under s. 104(1) of the Act in respect of the Lands of the Owner; (the rights, licenses, liberties, privileges and easements specifically described in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above being referred to herein collectively as the "Easement Rights ") for TransCanada and its servants, agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors, on foot and/or with vehicles, supplies, machinery and equipment for all purposes useful or convenient in connection with or incidental to the exercise and enjoyment of the Easement Rights and for so long as TransCanada may desire to exercise them. RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (a) TransCanada's use of the Lands of the Owner shall be restricted to use in connection with the Pipeline. (b) TransCanada shall compensate the Owner for all damages suffered as a result of the operations of TransCanada, including all damage done to any drainage system, crops, pasture, timber, trees, hedges, produce, water wells, artesian springs, livestock, buildings, fences, culverts, bridges, lanes, improvements or equipment on the Lands of the Owner. (c) TransCanada shall, as soon as weather and soil conditions permit and insofar as it is practicable so to do, bury the Pipeline so as not to unreasonably obstruct the natural surface runoff from the Right -of -Way, or ordinary cultivation of the Right -of -Way and the Temporary Workspace, or any tile drainage system existing in the Right -of -Way and the Temporary Workspace at the time of installation of the Pipeline or any planned tile drainage system to be laid in the Right -of -Way and the Temporary Workspace in accordance with standard drainage practice if TransCanada is given at least thirty (30) days' written notice of the location of 402 Attachment to Board Letter Dated 11 December 2015 Page 3 of 5 such planned system prior to commencing the construction of the Pipeline in the Right -of -Way. (d) As soon as reasonably practicable after the construction of the Pipeline, TransCanada, unless otherwise agreed to by the Owner, shall remove all construction debris from the Right -of -Way and the Temporary Workspace and in all respects restore the Right -of -Way and the Temporary Workspace to its former state as far as is practicable, save and except for: (i) items in respect of which compensation is due under clause 3(b); and (ii) any soil rise above grade to allow for soil settling. (e) TransCanada shall indemnify the Owner from all liabilities, damages, claims, suits and actions arising out of the operations of TransCanada other than liabilities, damages, claims, suits and actions resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner. (f) The Owner shall not, without the prior written consent of TransCanada, excavate, construct, drill, install, erect or permit to be excavated, constructed, drilled, installed or erected on, over or under the Right -of -Way any pipe, pit, well, foundation, building, pavement or other structure, installation or improvement. Subject to the foregoing and to the provisions of the Act and any regulations or orders made thereunder, and provided that there is no interference with the Easement Rights, the Owner shall have the right to use and enjoy the Right -of- Way and the Temporary Workspace. (g) Subject to abandonment pursuant to clause 30) and notwithstanding any rule of law or equity, the Pipeline shall at all rimes remain the property of TransCanada notwithstanding that it may be annexed or affixed to the freehold and shall at any time and from time to time be removable in whole or in part by TransCanada. (h) Nothing herein contained shall affect or prejudice any right, present or future, which TransCanada may have to acquire, occupy or use the Right -of -Way or any other portions of the Lands of the Owner under the provisions of the Act or otherwise. (i) TransCanada performing and observing the covenants and conditions on its part to be observed and performed shall and may peaceably hold and enjoy the Easement Rights without hindrance, molestation or interruption on the part of the Owner or of any person claiming by, through, under or in trust for, the Owner. (j) In the event of the abandonment of the use of the Pipeline, TransCanada shall seek leave of the National Energy Board to abandon the Pipeline. In the event of abandonment in place or removal of the Pipeline, TransCanada shall restore the Right -of -Way insofar as it is practicable so to do. TransCanada agrees to register a release of any order granted by the Board in respect of the Lands of the Owner 403 Attachment to Board Letter Dated 11 December 2015 Page 4 of 5 in the appropriate Land Registry Office within three (3) years from the effective date of abandonment. All other obligations of TransCanada, except those specifically stated herein to survive, shall cease effective the date of abandonment. (k) All notices required or permitted to be given by one party to the other shall be in writing and may be given by either (i) delivering the same to the other parry; or (ii) if postal service is fully operative, by mailing same by registered mail postage prepaid in the case of TransCanada to the following address: TransCanada PipeLines Limited 450 —1st Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 5111 Attention: John Hunt, Director, Land Management and in the case of the Owner to the following address: 2236391 ONTARIO LIMITED 4787 Kirby Road Vaughan, ON 1,41, 1A6 Attention: Ishan Mesrup or such other address as TransCanada and the Owner may from time to time designate in writing and any such notice shall be deemed to have been given to and received by the addressee on the date on which it was delivered or if mailed shall be deemed to have been given to and received by the addressee on the fifth (5th) business day following the date on which it was deposited in the mail, except in the event of interruption of mail service after mailing, in which event it shall be deemed to have been given when actually received. (1) The Easement Rights are and shall be of the same force and effect to all intents and purposes as a covenant running with the land and the Easement Rights and all rights, obligations, restrictions, terms and conditions set forth in this Schedule, shall extend to, be binding upon and ensure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors -in- title, successors and assigns of the parties hereto respectively. (m) Wherever the singular or masculine is used, it shall be construed as if the plural or the feminine or the neuter, as the case may be, had been used, where the context or the party or parties hereto so require, and this Appendix shall be construed as if the grammatical and terminological changes thereby rendered necessary had been made. A I A Attachment to Board Letter Dated 11 December 2015 Page 5 of 5 Schedule A TransCanada Pipelines Limited TransCanada KING'S NORTH CONNECTION PIPELINE PROJECT IR 4usin¢6s Ca OEiivtr PROPERTY SKETCH ONTARIO � do CLCRRi¢AL wAER PT MI12 LI l5 C4N 9 ( 1W 0! VMIpIM I' -w \ \ J -- - ------ - \\ AREA REOUIREO: N� x XK PPEUK - - - -- PR(1CF'..D PEPoIAfFNI RPFiNE FOM 6b7 ne. (09% ems) RiS08➢ IAS M XW H[OMIN HIE95 PR£]JIE MF ENT Popp C! WAY (11OWj (� PROPOSET lcw iWk N/A PRDT 9 1fMPORARY WFIKWA (IM5) PR.T04O Mp11ONAL Iwo R66R na- Il MW PN 9B FROPOSfV M P(MC NOM MMMIX: N/A PAS ACDE56 ROAD PRKRDRpp ACKESR ROAR N/A P.M6+ERry IME WM M MM NN (1.6]1 —) Mu9NIOPK 9 MY (PRCP�D) Rm Ia.6m gTtlO! PMf — 24131 (3,9R.A Y) (PRPPC9:p).".1621 Y iR l IMl � RPELIK 21} (PRMP D) MM HAm MM MIA 6.X9 M. 1"(4 OC.J PROPDRLTI PIPEIAE HIM IEHCM: I18m MEA SETEIM PPAP D PERNMLNI N/A N AN6 NTD SEWM PRd•pEEO RPEWE wliwM % 1 M: N/A P.i.N. N. O3Oj 0 (LT) SCALE 1:1500 nrETS 22UN1 K. WO iAIIM J.D.9ARNE5 ;•�,` •, )ATE; REV PARg6 NR 69 TML R/W NN FEB. 25, 207 OS 51p, J September 20, 2016 Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat TRCA 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Re: Ontario's Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Northeast Pickering/Northwest Whitby "Gap" in the Greenbelt I wish to submit my formal comments as a concerned resident of the Town of Ajax into the process of revisiting the status of a parcel of land (approximately 2300 hectares) that is part of the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. As a resident in the Town of Ajax for the past 13 years, I have witnessed increasing urbanization consistently across the region. For example: there was a recent time when the Greenbelt extended distinctly between Ajax and Whitby along Highway 401. Prominent billboard signs on the side of the highway reminded us of the importance of the Greenbelt. This green space has been considerably replaced with a major interchange (Highway 401 and 412), a new interchange for Lake Ridge Road and the addition of the 412 Highway. The TRCA should move to designate the Northeast Pickering /Northwest Whitby "Gap" in the Greenbelt as Greenbelt lands for the following 3 reasons: 1. The Region of Durham in their recent Community Climate Adaptation Plan has identified significant increased flooding risks as a direct result of climate change and they are expecting these risks to continue to rise. We need to protect this parcel of land from development so that we can take a step to reduce flooding risks that would come with commercial development of the land parcel in an area that is environmentally sensitive. 2. The parcel of land represents prime agricultural land that can continue to make a difference to our local food supplies. 3. These lands represent the Headwaters of an important creek in the region (Carruthers Creek) which has numerous species that contribute to our biodiversity. I would also point out that increasing the Greenbelt in this fashion is a step towards offsetting the destruction of forest and habitats that occurred for the construction of the 412 Highway. I support the TRCA in strongly urging the Province of Ontario to protect the headwaters of Carruther's Creek as described in Item 7.1, Section 1, Item 4 of the supporting materials for the Sept 23, 2016 Meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns, David 2 Garnett Drive, Ajax, ON US 4X9 H A I • CORRESPONDENCE 6.4' HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES CANADA (:�Yennifer 0 &)knnell .Member of Parliament Pickering— U\bri dge September 20, 2016 Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, ON IAK 5R6 Re: Ontario's Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Dear TRCA Representatives, As you are aware, the Province of Ontario is currently undergoing the 10 -year Co- ordinated Review process for the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plans. I believe that the government's proposed amendments are an important step in the right direction. I also encourage you to support the inclusion of Carruther's Creek headwaters into the protection of the Greenbelt through this review. Carruther's Creek is the smallest watershed in the Greater Toronto Area, and remains one of the least studied. The potential impacts of development would mean downstream flooding, erosion, and the loss of temperature - sensitive species. In addition, the loss of prime agricultural lands in this area could have a significant impact on our local food supply in the future. Downstream residents and businesses across the Durham Region are already in danger of riverine flooding risks as a result of climate change. This issue is documented in the Region of Durham's Community Climate Adaptation Plan. Adding further pressure to an already sensitive area such as the Carruther's Creek headwaters will have serious consequences for residents, businesses and visitors to Durham communities. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Jennifer O'Connell, M.P. Pickering Uxbridge L�O�nI C= ) /licc Room 530, The Valour Building, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 1154 Kingston Road Unit 4, Pickering, Ontario, L1V 1B4 Tel.: 613- 995 -8082 Fax.: 613- 993 -65887 /� �TJel.: 905- 839 -2878 Fax: 905- 839 -2423 Jennifer.A0ell @parl.gc.ca CORRESPONDENCE 6.5 0 Town of rax By the Lake September 20, 2016 Councillors Office Pat Brown — Ward 4 Tel. 905- 683 -4926 Cel. 905- 626 -2301 Fax. 905- 683 -8207 Pat.brcwnAaiax.ca Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 TOWN OF AJAX 65 Harwood Avenue South Ajax ON L1 S 2H9 www.ajax.ca Re: Ontario's Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Dear TRCA Representatives, I am writing you today in my role as the Councillor for Ward 4 in the Town of Ajax. Ajax is a downstream municipality, and as such, we are impacted heavily by the decisions that are made upstream. As you know, the Province of Ontario is currently undergoing the 10 -year Co- ordinated Review process for the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plans. I believe that the government's proposed amendments are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough to protect sensitive headwaters. We can do better. I applaud the TRCA for supporting the inclusion of the Carruther's Creek headwaters into the protection of the Greenbelt. Without Greenbelt protection, Carruther's Creek headwaters are in danger of development. Carruther's Creek is the smallest watershed in the Greater Toronto Area, and remains one of the least studied. The potential impacts of development would mean downstream flooding, erosion, and the loss of temperature- sensitive species which may not be limited to previously identified species of endangered fish. In addition, the loss of prime agricultural lands in this area may have a significant impact on our local food supply in the future. We simply cannot afford to take that risk. Downstream residents and businesses, and in particular my constituents in the Town of Ajax's Ward 4 community are already in danger of riverine flooding risks as a result of climate change. This issue is documented in the Region of Durham's Community Climate Adaptation Plan. Adding further pressure to an already sensitive area such as the Carruther's Creek headwaters will have serious consequences for residents, businesses and visitors to Durham communities. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Pat Brown Councillor, Ward 4 Town of Ajax OF HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES CANADA c>Wark 016olland Member of Parliament Ajax September 20, 2016 Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 Re: Ontario's Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Dear TRCA Representatives, Currently the Province of Ontario is under taking the 10 -year Co- ordinated Review process for the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plans. I believe that the government's proposed amendments are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough to protect sensitive headwaters. I urge you to support the inclusion of Carruthees Creek headwaters into the protection of the Greenbelt through this review. Without the protection of the Greenbelt the Carruther's Creek headwaters are at risk of development. Carruther's Creek is the smallest watershed in the Greater Toronto Area and remains of the least studied. Development could cause significant damage in the form of downstream flooding, erosion, and the loss of habitat for endangered wildlife. Moreover, the loss of prime agricultural lands in this area may have a significant impact on our local food supply in the future. Downstream residents and businesses across the Durham Region are already in danger of riverine flooding risks as a result of climate change. This issue is documented in the Region of Durham's Community Climate Adaptation Plan. Adding further pressure to an already sensitive area such as the Carruther's Creek headwaters will have serious consequences for residents, businesses and visitors to Durham communities. Thank you for your atpnton to this important issue. MerAer of Parham�t for Ajax dtt a C'6n tituencp Cyio Room 1120, The Valour Bui ding, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OA6 - 100 Old Kingston Road Suite 1, Ajax, Ontario, L1T 2Z9 Tel.: 613- 995 -8042 Fax.: 613 - 996- 1289'...p.,� °fl Tel.: 905 - 426 -6808 Fax: 905- 426 -9564 Mark.1-140arl.gcaca CORRESPONDENCE 6.7 E �` 1-gil-i Possibility grows here. Milton September 20, 2016 Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 661 Yonge Street, Suite 500 Toronto, ON M4Y 1Z9 (416) 960 -0001 www.greenbelt.ca Oshawa Vaughan Toronto Vineland Re: Ontario's Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Dear TRCA Representatives, As you know, the Province of Ontario is currently undergoing the 10 -year Co- ordinated Review process for the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plans. We believe that the government's proposed amendments are a step in the right direction, and support expanding the Greenbelt into 21 urban river valleys and seven coastal wetlands. However, we strongly believe the amendments could go further to grow the Greenbelt into sensitive headwater and groundwater recharge areas, and other sensitive hydrological features. We therefore urge you to support the inclusion of remaining areas within the headwaters of Carruther's Creek, and the Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers into the protection of the Greenbelt through this review. Without Greenbelt protection, these headwaters are in danger of development. For example, Carruther's Creek is the smallest watershed in the Greater Toronto Area, and remains one of the least studied. The potential impacts of development would mean downstream flooding, erosion, and the loss of temperature- sensitive species which may not be limited to previously identified species of endangered fish. In addition, the loss of prime agricultural lands in this area may have a significant impact on our local food supply in the future. Similar impacts can be expected if development were to happen in other headwater areas. Downstream residents and businesses across Durham and York Regions, and the City of Toronto, are already in danger of riverine flooding risks as a result of climate change. This issue is documented in the Region of Durham's Community Climate Adaptation Plan, City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, and many other reports. Adding further pressure to already sensitive areas such as the headwaters will have serious consequences for residents, businesses and visitors to communities in TRCA's jurisdiction. 410 Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Burkhard Mausberg CEO, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation Supporting Organizations: Debbe Crandall Policy Director, STORM (Save the Oak Ridges Moraine) Joyce Chau Executive Director, EcoSpark Josh Garfinkel Senior Campaigner, Earthroots Tim Gray Executive Director, Environmental Defence Franz Hartmann Executive Director, Toronto Environmental Alliance Kristina Jackson Senior Campaigner, Sierra Club Canada - Ontario Chapter Sony Rai Executive Director, Sustainable Vaughan Joshua Wise Greenway Program Manager, Ontario Nature 411 CORRESPONDENCE 6.8 September 20, 2016 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 101 Exchange Ave., Vaughan ON L4K SR6 Dear TRCA Representatives, I understand that the Ontario Government is currently undertaking a Co- ordinated Review process for the Greenbelt and Growth Plans. I believe the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek should be included in the Greenbelt area to afford the maximum protection to the watershed. Members of our group have commented on the increased turbidity and refuse present in the Provincially Significant Wetland region of the southern Carruthers basin in recent years as development occurred near the Carruthers shores. Flooding danger has also been of a local concern. Without protection upstream this situation can't help but worsen. The TRCA has, through its stewardship, done wonderful work in the past to secure property and protect the Provincially Significant Wetlands and species of the southern reaches of the Carruthers. Continue the work. I ask you to speak as forcefully as possible to continue this good work. The citizens, farming community and business interests will benefit greatly your efforts. Yours truly, Gordon McKay, Past Co -Chair of Citizens for Caruthers, 11 Spiers Cres., Ajax ON L1S6Y2 412 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A139/16 - PROVINCIAL FOUR -PLAN REVIEW TRCA Comments on the Four Plan Review.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the coordinated review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan (EBR Notice #s: 012 -7194, 012 -7195, 012 -7197, 012 -7228) Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is undertaking a 10 year review of the provincial land use plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) supported many of the recommendations for amendments to the four plans as detailed in the report entitled "Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth" as produced by the provincially appointed "Crombie" Advisory Panel on the Coordinated Review of the Four Plans; AND WHEREAS many of the Advisory Panel recommendations and prior TRCA comments have been incorporated into the proposed amendments to the four plans; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority recommends to the Province that: the policies for Building Complete Communities be amended such that: • the definition of "Complete Communities" be revised to add an environmental component; • the policies for restricting development and infrastructure in areas of natural hazards be strengthened; • Growth Plan sections 2.2.1 Managing Growth, 2.2.2 Built -up Areas and 2.2.3 Urban Growth Centres be amended with a stronger emphasis on flood management, remediation and their integration with green infrastructure and low impact development techniques for existing Flood Vulnerable Areas; and • new policies be added requiring the completion of an urban Master Environmental Servicing Plan for areas of major urban redevelopment and revitalization to comprehensively address in an integrated manner, issues such as urban flooding and natural hazard remediation, water balance, infrastructure risk assessments and the incorporation of ecological design principles to integrate green infrastructure into an enhanced open space system; 2. the policies for Supporting Agriculture be revised, clarified and harmonized such that: • the potential natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation (NHE /HE) requirements of other approval authorities be recognized; • clear direction be provided as to what constitutes a "demonstration" of compliance with the criteria that must be met to be exempt from an NHE /HE; and • on -farm diversified uses, large scale buildings and structures that meet the threshold for "major development' and the placement/dumping of large amounts of fill (i.e. > 500 m) should continue to be subject to a full NHE /HE, when proposed adjacent to KNHF /KHF; 413 the policies for Protecting Natural Heritage and Water be revised such that: • the definition, scope and content of Watershed and Subwatershed Plans is harmonized among the four plans and that they be integrated with clear goals for the protection, enhancement and restoration of natural heritage systems; • the role and expertise of conservation authorities in undertaking watershed plans be acknowledged, especially as it relates to stormwater management and the protection from and remediation of natural hazards; • Growth Plan policies for Natural Heritage Systems, Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features and Lands Adjacent to those Key Features be simplified as much as possible and that provincial guidance for understanding and implementing these policies be prepared as soon as possible; and • Excess Soil and Fill policies be strengthened to prohibit filling within Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features, and that a natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation be required for filling adjacent to these features; 4. the policies for Growing the Greenbelt be amended such that: • areas of shallow groundwater and high artesian pressure be included as components of Key Hydrologic Areas to be assessed through watershed planning for additions to the Greenbelt; • headwater areas of the rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be seriously considered for additions to the Greenbelt, especially those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber rivers watersheds; • conservation authorities be recognized as critical partners in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) for providing trails and outdoor recreational opportunities and that flexibility is provided for the enhancement to facilities and uses permitted on conservation authority lands, to meet the needs of a growing population, accessibility standards and financial sustainability; the policies for Addressing Climate Change be amended such that Growth Plan section 4.2.10: • is strengthened to require official plan policy implementation; • consolidates, integrates and /or cross - references all other climate change related policies and actions in the four plans; • identifies the role integrated watershed planning should play in planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation; • ensures coordination with other provincial climate change documents, programs and activities; the policies for Integrating Infrastructure be amended such that: • a new policy be added to the Growth Plan requiring the applicable recommendations, standards or targets within a subwatershed plan and water budgets are complied with; • policies for green infrastructure and low impact development be clarified to state that these techniques should be considered on both private and public lands; • infrastructure policies be strengthened to require restoration and enhancement plans to offset negative impacts and that accessory uses to infrastructure corridors be located outside of key environmental features and hazardous lands; • infrastructure policies are clarified with respect to implementation roles and legislative authorities; 414 policies be clarified and strengthened to increase restoration and enhancement requirements and limit the types and amounts of stormwater management and other infrastructure uses allowed in the connecting major river valley "fingers" and Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside; the policies in the four plans be amended and other means for Improving Plan Implementation be addressed such that: • the role of conservation authorities in implementing the four plans be more strongly identified in the plans as well as in the concurrent review of the Conservation Authorities Act; • municipal official plan conformity amendments to implement the four plans be shielded from appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); • the transition provisions in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Act be strengthened and that the lapsing provisions included in the Growth Plan for approved but unbuilt plans of subdivision, also be included in the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine plans; • strong guidance materials and requirements for the content, timing and completeness of technical reports in support of development applications be developed by the Province and adhered to during an OMB process; • Advisory Panel recommendations to create guidance materials and technical bulletins to improve clarity and consistency in plan implementation be acted upon immediately, with involvement from implementation partners, including conservation authorities; the applicable recommendations from the Advisory Panel report for Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement be acted on by the Province as quickly as possible, with involvement from and building on similar programs undertaken by conservation authorities; 9. the definitions included in the four plans be amended to be consistent among each of the plans and that they be refined or corrected as identified in the attached table of detailed comments (Attachment 2); THAT the staff report be sent to the Province as TRCA's comments on the proposed amendments to the four provincial plans; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario, TRCA's municipal partners and the provincial ministries of Natural Resources and Forestry, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environment and Climate Change, Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the Ontario Growth Secretariat be so advised. AMENDMENT RESMA140 /16 Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the second bullet of item #4 be amended to read as follows: 415 headwater areas of the rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be designated as Greenbelt lands, especially those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber rivers watersheds; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is undertaking a 10 year review of the provincial land use plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) supported many of the recommendations for amendments to the four plans as detailed in the report entitled "Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth" as produced by the provincially appointed "Crombie" Advisory Panel on the Coordinated Review of the Four Plans; AND WHEREAS many of the Advisory Panel recommendations and prior TRCA comments have been incorporated into the proposed amendments to the four plans; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority recommends to the Province that: the policies for Building Complete Communities be amended such that: • the definition of "Complete Communities" be revised to add an environmental component; • the policies for restricting development and infrastructure in areas of natural hazards be strengthened; • Growth Plan sections 2.2.1 Managing Growth, 2.2.2 Built -up Areas and 2.2.3 Urban Growth Centres be amended with a stronger emphasis on flood management, remediation and their integration with green infrastructure and low impact development techniques for existing Flood Vulnerable Areas; and • new policies be added requiring the completion of an urban Master Environmental Servicing Plan for areas of major urban redevelopment and revitalization to comprehensively address in an integrated manner, issues such as urban flooding and natural hazard remediation, water balance, infrastructure risk assessments and the incorporation of ecological design principles to integrate green infrastructure into an enhanced open space system; the policies for Supporting Agriculture be revised, clarified and harmonized such that: • the potential natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation (NHE /HE) requirements of other approval authorities be recognized; • clear direction be provided as to what constitutes a "demonstration" of compliance with the criteria that must be met to be exempt from an NHE /HE; and • on -farm diversified uses, large scale buildings and structures that meet the threshold for "major development' and the placement/dumping of large amounts of fill (i.e. > 500 m) should continue to be subject to a full NHE /HE, when proposed adjacent to KNHF /KHF; 416 the policies for Protecting Natural Heritage and Water be revised such that: • the definition, scope and content of Watershed and Subwatershed Plans is harmonized among the four plans and that they be integrated with clear goals for the protection, enhancement and restoration of natural heritage systems; • the role and expertise of conservation authorities in undertaking watershed plans be acknowledged, especially as it relates to stormwater management and the protection from and remediation of natural hazards; • Growth Plan policies for Natural Heritage Systems, Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features and Lands Adjacent to those Key Features be simplified as much as possible and that provincial guidance for understanding and implementing these policies be prepared as soon as possible; and • Excess Soil and Fill policies be strengthened to prohibit filling within Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features, and that a natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation be required for filling adjacent to these features; 4. the policies for Growing the Greenbelt be amended such that: • areas of shallow groundwater and high artesian pressure be included as components of Key Hydrologic Areas to be assessed through watershed planning for additions to the Greenbelt; • headwater areas of the rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be designated as Greenbelt lands, especially those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber rivers watersheds; • conservation authorities be recognized as critical partners in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) for providing trails and outdoor recreational opportunities and that flexibility is provided for the enhancement to facilities and uses permitted on conservation authority lands, to meet the needs of a growing population, accessibility standards and financial sustainability; 5. the policies for Addressing Climate Change be amended such that Growth Plan section 4.2.10: • is strengthened to require official plan policy implementation; • consolidates, integrates and /or cross- references all other climate change related policies and actions in the four plans; • identifies the role integrated watershed planning should play in planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation; • ensures coordination with other provincial climate change documents, programs and activities; the policies for Integrating Infrastructure be amended such that: • a new policy be added to the Growth Plan requiring the applicable recommendations, standards or targets within a subwatershed plan and water budgets are complied with; • policies for green infrastructure and low impact development be clarified to state that these techniques should be considered on both private and public lands; • infrastructure policies be strengthened to require restoration and enhancement plans to offset negative impacts and that accessory uses to infrastructure corridors be located outside of key environmental features and hazardous lands; • infrastructure policies are clarified with respect to implementation roles and legislative authorities; 417 policies be clarified and strengthened to increase restoration and enhancement requirements and limit the types and amounts of stormwater management and other infrastructure uses allowed in the connecting major river valley "fingers" and Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside; the policies in the four plans be amended and other means for Improving Plan Implementation be addressed such that: • the role of conservation authorities in implementing the four plans be more strongly identified in the plans as well as in the concurrent review of the Conservation Authorities Act; • municipal official plan conformity amendments to implement the four plans be shielded from appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); • the transition provisions in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Act be strengthened and that the lapsing provisions included in the Growth Plan for approved but unbuilt plans of subdivision, also be included in the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine plans; • strong guidance materials and requirements for the content, timing and completeness of technical reports in support of development applications be developed by the Province and adhered to during an OMB process; • Advisory Panel recommendations to create guidance materials and technical bulletins to improve clarity and consistency in plan implementation be acted upon immediately, with involvement from implementation partners, including conservation authorities; 8. the applicable recommendations from the Advisory Panel report for Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement be acted on by the Province as quickly as possible, with involvement from and building on similar programs undertaken by conservation authorities; 9. the definitions included in the four plans be amended to be consistent among each of the plans and that they be refined or corrected as identified in the attached table of detailed comments (Attachment 2); THAT the staff report be sent to the Province as TRCA's comments on the proposed amendments to the four provincial plans; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario, TRCA's municipal partners and the provincial ministries of Natural Resources and Forestry, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environment and Climate Change, Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the Ontario Growth Secretariat be so advised. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2015, the Province initiated a coordinated review of the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. An Advisory Panel led by Mr. David Crombie was appointed to coordinate this review and recommend necessary plan amendments. TRCA staff developed strategic recommendations in response to the discussion questions posed by the Province and submitted formal comments on May 28, 2015, as approved by Resolution #A99/15 at Authority Meeting #6/15, held on June 26, 2015. The Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the Province on December 7, 2015 through a report entitled, "Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015 - 2041 ". TRCA staff reported on the recommendations from the i Advisory Panel at Authority Meeting #11/15, held on January 8, 2016, as approved by Resolution #A245/15. Provincial staff assessed the Advisory Panel's report and released proposed amendments to the four plans on May 10, 2016, for a further round of public and agency consultation. Of the Panel's 87 total recommendations, all 56 of the core recommendations were incorporated into the revised plans, to varying degrees. TRCA staff provided a summary of the key themes of the amended plans and identified important changes warranting additional analysis prior to the issuance of formal comments, as approved by Resolution #A119/16 at Authority Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016. In particular, staff highlighted policy changes related to: integrating natural heritage systems in watershed planning; sustainable management of large -scale fill; the transition provisions of the ORMC Plan and Act; agricultural exemptions for natural heritage evaluations; climate change; provincial plan implementation; defining complete communities; recognizing the role of conservation authorities; and, complementary recommendations from the Advisory Panel report that must be addressed outside the plans. The Province initially set a September 30, 2016 deadline for feedback on the proposed plans. However, due to high interest in the review and in response to requests made by several municipalities and stakeholder organizations (including TRCA, as per Resolution #A119/16 approved at Authority Meeting #6/16) the deadline has been extended to October 31, 2016. RATIONALE Many of TRCA's previous comments are reflected in the four amended plans and the enhanced policies and concepts espoused generally align well with TRCA's 10 Year Strategic Plan (2013 -2022) and The Living City Policies documents. In particular, the following key issues previously raised by TRCA, have been addressed to varying degrees in the plans: • Recognizing the value of, and strengthening requirements for watershed planning to ensure growth occurs in a sustainable manner; • New policy language promoting a "systems approach" to natural heritage and water resource planning, including the addition of a new class of features to be identified, managed and protected as "Key Hydrologic Areas'; • Harmonized terminology across the four plans and with the Provincial Policy Statement; • Increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses; • Stronger policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning; • New policies to help ensure large -scale fill activities are sustainably managed; • New policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change; and • New policies to incorporate the use of green infrastructure and low impact development techniques. TRCA staff generally support the proposed policy changes. However, staff does have recommendations that staff believes, if implemented, could further strengthen and support the progressive intent of the plans. Of these, staff identified the following issues to be paramount and strongly advocate that they be incorporated into the Province's amended plans immediately: New policies are needed to require the completion of an "urban MESP (municipal environmental servicing plan)" for areas of major urban redevelopment, especially in flood vulnerable areas; 419 The Climate Change policies in the Growth Plan must require official plan implementation and should be enhanced to tie -back the policies to other climate change references throughout the plans, especially to highlight the role that watershed planning can play in developing mitigation and adaptation strategies; The definition, scope and content of watershed and subwatershed plans needs to be harmonized and fully integrated among the four plans, with clear goals to protect, enhance, and restore natural heritage and water resource systems; and 4. The role of conservation authorities in implementing the plans should be more clearly recognized and conservation authority expertise fully utilized and leveraged in the creation of guidance materials for plan implementation, as well as for monitoring and measuring performance of the plans in achieving their environmental objectives. The attached comment letter (Attachment 1) and table of detailed comments (Attachment 2), expand upon these recommendations as part of TRCA's formal response to the Province's (Environmental Bill of Rights Registry) EBR postings regarding the coordinated ten -year review of the plans. This response reflects knowledge gained from provincial technical workshops and open houses; discussions with various provincial, municipal and conservation authority staff; and, internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the integration of previous comments, identify new changes relevant to TRCA and formulate new recommendations for enhancing the policies in the plans. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff is engaged in this policy analysis work as per the normal course of their duties. No additional funding is proposed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Incorporate feedback, if any, from the Authority meeting on September 23, 2016 into formal comments; • Submit formal comments to the Province, in accordance with their deadline of October 31, 2016; • Review the final amendments to the four plans and report back to the Authority in 2017. Report Prepared by: Jeff Thompson, extension 5386 Emails: jthompson(a6trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett(@trca.on.ca Date: September 6, 2016 Attachments: 2 420 Attachment 1 September 9, 2016 Land Use Planning Review Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ontario Growth Secretariat 777 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 I Toronto and Region W Conservation for The Living City- entailed to: landuseplanningreview @ontario. ca Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments in Response to the Co- ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan (EBR Notice #s: 012 -7194, 012 -7195, 012 -7197 & 012 -7228) Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the EBR posting regarding the ten - year review of the four Provincial Plans (the Plans). The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been active in the ten -year review process from its beginning in several ways including partnering with the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition to produce the Report Card on the Environmental Health of the Oak Ridges Moraine and Adjacent Greenbelt Lands (www.morainecoalition.ca). The Report Card demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of the Plans for those landscapes, based on the monitoring programs of the conservation authorities (CAs) and found degraded water quality in almost half of the streams monitored. TRCA also responded in May 2015 to the initial consultation questions posed by the province and expressed our views directly to Advisory Panel members and provincial staff on several occasions. We appreciate the opportunities provided to TRCA to contribute to the four Plans review and, in general, we are pleased that our comments have been heard and that many of them have been reflected in the proposed amendments. We note further that many of the policies and concepts align well with The Living City Policies, TRCA's own policy document that guides staff in its roles in land use and infrastructure planning and the TRCA's regulatory permitting process. The proposed changes to the four Plans help to advance our collective efforts to reduce sprawl, maximize our infrastructure investments, develop compact, transit supportive complete communities, protect valuable natural and agricultural lands and address climate change. CAs provide significant support for the implementation of the four provincial Plans. CAs help the Province and municipalities to reach the objectives of the provincial Plans through their delegated responsibilities around flooding and other natural hazards; their resource management agency role; as plan review service providers to municipalities; as a public commenting body for applications under the Planning and Environmental Assessment Acts; and, as one of the largest landowners in Ontario. We are pleased to note the following issues previously raised by TRCA that have been addressed to varying degrees in the proposed amendments: Recognizing the value of, and strengthening the requirements for watershed planning to ensure that growth occurs in an environmentally sustainable manner; Adding into the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan a new class of features, "Key Hydrologic Areas ", to be identified, managed and protected as part of the Water Resource System; Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info @trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Member of Conservation Ontario ww421n.ca 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 • Harmonization of terminology; • Increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses; • Strengthened policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning; • Addition of policies to manage large -scale fill activities; • Addition of policies for the use of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques; and • Recognition of the need and direction to be planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Comments are based on TRCA's extensive experience working within the framework of the four provincial Plans that are under review. CAs are the experts when it comes to watershed planning and management. The Province is urged to recognize this expertise and increase the integration of CAs in the implementation of these Plans. This is particularly important for: facilitating watershed planning; defining natural heritage systems; natural hazard delineation and mapping under individual CA regulations; stormwater management (including green infrastructure and low impact development); protection of municipal drinking water sources; protection of environmentally sensitive lands; and, partnering and providing technical advice to planning authorities and the Province. Conservation authorities add value to the growth planning process by bringing a regional perspective to cross boundary/watershed issues and across legislative review and approval processes (high level through to detailed design for both development and infrastructure). Our comments are also informed by formal and informal discussions with staff from other conservation authorities, Conservation Ontario and municipalities. Due to the harmonization of the plans done to date, many of the comments are applicable to more than one plan. The attached table also provides supplementary detailed comments and plan- specific references as to where the theme comments from this letter apply. The key themes for TRCA's comments follow a format similar to that used in the provincial guide to the proposed changes to the four Plans — Shaping Land Use in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 1. Building Complete Communities 2. Supporting Agriculture 3. Protecting Natural Heritage and Water 4. Growing the Greenbelt 5. Addressing Climate Change 6. Integrating Infrastructure 7. Improving Plan Implementation 8. Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement 9. Definitions 1) Building Complete Communities TRCA supports the proposed policy direction for building complete communities with increased transit - supportive densities and increased intensification targets, as this helps to decrease pressures to expand the urban footprint further into rural, agricultural and natural areas. We also appreciate the clarification provided in the Growth Plan (GP) stating that, despite provincial direction for intensification, "growth should be generally directed away from hazardous areas, including those that have been identified as special policy areas in accordance with the PPS ". Further, we strongly support the proposed policies for settlement area boundary expansion that require the preparation of master plans for water, wastewater and stormwater, as informed by watershed planning, in order to demonstrate that the proposed expansion and associated servicing would not negatively impact the water resource system. 422 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 Complete Communities TRCA generally supports the phrase in the definition that "Complete communities may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their context'. This is particularly appropriate given the great diversity of settlement areas in TRCA watersheds ranging from major cities to rural hamlets. We believe, however, that this definition is too narrow in scope. The definition of "Complete Communities" should be expanded to include an environmental component that describes the aspects of healthy and sustainable communities such as public health and safety, and the contributions of a healthy environment (clean air and water; resilient natural systems; access to a low- carbon lifestyle) to the overall health and well -being of residents. Protection from Natural Hazards TRCA is supportive of increased intensification targets in the Growth Plan to assist Ontario in reaching its climate change objectives as outlined in the Climate Change Strategy, 2015 as well as to build complete communities. However, stronger policies are required to ensure that increasing intensification targets do not lead to increased pressure to develop lands adjacent to or within natural heritage or natural hazard areas or drinking water vulnerable areas in order to meet the density targets. Further, the policies should address mitigation and remediation requirements for redevelopment and intensification where buildings and infrastructure are already located within hazardous lands. For example, the context section of GP 2.1 has greater clarity and detail than the policy itself (2.2.1.2 j), which states only that growth should be generally directed away from hazardous lands. Other than unavoidable crossings for public infrastructure, there should be no further new development or new infrastructure approved within hazardous lands, as this will only compound future risks from climate change and make infrastructure less resilient. Where historical development and infrastructure already exist in hazardous lands, and these vulnerable areas are proposed for redevelopment and expanded infrastructure, risk assessments should be required to demonstrate that new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated, consistent with PPS policy 3.1.7 c. The Growth Plan policy should be strengthened and amended accordingly. Greenfield v Urban Redevelopment The policy focus on managing for settlement area boundary expansions through the various master plan studies noted above is entirely appropriate, as the upstream protection of natural heritage and water resource systems is critical to downstream flood protection and mitigation of cumulative impacts. We still have concerns, however, that the GP is too focused on " Geenfield" development and that sufficient policy direction is lacking for the need to manage the impacts of intensification and redevelopment in the existing urban areas. We are now reaching a threshold capacity in TRCA watersheds where communities, in particular redeveloping communities in urban growth centres and built -up areas, will increasingly be put at risk from the combined impacts of intensification, new growth in headwaters areas and climate change. The GP needs to be strengthened with additional policies for continuous improvement in how we manage stormwater and invest in infrastructure and hazard remediation for redevelopment and intensification areas. These policies need to include direction for incorporating ecological design in the restoration and enhancement of the natural heritage system and water resources system and other urban green infrastructure, to provide an enhanced open space system and reduce the risk of flooding and erosion where it currently occurs in existing flood vulnerable areas. Urban MESP and Flood Vulnerable Areas Given provincial direction for intensification levels moving to 60 %, TRCA sees advantage to applying the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) concept to large urban redevelopment areas through a Growth Plan mandated "urban MESP ". The secondary planning process for large areas of existing 423 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 development undergoing urban revitalization is often challenged by disparate land ownership, uncoordinated timing and the need to remediate flooding and erosion hazards and to restore and expand natural areas to provide resilience for a growing population. These lands could especially benefit from a municipally -led urban MESP process that advances ecological design and a systems approach to natural heritage restoration and natural hazard remediation on a comprehensive (sub)watershed basis. The proposed policies for Built -up Areas and Urban Growth Centres are too strictly focused on targets for density and intensification. These areas also need to be liveable, with high quality urban design that addresses stormwater retrofits, urban flood and hazard management and which seeks to mitigate future climate change impacts by planning for a system of open space, urban forest and the incorporation of green building technologies and green infrastructure. The urban MESP approach would be an ideal mechanism to achieve integrated planning for water and hazard management, infrastructure renewal, climate change adaptation and mitigation and natural heritage systems restoration at the broader scale with the implementation of green infrastructure and low impact development at the local scale. The TRCA jurisdiction has a number of flood vulnerable areas (FVA) of existing development that are designated for redevelopment in accordance with the Growth Plan. Through the urban MESP process, opportunities for remediation need to be actively sought and planned for, to manage the risk that comes with more intensification in these FVA. To just "generally direct development away from hazardous lands" is not a realistic option in these situations. TRCA recommends that policies for Building Complete Communities be amended such that: • The definition of "Complete Communities" be revised to add an environmental component; • The policies for restricting development and infrastructure in areas of natural hazards be strengthened; • Growth Plan sections 2.2.1 Managing Growth, 2.2.2 Built -up Areas and 2.2.3 Urban Growth Centres be amended with a stronger emphasis on urban flood management, remediation and the integration with green infrastructure and low impact development techniques for existing Flood Vulnerable Areas; and • New policies be added requiring the completion of an urban Master Environmental Servicing Plan for areas of major urban redevelopment and revitalization to comprehensively address in an integrated manner, issues such as urban flooding and natural hazard remediation, water balance, infrastructure risk assessments and the incorporation of ecological design principles to integrate green infrastructure into an enhanced open space system. 2) Supporting Agriculture TRCA has previously commented on the need for increased flexibility for the agricultural community to promote and enhance rural livelihoods, as well as the need to harmonize the definitions of agriculture and its related activities, with the language used in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014. We are pleased to see that this has largely been captured in the proposed plan amendments, along with other policies to strengthen the viability of the agricultural industry, such as adding new policies for: the identification by the Province of the agricultural system for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH); the identification and promotion of an agricultural support system; and recognizing and providing opportunities to support local food, urban and near -urban agriculture. Clarify the Policy Framework regarding Agricultural Uses and Natural Heritage/Hydrologic Evaluation Exclusions 424 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 CAs have regulatory requirements where NHE/HE or environmental impact studies could still be required to demonstrate compliance with permit applications submitted under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. These study requirements benefit the farmer by helping to ensure that a farmer's investment in new buildings is protected from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. Similarly, Source Protection Plans under the Clean Water Act, 2006 may also require hydrological and hydrogeological assessments for certain future development and buildings, which helps to ensure the safety and quality of public drinking water systems. The policies of the four Plans need to clearly state that requirements of other regulatory agencies may still require environmental studies to be completed. Policies in the Greenbelt Plan that address this need to be added into the Growth Plan. In reviewing the details of the proposed policies, we find that some of the wording and concepts as written, especially in the Growth Plan, are very complex and may lead to unintended consequences and challenges during implementation (policies 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4). In particular, we have identified several issues with respect to the policies that appear to exempt new buildings or structures for agricultural uses, agriculture- related uses and on farm diversified uses that are proposed within the NHS and/or adjacent to key hydrologic features or key natural heritage features, from the requirements of completing a natural heritage evaluation or hydrologic evaluation (NHE/HE). Those uses appear to be subject to demonstrating compliance with a number of criteria, but this too poses several problems. The policies require "demonstration" that a number of criteria be met in order to be exempt from completing an NHE/HE, but no direction is provided on how compliance with the criteria is to be demonstrated. The Province needs to clarify if the required "demonstration" of meeting the criteria is to be achieved through submission of a scoped environmental study, a detailed site plan or some other means. Including on farm diversified uses in this policy is problematic in that these uses are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and may be totally unrelated to the agricultural operations. TRCA has seen instances of environmental impacts taking place from non - agricultural uses such as structures for the storage of heavy machinery or landscaping equipment. The policies that exempt requirements to complete an NHE/HE should be limited to agricultural uses and agriculture- related uses. On farm diversified uses should not be included in this exemption. TRCA recommends that the policies for Supporting Agriculture be revised, clarified and harmonized such that: The potential natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation requirements of other approval authorities be recognized; Clear direction be provided as to what constitutes a "demonstration" of compliance with the criteria that must be met to be exempt from an NHE/HE; and On -farm diversified uses, large scale buildings and structures that meet the threshold for "major development" and the placement/dumping of large amounts of fill (i.e. > 500 m) should continue to be subject to a full NHE/HE, when proposed adjacent to KNHF /KHF. 3) Protecting Natural Heritage and Water TRCA strongly supports the additional text in the Context section of the Growth Plan, Chapter 4 Protecting What is Valuable, which identifies the importance of water resource systems, natural heritage systems and the agricultural system in providing essential ecological goods and services and resilience to climate change. TRCA also strongly supports the new policies requiring municipalities to undertake 425 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 watershed planning to identify and protect a water resources system, including both key hydrologic features and the newly introduced key hydrologic areas. Watershed Plans — Definition and scope need to be clarified and made more robust We find that some of the wording and concepts as written, may lead to unintended consequences and challenges during implementation, and could benefit from refinement, clarity and/or strengthening of the language in various policies. Watershed plans can not only inform the protection of water resources and stormwater management plans, but also help to inform the creation of complete communities by integrating planning for the protection and enhancement of natural heritage systems and addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Further, watershed plans can identify vulnerable infrastructure and development at risk from flooding and erosion hazards, and inform the creation of strategies to reduce risk and protect the investments made in provincial and municipal infrastructure and private developments. The definitions for watershed plans, watershed planning and subwatershed plan need to be harmonized and integrated equally into all four of the documents under review. Most importantly, this needs to include the integration of natural heritage systems (NHS) into all scales of watershed planning. Some definitions are included in some plans and not others. Where definitions are included in multiple plans, they are not always consistent, which may lead to confusion and challenges in implementation. In particular, we are most concerned that the definition for watershed planning does not reference the need to integrate natural heritage systems, as does the definition for subwatershed plan. The identification and integration of natural heritage systems must be done at multiple scales — first at a landscape scale (new proposed policies assign this task to the province, likely to be done as a desk -top level analysis); then refined at the watershed scale (to be done by municipalities in partnership with conservation authorities) based on more detailed assessments including scientific modelling of various natural systems and climate change impacts; and then at the subwatershed scale based on detailed fieldwork and refinement and testing of models for various development scenarios. The identification, protection and enhancement of natural heritage systems and the relationship to natural hazards (flooding and erosion) must be integrated into all scales of watershed planning. There is also a need to recognize the benefits of the NHS in managing water resources and cross - reference to its role in providing green infrastructure and climate resiliency. There should be greater clarity and consistency provided for the expected goals and outcomes of watershed and subwatershed plans, such as requiring the identification of thresholds for unacceptable impacts related to climate change or future growth. The existing language for the goals for watershed plans should be consistent and harmonized across all four Plans to "protect, enhance and restore" the natural environment. There should also be greater recognition of the role of CAs in undertaking the plans and a strengthening of implementation actions through a requirement for provincial approval of watershed plans and municipal approval of subwatershed plans. There is a need for the watershed planning process to recognize the importance of monitoring in adaptively responding to the results of implementation actions. We recognize that some of these suggestions can be addressed within the four Plans, while others may be best addressed in the guideline documents to be prepared by the province. In any event, CAs have a wealth of experience in undertaking integrated watershed plans. We would be pleased to assist the province in the preparation of the guidance documents for integrated watershed planning. Complex Policy Framework for Natural Heritage Systems Sections 4.2.2 (Natural Heritage Systems), 4.2.3 (Key Hydrologic Features, Key Hydrologic Areas and Key Natural Heritage Features) and 4.2.4 (Lands Adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features and Key Natural A . • 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 Heritage Features) appear to be overly complex, confusing and filled with multiple exemptions, alternative approaches and cross - references to multiple other policies. We recommend that these sections be simplified as much as possible and/or that provincial guidance documents address these policies as soon as possible. As an example, Growth Plan policy 4.2.3.2 permits large scale development such as secondary plans, plans of subdivision and condominiums within key hydrologic areas, based on meeting various tests and criteria. However, this policy is then negated by policy 4.2.3.3 which states that the above policy does not apply within settlement area boundaries. It is not clear if this policy relates back to GP policy 2.2.9 Rural Areas, and begs the question as to why new plans of subdivision and condominiums are being permitted outside of settlement areas. Never - the -less, further policy direction is needed when large -scale development is being proposed in key hydrologic areas or natural heritage systems, such that the siting of more pervious land uses in these areas (i.e. parks, schools, open space, natural heritage system enhancement and restoration) is actively considered. It appears that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is assigned the task of mapping a natural heritage system for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Much of this work, at least in the inner ring, has already been completed by a number of municipalities and conservation authorities. TRCA would be pleased to share our data and hope to have the opportunity to collaborate with MNRF during this process. We would also appreciate confirmation that provincial staff will be available to defend this provincial system should it be challenged at the OMB. Excess Soil and Fill The proposed policies that "encourage" municipalities to develop soil reuse strategies and integrate sustainable soil management practices into planning approvals, as well as require the use of best practices for the management of excess fill, amount to the status quo. This continues to be a serious issue for municipalities and CAs alike due to the potential for related environmental, social and traffic impacts, and consideration should be given to strengthening these proposed policies. We understand that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has been studying this issue and developing a regulatory framework or guidelines to assist planning authorities. This should be completed as soon as possible to assist in dealing with this issue and incorporated into strengthened policy direction in the four Plans. Further, clarity should be provided if the placing of excess fill on agricultural lands would be classified as an on farm diversified use, and thus be exempt from an NHE/1-IE, which would be contrary to the new proposed policy. Fill placement should require some means to determine that the activity will cause no adverse environmental effects. TRCA recommends that the policies for Protecting Natural Heritage and Water be revised such that: • The definition, scope and content of Watershed and Subwatershed Plans is harmonized among the four Plans and that they be amended to include clear goals for the protection, enhancement and restoration of Natural Heritage Systems; • The role and expertise of conservation authorities in undertaking watershed plans be acknowledged, especially as it relates to stormwater management and the protection from and remediation of natural hazards; • Growth Plan policies for Natural Heritage Systems, Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features and Lands Adjacent to those Key Features be simplified as much as possible and that 427 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 provincial guidance for understanding and implementing these policies be prepared as soon as possible; and • Excess Soil and Fill policies be strengthened to prohibit filling within Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features, and that a natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation be required for filling adjacent to these features. 4) Growing the Greenbelt TRCA supports the proposal to grow the Greenbelt by adding coastal wetlands, in addition to the 21 urban river valleys added to the Greenbelt. Further, we support an ongoing process to identify and add additional ecologically and hydrologically significant lands to the Greenbelt, as identified through watershed planning. Currently within TRCA watersheds, growth and development is moving further and further up into the headwaters of our major rivers and creeks, with potential serious implications resulting. Downstream Impacts from Headwaters Development Increased impervious surfaces result from continued growth in the upper watersheds, which leads to increased flows in watercourses during major storm events. This in turn increases the risk to downstream communities and infrastructure from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. We have experienced severe storms, which are likely to increase in frequency due to climate change. These storms have eroded the bed and banks of watercourses, exposing buried gas and oil pipelines, water mains and sanitary sewers. Once exposed, this infrastructure is vulnerable to surface flows and potential damage and rupture from in -stream rocks and other objects moving in the strong current. Rupture of and subsequent spills from these pipelines and sewers can cause environmental degradation, contamination of drinking water or the potential for gas line explosions or fires. Streams in the upper reaches of watersheds have limited ability to assimilate the additional flow generated by urbanization. Flood lines downstream are likely to expand due to the increased flows, increasing the number of homes, people, and businesses at risk from the higher depths and velocities of flood flows included within the expanded areas subject to flooding. Areas of Shallow Groundwater Some areas of current growth in the upper reaches of watersheds are vulnerable to shallow groundwater levels of the aquifer that are present near the toe of the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Because shallow groundwater is often not identified until later planning stages (i.e. site plan, building permit), these new developments often require permanent dewatering to limit the interaction between groundwater and basements, foundations or underground parking structures. When groundwater issues are only identified at these late planning stages, permanent dewatering of the aquifer is usually the only feasible solution. Permanent dewatering is a wasteful use of the valuable groundwater resource, and can also increase flooding and erosion downstream as the groundwater is pumped and discharged to surface streams. Further, the lowered water tables that result from permanent dewatering can affect the water availability in the rooting zone of natural features such as woodlands and wetlands, resulting in ecological degradation. Parks, Open Space and Trails TRCA is a leader in the development of trail systems in its watersheds. We currently have developed more than 700 km of trails linking parks, valley systems, the waterfront and communities. This trail system, along with trails of other CAs, should form the foundation of a GGH trail system. These trails provide outdoor recreation linking people to nature and promote healthy lifestyles. Trails should be included as a component of "Complete Communities ". MA 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 The Plans should also provide flexibility for CA lands to respond to changing demands for nature -based recreation and tourism uses, including education and eco- tourism opportunities. Many CA facilities are aging and in need of refurbishment and upgrades to meet new accessibility standards and increased demands from a growing population. CAs require flexibility in the ability to offer public uses complementary to its objectives, in order to generate revenues and achieve financial sustainability to maintain and upgrade its facilities to ensure they operate at the highest standards for environmental protection and accessibility to people of all abilities. TRCA recommends that policies for Growing the Greenbelt be amended such that: • Areas of shallow groundwater and high artesian pressure be included as components of Key Hydrologic Areas to be assessed through watershed planning for additions to the Greenbelt; and • Headwater areas of the rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be seriously considered for additions to the Greenbelt, especially those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber River watersheds; and • Conservation authorities are recognized as critical partners in the GGH for providing trails and outdoor recreational opportunities and that flexibility is provided for the enhancement to facilities and uses permitted on CA lands, to meet the needs of a growing population, accessibility standards and financial sustainability. 5) Addressing Climate Chance TRCA strongly supports the integration of climate change and the related policies throughout the amended Plans. We are pleased to see the proposed policies that require municipalities to incorporate climate change policies in their official plans and undertake comprehensive stormwater management (SWM) planning for settlement areas. We also support the proposed policies that encourage municipalities to increase infrastructure resiliency, use green infrastructure and LID techniques and develop greenhouse gas inventories, emission reduction and adaptation strategies and related targets and performance measures. We also support including as an additional purpose of the Natural Core and Natural Linkage Area designations in the amended ORMCP, the protection and restoration of natural areas to help mitigate and reduce the impacts of climate change. Climate Change Section of Growth Plan Needs Strengthening We note in section 4.2.10 of the Growth Plan that municipalities are required to develop official plan policies addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, but only encouraged to actually implement them, which creates a potential gap in effective implementation. Further, given the importance the province is placing on climate change adaptation and mitigation, resiliency planning and risk vulnerability assessments, section 4.2. 10 appears to be too brief and minimizes, rather than adds to the provincial messaging around climate change. There are many policy references to climate change in the amended Plans which would have more power and urgency if they were to be consolidated into this section and integrated in a comprehensive manner. Need to Integrate Watershed Planning with Climate Change Resilience There is a need to align and coordinate the strategies outlined in Ontario's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) 2016 - 2020, with the GP requirements for watershed planning. There also needs to be a stronger link made in the four Plans between watershed planning and climate resiliency (e.g. Growth Plan 4.2.10). 429 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 For example, watershed planning will identify strategies to help address the impacts of extreme weather events. In addition, watershed planning can play an important role in identifying land -based carbon sequestration and storage opportunities, and in protecting lands with high potential for supporting carbon offset projects through the Province's Climate Change Action Plan, such as land based carbon sequestration in forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural areas. These linkages between watershed planning and climate resiliency need to be made much stronger in the proposed policies. Additionally, GP section 4.2. 10 appears to emphasize mitigation actions over adaptation actions. A reference to the forthcoming Ontario Climate Adaptation Strategy, Climate Ready, would help to remedy this imbalance. TRCA recommends that policies for Addressing Climate Change be amended such that Growth Plan section 4.2.10: • Is strengthened to require official plan policy implementation; • Consolidates, integrates and /or cross - references all other climate change related policies and actions in the four Plans; • Identifies the role integrated watershed planning should play in planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation; and • Ensures coordination with other provincial climate change documents, programs and activities. 6) Integrating Infrastructure TRCA supports the proposed amendments to the Greenbelt Plan section 4.2.3 Stormwater Management and Resilient Infrastructure Policies. This section promotes the use of LID and provides the strong direction that applicable recommendations, standards or targets within a subwatershed plan or equivalent and water budgets are complied with (4.2.3.4 c). Similarly, we support the proposed amendments to the ORMCP that require infrastructure studies to assess actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change impacts, and which also references the need to implement erosion and sediment controls during construction. We also strongly support the proposed new Growth Plan policies for integrated planning for infrastructure that require: vulnerability risk assessments; developing stormwater master plans informed by watershed planning, including examining the cumulative environmental impacts; incorporating LID and green infrastructure; and considering the impacts of climate change. The hydrologic modelling and floodplain mapping of Conservation authorities will be very useful to municipalities for these assessments. Minimizing Impacts from Infrastructure It has been TRCA's experience that the mission of all infrastructure providers is ultimately the same: to provide a public service. These providers look to CAs as partners to ensure their environmental risks are managed. TRCA also views the natural heritage system as an essential public service with equal weight and value among all of the considerations that are a part of city building. The introduction to the Growth Plan speaks to the importance of adapting communities and infrastructure to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Policies in the Plan encourage green infrastructure and low impact development in order to move toward resilience. Therefore, adding greater emphasis in the Plan on the environmental and climate change risks associated with infrastructure, as well as development, on both private and public lands, is appropriate and needed for meeting the intent of the Growth Plan as outlined in its introduction, principles and policies. 430 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 TRCA supports the hierarchy identified in Growth Plan policy 3.2.5.1 d related to infrastructure corridor development and impacts to natural heritage and hydrologic features and systems — avoid, minimize, mitigate. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that residual negative impacts and outright net losses to natural heritage and water resources features and functions continue to occur. We are starting to see a number of progressive municipalities and other infrastructure providers recognize these residual net negative impacts and incorporate a restoration component into their infrastructure plans. A similar policy should be included in each of the four Plans, with a fourth component to be added to the hierarchy — to compensate for, or offset the residual negative impacts through a restoration and enhancement plan as part of the infrastructure development. Following on the point above, we suggest that the permissiveness given to infrastructure corridors regarding impacts to natural heritage/hydrologic features and systems be applicable only to the corridor itself, due to its limited locational flexibility. The accessory uses to the corridor (i.e. parking lots, pumping stations, transmission towers, transit stations, highway interchanges, etc.) have greater flexibility in their location and should be held to a higher standard. TRCA suggests that a policy be added to the Growth Plan that is similar to ORMCP policy 41 (3), which exclude the accessory uses to the infrastructure corridor from being located in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Implementation Clarity for Infrastructure Although integrating infrastructure with land use planning is an imperative for sustainable growth management, the implementation challenge is that infrastructure falls under an array of legislative processes and is under the purview of a number of different approval authorities. Therefore, the Growth Plan should be clear in its references to infrastructure, development, and environmental assessment, distinguishing between and to where it applies: i.e. public infrastructure that falls under an Environmental Assessment Act process; privately constructed infrastructure that falls within the Planning Act process; or where it applies to both. The policies should also be clear as to which proponent(s) the implementation of the policies rest with: the Province (e.g., MOECC, Metrolinx), municipalities (e.g., upper, single or lower tier) or both; and in the case of conflict, be specific about which body's plans prevail, (e.g., Metrolinx, versus upper tier municipal master plans, versus lower tier municipal master plans). GP policy 5.2.3.1 states that a coordinated approach will be taken to implement the Plan among all public agencies for issues that cross municipal boundaries. We suggest that coordination is also needed across different legislative processes that affect growth such as the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the section 28 regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act. Growth Plan implementation would further benefit from specific reference in 5.2.3 to coordination across these processes. It is important to point out that under section 14 (1) of the Places to Grow Act, decisions pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act must conform to the Growth Plan. Stormwater Management in the Connecting Major River Valleys of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside TRCA sees policy 4.2.3.3 in the Greenbelt Plan, regarding the location of stormwater management ponds, as unclear and which would benefit from further guidance, including locational mapping, as well as much stronger policy direction. We believe that the lands subject to this policy are the Greenbelt "fingers" which extend through the "whitebelt" lands of potential future urban areas. These lands are differentiated from Urban River Valley (URV) lands in that they are designated as Protected Countryside and are almost fully overlaid by the Natural Heritage System. On the ground, these lands include the major connecting river valleys as well as additional lands on either side of the natural feature, which are currently often active agricultural lands. We understand the purpose of these important Greenbelt "finger" natural corridors is for several reasons: protection of the existing features and functions; connecting the Greenbelt to the Lake Ontario shoreline; restoration opportunities to enhance the natural system and buffer it from 431 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 future adjacent urban development; and, to increase resilience to both the natural system and the downstream communities from potential flooding and erosion impacts due to climate change and urban development in headwater areas. In the way that GB policy 4.2.3.3 is currently being interpreted and implemented, these additional GB natural heritage system lands adjacent to the valley feature, are facing increasing pressures to accommodate uses such as stormwater ponds and their outfalls, trails, low impact development facilities, access roads and infrastructure crossings, most of which require significant amounts of grading and compaction of soils. The Greenbelt is a landscape where urban development is not supposed to take place. TRCA suggests that it is necessary to place limits on the type and amount of accessory infrastructure uses and facilities serving the adjacent future urban development that can/should be permitted in these major river valley corridors. We suggest that this policy be revised and clarified to require the majority of these natural heritage system lands to be restored and enhanced to natural self - sustaining vegetation; and to specify that stormwater pond locations are subject to siting criteria such as being located above the stable top of bank and outside of KNHF, KHF and their vegetation protection zones and hazardous lands. TRCA recommends that policies for Integrating Infrastructure be amended such that: • A new policy be added to the Growth Plan requiring the applicable recommendations, standards or targets within a subwatershed plan and water budgets are complied with; • Policies for green infrastructure and low impact development are clarified to state that these techniques should be considered on both private and public lands; • Infrastructure policies are strengthened to require restoration and enhancement plans to offset negative impacts and that accessory uses to infrastructure corridors be located outside of key environmental features and hazardous lands; • Infrastructure policies are clarified with respect to implementation roles and legislative authorities; and • Policies are clarified and strengthened to increase restoration and enhancement requirements and limit the types and amounts of stormwater management and other infrastructure uses allowed in the connecting major river valley "fingers" and Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Protected Countryside. 71 Improving Plan Implementation TRCA generally supports the harmonization that has been done among the four Plans and the PPS as this will help to create consistency and minimize confusion in policy interpretation where the geography of several Plans overlaps. We also support the intention by the province to produce guidance materials for several topics including watershed planning, stormwater management, identification of Key Hydrologic Areas and for developing greenhouse gas inventories, targets and emissions reduction strategies. TRCA believes that there are a number of additional changes needed both within the four Plans and to other legislation to facilitate effective implementation of the Plans. This includes recognizing within the four Plans the roles of Conservation Authorities in Plan implementation. It also requires changes to other Acts and the implementation of the "complementary recommendations" from the provincially appointed Advisory Panel. Recognizing the Role of Conservation Authorities in Plan Implementation The role of conservation authorities in helping to deliver various aspects of the implementation of the four Provincial Plans is not specifically stated. CAs are active in: facilitating watershed planning; defining natural heritage systems, natural hazards and mapping under individual Regulations; climate change 432 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9. 2016 vulnerability risk assessments; stormwater management, flood and erosion management, and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and aquatic systems. In addition, the role of CAs in facilitating collaborative watershed planning through all of its phases (building partnerships, watershed characterization, impact assessment, developing mitigation and implementation strategies, monitoring, evaluating and updating) should be recognized. Conservation Authorities should be specifically identified as partners in helping to implement these Plans. As an example, Growth Plan section 4.2 Policies for Protecting What is Paluahle should recognize the role that CAs play in natural heritage and hazard protection, and acknowledge that it is a shared responsibility and not solely undertaken by municipalities. The Growth Plan provides one reference to conservation authorities (section 4.2.1 Water Resource Systems) indicating that "municipalities, partnering with conservation authorities as appropriate, will ensure that watershed planning is undertaken..." As numerous amendments will impact the operational roles of CAs, CA expertise and information will be increasingly relied upon to implement these Plans. To ensure better integration and operationalization of the plans, the role of Conservation Authorities should be clearly acknowledged throughout the four Plans. The Province is encouraged to consider and acknowledge the CAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) as partners in achieving the complex and integrated objectives of the four Plans, and to leverage CA knowledge and expertise for greater efficiencies in Plan implementation. Further, conservation authorities have close and unique relationships with the municipal governments and communities of the GGH, which the GGH CAs can utilize to support implementation of the four plans through outreach activities. The GGH CAs can support the Government of Ontario in implementing both the objectives outlined in the amended Plans, as well as many of the recommendations in the Advisory Panel Report that need to be operationalized in other ways. In this context, some examples of activities that GGH CAs could lead on behalf of the province include the following: • Design and implementation of monitoring programs to measure outcomes of the four plans, and analysis of monitored data; • Reporting and communication regarding the outcomes of the four plans including inventorying activities being undertaken towards plan outcomes; • Development of technical guidance for activities and innovations prescribed in the plans, such as watershed planning, innovative stormwater management and Low Irnpact Development, green infrastructure, and natural heritage systems; and • Delivery of outreach and education programs to various groups and audiences on the intent, interpretation and application of the four plans, including municipal governments, community groups and stakeholder organizations. Amendments to Other Acts, Plans As described above, many of the proposed amendments to the Plans focus on, and will rely on, conservation authority knowledge and expertise. It is important that the current review of the Conservation Authorities Act results in recognizing and supporting CAs as one of the valuable implementation agents of the four Plans. The concurrent review of the CA Act and the four Plans (as well as the upcoming review of the environmental assessment process) presents an ideal opportunity to harmonize policy and regulation frameworks to most effectively facilitate the outcomes that the Provincial Plan revisions intend. 433 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 Further, CAs have an interest in ensuring that the proposed enhanced policy direction in the Provincial Plans related to watershed planning, ecological and hydrological protection, natural hazards and climate change adaptation and mitigation are implemented efficiently and without the need to participate in costly and potentially numerous Ontario Municipal Board hearings. As the proposed Provincial Plan amendments will not be appealable, municipal conformity amendments to incorporate the policies into Official Plans and zoning by -laws should be similarly shielded from appeal. The transition provisions of the ORMC Plan and Act need to be amended. Applications submitted under the Planning Act prior to the promulgation of the ORMCP (2001), where no decision has been made, should no longer be exempt from complying with the full suite of policies in the ORMCP. More importantly, the ORMC Act should also be amended to require that approvals issued prior to the ORMCP coming into effect and not yet acted upon, be revised and subject to the full Plan, or at minimum the section 48 prescribed provisions. Examples continue to arise across the ORM of subdivisions approved in the 1970s, BOs and `90s that permit development in wetlands and other significant environmental features. Further to the above point, policies 5.2.8.2 and 5.2.8.3 of the Growth Plan contain provisions for including a "lapsing date" for draft plans of subdivision approved under the Planning Act and for deeming approved plans not to be a registered plan after eight years if they remain unbuilt and do not meet the growth management objectives of the Growth Plan. A similar policy should be included in the ORM and Greenbelt Plans, and applied retroactively, requiring plans to be deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision, and to amend site - specific designations and zoning accordingly, if the environmental objectives of those Plans are not met. Additionally, strong provincial guidance is required related to the timing, submission and integration of technical reports necessary to support the approval of Planning Act applications in accordance with the four Plans and the PPS. We are finding increasingly that technical report submissions are incomplete, uncoordinated or deferred to later stages in the planning process where decisions have already been made, with little opportunity to address the environmental issues associated with an application. This rushed timeline for approvals, that often leads to "planning by OMB ", without sufficient technical detail to understand the environmental issues associated with an application and to recommend alternative solutions, undermines public faith in the development approvals process and leads to preventable, future remediation costs being home by public agencies. Addressing Advisory Panel "Complementary" Recommendations TRCA appreciates that the Province has made serious efforts to address in some manner all of the primary recommendations from the Crombie Advisory Panel report. Recognizing that many of the other recommendations will need to be made outside of the policies of the four Plans, we strongly recommend that the Province act as quickly as possible to implement the "complementary" recommendations from the Advisory Panel report. Significant Provincial support is required for effective and consistent Plan implementation. CAs have considerable experience in many of these areas and we strongly recommend that the Province involves and consults with CAs in acting on these complementary recommendations. Topic areas of greatest urgency to address include the creation and issuance by the Province of: "Practitioners Guidance" to assist with implementation and interpretation challenges; technical bulletins and guidelines, particularly with regard to watershed planning, natural heritage and water resources system identification, mapping and policy interpretation; and, guidance for alternative development standards for both greenfield and intensification lands, including the incorporation of green infrastructure and low impact development techniques on both private and public lands. 434 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 TRCA recommends that policies in the four Plans be amended and other means for Improving Plan Implementation be addressed such that: • The role of Conservation Authorities in implementing the four Plans is more strongly identified in the Plans as well as in the concurrent review of the Conservation Authorities Act; • Municipal official plan conformity amendments to implement the four Plans be shielded from appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board; • The transition provisions in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Act be strengthened and that the lapsing provisions included in the Growth Plan for approved but unbuilt plans of subdivision, also be included in the Greenbelt and ORM Plans; • Strong guidance materials and requirements for the content, timing and completeness of technical reports in support of development applications be developed by the Province and adhered to during an OMB process; and • Advisory panel recommendations to create guidance materials and technical bulletins to improve clarity and consistency in Plan implementation be acted upon immediately, with involvement from implementation partners, including Conservation Authorities. 8) Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement TRCA agrees strongly with the need to measure performance of the policies in the Plans, including for the outcomes of policy implementation such as changes to environmental quality. We also agree with the need to promote awareness of the Plan policies, as well as the impacts of growth and the measures needed to achieve complete, sustainable and healthy communities. We further agree that all segments of civil society need to be engaged in the implementation of the Plans and the monitoring of outcomes. Many Conservation Authorities have considerable experience in monitoring environmental conditions and delivering outreach, education and locally tailored stewardship and engagement programs to multiple client groups. Provincial programs for the four Plans should build on existing monitoring and outreach efforts being undertaken by Conservation Authorities, including CA watershed report cards. These programs should also include provincial funding and be consistent across the geography of the four Plans. TRCA would be pleased to offer our assistance and experience to the Province in the development and implementation of these types of programs. TRCA recommends that the applicable recommendations from the Advisory Panel report for Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement be acted on by the Province as quickly as possible, with involvement from and building on similar programs undertaken by Conservation Authorities. 9) Definitions Clear, concise and accurate definitions are critical to ensure the Plans are implemented as intended. It is also very important that the terminology be consistent across all four Plans, in order to eliminate confusion and challenges to policy interpretation at the OMB. In that regard, we have identified in the attached table of detailed comments a number of problematic definitions, along with suggested revisions. TRCA recommends that the definitions included in the four Plans be amended to be consistent among each of the Plans and that they be refined or corrected as identified in the attached table of detailed comments. 435 4 Plan Coordinated Review - TRCA Comments September 9, 2016 Further information and specific recommendations relating to the comments above are detailed in the attached table. Should you have any questions or require clarification on any of the comments submitted, please contact David Burnett, at 416 - 661 -6600, ext. 5361, or email to dburnett(d),trca.on.ca. Sincerely, Carolyn Woodland, GALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Attachment 2 1. BUILDING COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Urban Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) • TRCA recommends applying the MESP concept for large -scale development in existing urban areas through a Growth Plan mandated "urban MESP ". Many of the (sub)watershed and stormwater management (SWM) plan requirements (GBP 3.2.3.2; GP 3.2.1, 3.2.6.2c, 3.2.71a, 4.2.1; ORMCP 24) appear to be directed toward greenfield areas and not the existing built -up areas subject to provincial intensification targets. Many intensifying urban areas are within flood hazards and will need significant infrastructure upgrades to accommodate growth, including flood remediation and SWM. An urban MESP would be an ideal mechanism to integrate planning for water and hazard management, infrastructure renewal and natural heritage systems at a broader scale with green infrastructure and low impact development (LID) implementation at the local scale. Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the Growth Plan should be amended to emphasize that flood management and remediation (including integration with green infrastructure, natural heritage system enhancements and LID) are needed in many intensifying urban areas. Furthermore, additional policies should be included within these sections to require an urban MESP for large -scale development in these areas. Broadening the definition of "Complete Communities" • The definition of Complete Communities should include references to natural heritage and water systems. Both systems are fundamental components of complete communities in that the ecosystem services they provide are essential to a high quality of life, particularly in urban and urbanizing areas. Other considerations that could be incorporated include: green infrastructure, greenspace, walkability and transit access, low carbon lifestyles, food security, etc. • The relationship between Complete Communities and Net Zero Communities needs to be clarified. A community should not be considered "complete" unless it can meet its energy demands through low- carbon or carbon -free forms of energy sourced as much as possible from local renewable energy installations. Although both terms are important and must be captured within the text of the plans, the definitions should be integrated or cross - referenced. Protection from Natural Hazards • The Growth Plan requires enhanced policy direction to ensure its intensification targets do not translate into increased development pressure within or adjacent to natural features and their associated hazard lands or in areas of high drinking water vulnerability. Whereas s. 2.1 clarifies the importance of locating growth outside of hazard lands to protect public safety and mitigate flood risk (including special policy areas [SPAS], in accordance with the PPS), policy 2.2.1.2j states only that growth should be generally directed away from hazardous lands. We recommend the policy be amended to state that, other than unavoidable crossings for public infrastructure approved within hazardous lands, new development and infrastructure should not be permitted within hazardous lands, including those designated as SPAS in accordance with the PPS. — GP 2.1, 2.2.1.2j Eco- Business Zones and Eco - Industrial Areas • The policies in s. 2.2.5 of the Growth Plan should encourage the adoption of new planning paradigms for employment lands such as eco- business zones and eco- industrial areas in growth centres and other urban areas. Eco- business zones are areas of employment and /or industrial activity that promote environmental quality, economic vitality and social benefits through the continuum of planning, design, construction, long -term operations and deconstruction. Such developments improve inter - business collaboration and synergies, which lead to enhanced low- carbon transportation options for employees, material exchanges, district scale infrastructure projects, green technologies, and resource efficient and resilient employment areas. 437 2. SUPPORTING AGRICULTURE Agricultural Exemptions for Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Evaluations (NHE /HE) • The Plans need to ensure that the policies align with TRCA's regulatory authority, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA). CAs have regulatory requirements where NHEs /HEs or environmental impact studies (EIS) may still be required to demonstrate compliance with permit submissions under the CAA. Many CAs also have established policies prohibiting new development (and certain forms of redevelopment) within hazardous lands associated with KNHFs /HSFs. As written, the policy language may cause confusion and frustration for landowners and CA staff alike. TRCA staff recommends revising the policies to acknowledge that CAs have regulations that may apply within the area of influence of KNHFs /HSFs which must be considered in relation to these policies. - GP 4.2.4.4c; ORMCP 22.4, 22.5, 26.(4.1), 26.(4.2); GBP 3.2.5.8 • Further to the above point, GBP policy 3.2.2.6 and text from policy 5.4, paragraph 6, should be added to sections 4.2 and 5.2.1 of the Growth Plan. • In associated policies exempting agricultural uses from NHE /HE requirements, part of the policy properly reflects that other approval authorities may have requirements which need to be met ( ORMCP 22.[5] 6 and 26.[4.2] 6; GBP 3.2.5.8f). This phrase "or other approval authority" is missing in the similar policy in the Growth Plan and should be added to GP 4.2.4.4 c) vi. • The policies require "demonstration" that a number of criteria be met in order to be exempt from completing an NHE /HE. No direction is provided on how compliance with the criteria is to be demonstrated. This would almost seem to require a scoped natural heritage /hydrologic evaluation to justify the exemption, thus defeating the purpose of the policy. The Province needs to clarify if the required "demonstration" of meeting the criteria is to be achieved through submission of a scoped environmental study, a detailed site plan or some other means. - GBP 3.2.5.8; GP 4.2.4.4c; ORMCP 22.4, 22.5, 26.(4.1), 26.(4.2) • GBP 3.2.5.8, GP 4.2.4.4 c) and ORMCP 22.5 and 26.(4.2) need to have text added to clarify that "all of the following requirements must be met to be exempt from completing a NHE /HE. • Including on -farm diversified uses in the NHE /HE exemption policy is problematic in that these uses are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and may be totally unrelated to the agricultural operations. TRCA has seen instances of environmental impacts taking place from non - agricultural uses such as structures for the storage of heavy machinery or landscaping equipment. The policies that exempt requirements to complete an NHE /HE should be limited to agricultural uses and agriculture - related uses. On -farm diversified uses should not be included in this exemption. • The policies exempting agricultural (and related) uses and associated structural development from NHEs (GP 4.2.4.4c; ORMCP 22.4, 22.5, 26.[4.1], 26.[4.2]; GBP 3.2.5.8) should be revised to emphasize that, in accordance with applicable source protection plans under the Clean Water Act (2006), hydrogeological assessments may still be required and development prohibitions could still apply. 3. PROTECTING NATURAL HERITAGE AND WATER Integrating Natural Heritage Systems (NHS) in Watershed Planning • Best practices require subwatershed plans to be integrated with NHS protection, however, this linkage is not reflected in the definitions of watershed plan or watershed planning. The NHS has a critical role in water (and ecosystem) management and should be integrated into each scale of watershed planning, including their associated definitions. This integration should also recognize the benefits of the NHS in managing water resources and cross - reference to its role as a form of green infrastructure. - GP 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2; ORMCP 24.3, GBP 3.2, 3.2.3.2 • Policies 5.2.2.2c and 5.2.2.2d of the Growth Plan indicate that the Province will identify, establish, or update NHS mapping and will provide guidance on watershed planning. However, it is not clear whether mapping of the NHS (GP 4.2.2, 5.2.2.2c) will be integrated into the (sub) watershed planning processes (GP 4.2.1). As emphasized in the GBP (3.2.1.3), ecological linkages exist between terrestrial and water -based functions and are joint components of the Natural System (3.2.1.3). Given this synergistic relationship, NHS mapping should form an integral part of watershed planning. nVoe • The language used in the Water Resources Policies section of the GBP (3.2.3), i.e., that, "all planning authorities shall provide for a comprehensive, integrated and long -term approach for the protection, improvement, or restoration of the quality and quantity of water" could be integrated into the Natural Heritage Policies section (3.2.2), because water resource systems are dependent on the integrity of the natural system (and vice versa). - GBP 3.2.2, 3.2.3 Watershed Planning Scope, Implementation and Adaptive Management • (Sub)watershed planning is required to "inform" decisions on growth, development, settlement area boundary expansions, and planning for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure (GBP 3.2.3.2; GP 3.2.1, 3.2.6.2c, 3.2.71a, 4.2.1; ORMCP 24). Clearer goals and outcomes for ( sub)watershed plans are needed to demonstrate their intended use, including stronger language and consistent thresholds for unacceptable impacts. In the Growth Plan, certain policies speak to a goal of 'no negative impact' (4.2.1.2), while others seek to 'protect, enhance or restore' (3.2.6.4, 4.2.1.1) and, in some, a goal is not identified (3.2.1.2, 3.2.7.1a, 4.2.5viii). We recommend a consistent goal be established for (sub)watershed plans to "protect, enhance and restore" and this goal be applied where (sub)watershed plans inform land use planning decisions. - GP 3.2.1.2, 3.2.6.4, 3.2.7.1a, 3.2.7.2a, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.5viii • It is not clear what role the Province will play in (sub)watershed plan funding, approval and implementation. Stronger implementation actions that require provincial approval of watershed plans and municipal approval of subwatershed plans are needed. These actions could be incorporated as additional policies within the respective "Implementation" sections of the plans (i.e., s. 5.2 of the GP). The Province should also describe the funding mechanisms that will enable (sub)watershed plans to be undertaken and implemented throughout the entire planning cycle and consider providing financial support to CAs and municipalities to fund the development and implementation of these plans. • The role of CAs in the development of (sub) watershed plans should be clarified and acknowledged. CAs have the knowledge, experience, data and watershed jurisdictions required to support municipalities in effectively implementing the plans, as referenced in Growth Plan (4.2.1) and GBP (3.2.3.2). As noted in policy 3.2.3.3 of the GBP, cross - jurisdictional and watershed impacts need to be considered in the development of watershed plans. A single municipality will have difficulty developing a watershed plan because watershed boundaries generally traverse multiple municipalities, whereas CAs are well - positioned to consider cumulative effects and can facilitate upstream and downstream collaboration. Policy 5.2.2.2d of the Growth Plan indicates that the Province will prepare watershed planning guidance documents. We would like to assist the Province in the development of guidance documents. • The full adaptive cycle of Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) was emphasized by the Advisory Panel (Recommendation 41) but has not been explicitly referenced in the definition or apparent intent of (sub) watershed planning in the amended plans. IWM brings together all the components needed to make informed land use planning decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of those decisions. IWM considers NHS planning and sustainability, climate change, natural hazard management and other related issues. Watershed plans are updated based on lessons learned from previous plans and are adjusted if previous objectives and targets are not achieved, a cycle that is critical to effective watershed planning. The definition of watershed planning should reflect the full adaptive cycle of IWM, including planning, implementation, monitoring, reporting, and adjustments. Complex NHS Policy Framework • Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan are very complex as they are filled with multiple exemptions, alternative approaches, and cross - references to various policies. For instance, Growth Plan policy 4.2.3.2 permits large scale development (i.e., secondary plans, subdivisions, condominiums) within Key Hydrologic Areas (KHAs), provided various tests are met. However, this policy is negated by 4.2.3.3 which states that it doesn't apply in settlement areas. This gives rise to the question of whether, in fact, new subdivisions, etc. are permitted outside settlement areas. • Further to the comment above, additional policy direction is needed regarding large -scale development in KHAs or NHS, such that more pervious land uses in these areas (i.e. parks, open space, NHS enhancement /restoration) is considered. • The Province needs to clarify if the required "demonstration" of meeting the criteria is to be achieved through submission of a scoped environmental study, a detailed site plan or some other means; GBP 3.2.5.8; GP 4.2.4.4c; ORMCP 22.4, 22.5, 26.(4.1), 26.(4.2); • GBP 3.2.5.8, GP 4.2.4.4 c) and ORMCP 22.5 and 26.(4.2) need to have text added to clarify that "all of the following requirements must be met to be exempt from completing a NHE /HE. 439 • In associated policies exempting agricultural uses from NHE /HE requirements, part of the policy properly reflects that other approval authorities may have requirements which need to be met ( ORMCP 22. (5) 6 and 26. (4.2) 6); Greenbelt Plan 3.2.5.8 f). This phrase "or other approval authority" is missing in the similar policy in the Growth Plan and should be added to GP 4.2.4.4 c) vi. Excess Soil /Large -Scale Fill • The policies encouraging municipalities to develop soil reuse strategies and integrate sustainable soil management practices amount to the status quo ( ORMCP 36.1; GP 4.2.9.3, 4.2.9.4; GBP 3.4.2.5, 3.4.2.6). Policy language must be strengthened to prohibit large -scale fill within KNHFs /KHF; "require" soil reuse strategies; and /or, include a clear legislative provision requiring compliance for large -scale fill operations (i.e., CA permits, Site Plan approval). • Clarification is needed to confirm if placing fill on agricultural lands qualifies as an on farm diversified use and, if so, whether it could be exempt from requiring an NHE /HE, as per the policies in 4.2.4.4c of the Growth Plan; 22.4, 22.5, 26.(4.1), 26.(4.2) of the ORMCP and 3.2.5.8 of the GBP. This could potentially contravene policies 4.2.4.4c (i -v) of the Growth Plan and 3.2.5.8 (a -f) of the GBP and may not align well with the new policies requiring best practices for excess soil and fill management to ensure environmental impacts are minimized ( ORMCP 36.1; GP 4.2.7.3; GBP 3.4.2.5, 3.4.2.6). Depending on site - specific circumstances, the placement of "large -scale fill" (i.e., >500m3) should continue to be subject to a full NHE /HE. Planning and Implementing a Natural Heritage and Green Infrastructure Support Network • As LID and green infrastructure are to be incorporated into plans for SWM and major recreational uses (GP 3.2.7.1c, 3.2.7.2b; ORMCP 38.2f, 41.1.2d, 45.02b), guidance materials should be produced immediately to assist with implementation. Additionally, a sustainable funding model is needed to support municipal investment in the maintenance, renewal and improvement of green infrastructure and other flood remediation measures. Opportunities to incent municipalities to embrace these measures should also be explored (e.g., development charge levies, Planning Act s. 37 benefits). • By definition, the NHS is recognized as a component of green infrastructure. Moreover, municipalities are now required to develop SWM plans for settlement areas "informed" by watershed planning (GP 3.2.7.1a; GBP 4.2.3.1; ORMCP 45.02a) and incorporate green infrastructure (Growth Plan 3.2.7.1c; GBP 4.2.3.1; ORMCP 41.1.2d, 45.0.2b). If the intent is to incorporate green infrastructure into (sub)watershed planning processes, clarification is needed to identify the most appropriate level of implementing green infrastructure (i.e., through watershed and /or subwatershed planning). Ecological Enhancement /Compensation • A substantial portion of natural cover (and ecosystem services) throughout the GGH has been impacted or significantly depleted. The loss of any feature through development and site alteration should, therefore, be taken very seriously. Removal of natural features not identified as KNHFs /KHFs can still have a negative impact on the broader Natural System. In some instances, a viable option is to compensate for the lost feature through ecological restoration or compensation elsewhere. We recommend policies 4.2.2.4 b)iii of the Growth Plan and 3.2.2.3 of the GBP be revised to emphasize that, where removal of natural features not identified as KNHFs /HSFs cannot be avoided, restoration and /or compensation is encouraged and should be considered. • Policies 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan, 21 -23 of the ORMCP, and 3.2.2, 3.2.5 of the GBP focus on the identification and protection of existing ecologically "significant" features within the NHS. The plans should provide stronger protection for natural heritage features that are outside the NHS such that they should be protected, restored and enhanced. • Growth Plan policies 4.2.4.1 should clarify that vegetation protection zones extend 30m outward from their defined limits, in accordance with provincial guidance materials established to delineate their extent (i.e., MNRF's Natural Heritage Reference Manual). • Weak language for the protection of KHAs and the NHS in s. 2 of the Growth Plan through the use of phrases such as "where possible" (2.2.8.2f) and "provided development is prohibited in these areas" (2.2.7.3a) potentially undermines the stronger environmental protection policies of s. 4 of the Growth Plan (i.e., "no negative impacts" [4.2.2.4bi] and "not permitted" [4.2.3.1]). This may create confusion in policy interpretation and set the stage for OMB challenges. M 4. GROWING THE GREENBELT Urban River Valleys (URVs) • Exempting private lands from URV policies will lead to a discontinuous patchwork of lands becoming the external river valley connections from the Greenbelt to Lake Ontario. This approach does not align with the "systems" approach to NHS protection advocated throughout the PPS and GBP. As the intent of this amendment is to recognize and protect these external valley corridors as a key component of the Natural System, TRCA recommends the URV designation includes both public and private lands. - GBP 6.2.1 • As a result of continued growth in the upper watersheds of TRCA's jurisdiction, increased impervious surface has led to higher depths and velocities of flow through watercourses during major storms, translating into greater flood and erosion risk and higher infrastructure costs for downstream communities. Section 5.7.1 of the GBP indicates that the Province is exploring opportunities to grow the Greenbelt. We recommend headwater areas of the rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be considered for inclusion into the Greenbelt, particularly those headwater areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as in the Carruthers Creek and Rouge and Humber River watersheds. Areas of Shallow Groundwater and High Artesian Pressure • GBP policies 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2 indicate that the Province will build upon the systems approach of the plans and lead a process of potentially expanding the Greenbelt by working with CAs to identify areas that could provide additional protection to sensitive areas from development pressures. TRCA staff recommend that, prior to this process being undertaken, s. 3.2.4 be amended to identify areas of shallow groundwater and high artesian pressure as KHAs; and, that s. 5.7.1 be amended to include these areas, as assessed through watershed planning, for additions to the Greenbelt. Parks, Open Spaces and Trails - Developing a Comprehensive Trail Plan for the Greenbelt • In accordance with complementary recommendations # 4 of the Advisory Panel report, a trail plan for the GBP should be developed to provide direction on locations, connections, uses and community benefits, including those in URV lands. As one of the largest title holders of natural areas within the plan areas, TRCA would be pleased to assist the Province in this work. • Many proposed URV lands traverse urban areas that are degraded from multiple uses (i.e., parks, trails, overuse, etc.). The GBP recognizes that parks, open spaces and trails are components of complete communities, however the broad objectives of the GBP aimed at protecting natural systems may not be as effective within a specific urban context. In accordance with complementary recommendations # 45 and 87 of the Advisory Panel report, management plans should be developed for these areas that include funding for programs, local stewardship, and educational materials to promote their protection, enhancement, and wise use. • S. 4.2.5 of the Growth Plan encourages municipalities, CAs and non - governmental organizations to develop public open spaces. The language within this section could be strengthened by including policies similar to those provided in s. 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the GBP. S. ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE Integrating Climate Change Throughout the Plans • The policies in s. 4.2.10 (Climate Change) of the Growth Plan should be amended to "require" municipal implementation. Although municipal Official Plans must contain climate change policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change adaptation goals, municipalities are only "encouraged" to implement them, thus creating a potential implementation gap. • Given the emphasis on climate change mitigation and adaptation throughout the plans, s. 4.2.10 appears to be too brief and vague. The importance and urgency of climate change mitigation and adaptation would be evoked further if tied back to the policies in this section. For example, the term 'resilient /resiliency' is frequently mentioned with regard to infrastructure, LID, SWM, and the protection of natural systems, yet these important policy references are largely absent in GP 4.2.10. - GP 1.1, 1.2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2.10; GBP 1.2.2, 4.2. 441 By definition, the Growth Plan considers 'climate change impacts and severe weather events', however, the importance of watershed planning in climate change resiliency does note resonate in s. 4.2.10.Watershed planning plays a pivotal role in identifying land -based carbon sequestration and storage opportunities, and in protecting lands with the potential to support projects that off -set carbon through the Province's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) 2016- 2020. The linkages between watershed planning, climate resiliency and the strategies outlined in the CCAP should be evident in s. 4.2.10. • Policy 4.2.10.2 could be expanded to incorporate actions that go beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as low impact landscape -based SWM design, to help manage increased rainfall and frequency of storm events; retrofitting of SWM ponds; enhancing and restoring the NHS; mitigation of risks from hazardous where there is existing development in hazardous lands, etc. • Growth Plan policy 5.2.2.1 should be expanded to include guidance on climate change information, requirements, modelling and decision - making. 6. INTEGRATING INFRASTRUCTURE Policy Requirements for Infrastructure Activities • As noted above, enhanced policy direction mandating urban MESPs is needed for large -scale development and associated infrastructure in existing urban areas to ensure built -up areas benefit from comprehensive and integrated planning to address SWM and climate change impacts. The phrase "or their equivalent" should be amended to require urban MESPs as a component of integrated planning (i.e., GP 2.2.8.2c,d,e, 3.2.6c„ 3.2.7.1, 3.2.7.2,4.2.1.3; GBP 3.2.3.5, 4.2.3.4c). • The permissive policies for Infrastructure Corridors in s. 3.2.5 of the Growth Plan regarding impacts to natural heritage /hydrologic features and systems should only apply to the corridor itself. Accessory uses (i.e. parking lots, pump stations, transmission towers, transit stations, highway interchanges) have greater flexibility in their location and should be held to more restrictive criteria, similar to those in policy 41.3 of the ORMCP. Furthermore, a fourth component should be added to the "avoid, minimize, mitigate" hierarchy of unavoidable environmental impacts identified in policy 3.2.5.1d of the Growth Plan —to "compensate for" or "offset" residual negative impacts through restoration and enhancement. • Where possible, active transportation utilizing open space and trail systems should be incorporated into infrastructure corridors to strengthen intermodality (e.g., multi -use trails along highway corridors that link to other trail systems). - GP 3.2.5 • Policies 3.2.5.1d of the Growth Plan and 4.2.1.2e of the GBP should be revised so that once the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., avoid, minimize, mitigate) has been exhausted, environmental impacts from infrastructure development are compensated for through ecological restoration. - GP 3.2.5.1d; GBP 4.2.1.2e • The Growth Plan could further integrate infrastructure and land use planning by having some policies that currently apply only to development, apply to infrastructure as well. For example, policy 2.2.1.2j could be expanded to generally direct development and infrastructure away from hazardous lands, in accordance with s. 3.1.3 of the PPS. We recognize that some development has historically existed within the NHS and some linear infrastructure must often cross the natural system, which can lead to unavoidable risk associated with natural hazards. As such, we recommend a policy be added to ensure that, where development and infrastructure must be located within hazardous lands, risk is avoided, minimized or mitigated in accordance with s. 3.1.7c of the PPS. • Policy 41.2.2i of the ORMCP indicates that a pre- requisite of approval for infrastructure in or on land in natural linkage areas is demonstrating best efforts to ensure "right of way widths will be kept to the minimum that is consistent with meeting other objectives such as SWM and erosion and sediment control ". The exact intent of the policy is unclear and makes no mention of LID as a method of SWM. The policy could be revised as follows, "Right of way widths will be minimized to the greatest extent possible to be consistent with: i) erosion and sediment controls and LID techniques for SWM; and, ii) locating as much infrastructure uses within a single corridor as possible ". • The policy requirements for infrastructure activities in s. 41 of the ORMCP should have clearer direction regarding how to "demonstrate the need" for infrastructure projects and "no reasonable alternative ", key tests to allow infrastructure in natural core /linkage areas. An increasing number of Environmental Assessments (EAs) for large infrastructure projects (e.g., major highways, pipelines) potentially cut across natural features. These projects must be thoroughly assessed for need, location and alternatives to minimize environmental impacts and reduce urban sprawl. Additionally, policy requirements should be added to provide enhancement and ecological compensation when KNHFs /HSFs are impacted by infrastructure planning /siting. 442 • Policy 4.2.3.3 in the GBP, regarding the location of SWM ponds in Greenbelt "fingers' is unclear and would benefit from further guidance, including locational mapping, as well as stronger policy direction. These GB natural heritage system lands adjacent to the valley feature, are facing increasing pressures to accommodate uses such as stormwater ponds and their outfalls, trails, LID facilities, access roads and infrastructure crossings, most of which require significant amounts of grading and compaction of soils. There should be limits on the type and amount of accessory infrastructure uses and facilities serving the adjacent future urban development that can /should be permitted in these major river valley corridors. We suggest that this policy be revised and clarified to require the majority of these NHS lands to be restored and enhanced to natural self- sustaining vegetation — we suggest 75 %; and to specify that stormwater pond locations are subject to siting criteria such as being located above the stable top of bank and outside of KNHF, KHF and their vegetation protection zones and hazardous lands. The policy should specify what uses are permitted in the remaining 25% and could include: a. Stormwater pond Outfalls; b. Facilities required to convey and release flows to maintain water balance to natural features; and c. Trails for low intensity recreational uses. • Infrastructure falls under various legislative processes and is under the purview of multiple approval authorities. The Growth Plan should be clear in its references to infrastructure, development, and EAs, distinguishing where it applies to: public infrastructure under an EA process; privately constructed infrastructure under the Planning Act; or both. The plans should also clarify which proponent policy implementation rests with: the Province (e.g., MOECC, Metrolinx), municipalities (e.g., upper, single or lower tier) or both; and, in the case of conflict, specify which plans prevail (e.g., Metrolinx, versus upper tier municipal master plans, versus lower tier municipal master plans). In this regard, we suggest the following policy revisions to the Growth Plan: — Policy 2.2.4.4 should clarify what plans prevail, where conflict exists between municipal, Provincial or Metrolinx plans; — Policy 3.2.5.1d should be expanded to capture infrastructure that is part of private development, given that EAs are distinct to public infrastructure review; — Policy 4.2.3c conflicts with 3.2.5.1d, given that infrastructure is exempt from the prohibition of development and site alteration in KNHFs /HSFs through EAs; — Policy 5.2.3.1 states that a coordinated approach will be taken to plan implementation among all public agencies for issues that cross municipal boundaries. Coordination is also needed across different legislative processes that affect growth such as the Planning Act, the EA Act and CAA. Please note that under s. 14 (1) of the Places to Grow Act, decisions pursuant to the EA Act must conform to the Growth Plan. • Section 3.2 of the Growth Plan should incorporate policy 4.2.3.4c from the GBP, which promotes the strong direction that "applicable recommendations, standards or targets within a subwatershed plan or equivalent and water budgets are complied with ". • The preamble portion of policy 41.1.2 in the ORMCP should make specific reference to the NHE /HE requirements described in s. 22 and 26. • ORMCP policies 41.2.3 and 41.2.5 should reference the Ministry of Transportation's Environmental Guide for Wildlife Mitigation that is currently out for review on the Environmental Registry (EBR# 012 - 7980), an important tool when looking at infrastructure and NHS connectivity. Green Infrastructure • The plans should better distinguish "infrastructure" from "green infrastructure ". This relationship is further convoluted when considering the important role of LID on the NHS and the NHS as a component of green infrastructure. The interconnectedness of these important concepts should be emphasized in the contextual preambles preceding the "Infrastructure" sections of each plan and reinforced in their respective definitions. • The incorporation of green infrastructure and LID are frequently referenced as requirements throughout the plans (GP 2.2.1.3f, 3.2.7.1c, 3.2.7.2b; ORMCP 38.2f, 41.1.2d; 45.0.2b). In our experience, however, municipalities rarely utilize advanced green infrastructure and LID techniques, which are typically only implemented on private lands. The policies would be strengthened by encouraging green infrastructure and LID techniques on both private and public lands. Additionally, we note that no tests, targets or goals are identified to indicate the extent of green infrastructure and LID required to be incorporated. Supplementary provincial guidance is needed, otherwise minimal implementation will result. 443 Low Carbon Transportation /Driverless Cars • The newly emerging concept of autonomous vehicles could be acknowledged and incorporated into the Growth Plan. These vehicles could radically change the need for parking and for transportation planning to be focused on the peak hours. - GP Introduction, 3.2.2 7. IMPROVING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION "Grandfathered" Applications: • The transition provisions of the ORMC Plan and Act need to be reviewed. Applications submitted under the Planning Act prior to the promulgation of the ORMCP (2001) where no decision has been made should no longer be exempt from complying with the full suite of policies in the ORMCP. The ORMC Act should also be amended to require that approvals issued prior to the ORMCP coming into effect and not yet acted upon, be revised and subject to the full Plan, or at minimum the s. 48 provisions. Examples continue to arise across the ORM of subdivisions approved in the 1970s, '80s and '90s that permit developments in wetlands and other significant environmental features. - ORMCP 48 • Growth Plan policies 5.2.8.2 and 5.2.8.3 contain provisions for including a "lapsing date" for draft plans of subdivision approved under the Planning Act and for deeming approved plans not to be a registered plan if, after eight years, no development occurs and they no longer meet the objectives of the Growth Plan. A similar policy should be incorporated into the ORMCP and GBP, and applied retroactively if the environmental objectives of those plans are not met. CA Recognition and Integration • As plan amendments will impact the operational roles and regulation of CAs, and CA expertise and information will be relied upon to implement the plans, the role of CAs should be more directly acknowledged and further integrated into revised policies. We welcome the inclusion of policies requiring watershed planning to be undertaken by municipalities, partnering with CAs (Growth Plan 4.2.1; GBP 3.2.3), however, the role CAs have in facilitating and delivering watershed plans should be explicit. Additionally, the plans make no specific reference to CA's role in defining and mapping natural heritage and water systems; mitigating natural hazards; and, managing stormwater effectively through green infrastructure and LID. These roles should be referenced throughout the plans (i.e., Natural System, Protecting What is Valuable) as they are within the "Water Resources System" policies. • The GBP states that where regulations or standards of other agencies or government related to environmental protection are more restrictive than the plans, they take precedence. (GBP 3.2.2.6, 5.4). Similar wording should be applied to s. 4.2 of the Growth Plan. • S. 5.2 of the Growth Plan should be revised to acknowledge the regulatory role of CAs, as done so in 3.2.2.6 and 5.4 of the GBP. • The Growth Plan acknowledges the municipal role in climate change adaptation and mitigation (4.2.10) but not CAs. CAs' strengths in adaptive watershed and ecosystem management, natural hazard mitigation, monitoring and reporting of environmental quality, and leadership in green infrastructure, sustainable building design and LID can help municipalities implement plan policies to align with the Ontario Climate Change Strategy and should, therefore, be referenced. • Regarding coordination of plan implementation among the various agencies and approval authorities, policy 5.2.3.8 should be expanded to indicate that CAs and municipalities are to collaborate in the monitoring of natural heritage and water systems. • The review of the Conservation Authorities Act that is currently ongoing should also reflect the roles of CAs in implementing the four Plans. Supplementary Provincial Support • As enhanced policy direction is to be implemented by municipalities (partnering with CAs) through a municipal comprehensive review, supplementary provincial support is needed. It is our understanding that provincial guidance documents will be issued to assist planning authorities and decision - makers beginning in 2018 (GP 4.1, 5.2.2.2, ORMCP — Implementation). To help ensure consistency with the broader planning and regulatory frameworks of the GGH, and to capitalize on existing data, mapping, and technical expertise, CAs should be consulted during the formulation of guidance materials pertaining to watershed planning, natural heritage and water resource systems, LID and green infrastructure. More specifically, CAs should be consulted prior to the creation of guidelines related to the following enhanced policy directions: Watershed planning guidance documents to support sections 4.2.1 of the Growth Plan and 3.2.3 of the GBP; sustainable management of excess soil /fill ( ORMCP 36.1; Growth Plan 4.2.7.3; GBP 3.4.2.5, 3.4.2.6); provincial NHS mapping (GP 4.2.2.2), including if and /or how existing mapping will be incorporated, what scale mapping will be undertaken, and, if existing documents and criteria for identifying KNHFs /HSFs will be updated (GP 4.2.2.2, GBP 5.3); actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change adaptation goals (GP 4.2.10); and, incorporation of LID and green infrastructure (GP 3.2.7.1c, 3.2.7.2b; ORMCP 38.2f, 41.1.2d, 45.02b). • The plans should reference tools that support their day -to -day implementation, including permits under the CAA, by -laws under the Municipal Act, land, tree cutting by -laws, fill by -laws, and erosion and sediment controls, as well as acquisition projects, private land stewardship, environmental farm plans (as per complementary recommendation # 45 of the Advisory Panel report). In particular, the ORMCP and Growth Plan should reference permits under the CAA as they are in s. 5.4 and 3.2.2.6 of the GBP. Addressing Advisory Panel Recommendations • Some of the issues brought forward from sections 9.4 and 9.5 of the Advisory Panel report have either not yet been addressed or have not been incorporated in sufficient detail. A Provincial Secretariat should be established to coordinate and facilitate implementation of the plans (recommendation #85); An oversight forum should be created to monitor and report on implementation (recommendation # 86); additional provincial programs, technical guidelines, stakeholder involvement and funding mechanisms should be developed (recommendation # 87); and, municipal Official Plan conformity amendments should be shielded from OMB appeals to reduce the time and cost burden placed on municipalities to defend provincial policies (complementary recommendation # 77). We recognize that, due to their nature, these recommendations may need to be addressed outside of the Plans themselves; however, we continue to express our desire to have them addressed immediately. Mapping • Additional information is needed regarding the municipal incorporation of an NHS, "as mapped by the province" (Growth Plan 4.2.2.2). Throughout the GGH, many CAs and municipalities have, at great effort and expense, collected scientific data and mapped the NHS at various scales (municipal, watershed, and subwatershed). This work has been guided by the PPS, 2014, under the definition of NHS. It is unclear if and /or how existing mapped areas will be incorporated into provincial mapping and at what scale /level. If mapping is done at too high a scale for local decision making to be effective, environmental protections could be weakened. It also is unclear whether the existing technical documents and criteria for identifying KNHFs /HSFs in the NHS will be updated. Municipalities and CAs should be consulted to ensure proposed mapping will be consistent with existing mapping. - GP 4.2.2.2, GBP 5.3 • Existing mapping of hydrologic features undertaken by CAs in accordance with the Clean Water Act (2006) should be consistent with the mapping requirements for KHAs established in sections 5.3 of the GBP and 4.2.1 of the Growth Plan, to support a consistent approach to water protection across Ontario. • Under - utilized school and municipal sites should be kept in public ownership and used as public parkland. The Province should map all public open spaces owned by all public bodies (including utilities) to provide a full picture of these lands and what can be connected. Special Policy Areas (SPAS) • Policy 5.2.5.4a of the Growth Plan is confusing and could be misinterpreted. It should be revised to be more in keeping with the clear and concise wording used in the second bullet in the explanatory text, which states, "the intent of this policy is to clarify that intensification and density targets would not require or enable growth beyond what is permitted under the PPS for SPAS and other hazardous lands ". 8. MEASURING PERFORMANCE, PROMOTING AWARENESS AND INCREASING ENGAGEMENT Monitoring /Data • S. 5.2.6 indicates that the Province may require CAs to provide data to the Province. More details on the type of data and information potentially requested should be provided. TRCA has undertaken extensive long -term efforts to develop regional monitoring programs, which are supported by our partner municipalities. It is important that we confirm whether any changes or additions to these programs are anticipated. 445 9. DEFINITIONS Complete Communities: The definition should reference natural heritage and water systems. The relationship between complete communities and net zero communities should also be clarified as a community should not be considered "complete" if it cannot meet its energy demands through low- carbon or carbon - free forms of energy. Although both need to be captured within the text of the plans, the definitions should be integrated or explicitly cross - referenced. Ecological Integrity: The definition includes hydrological integrity, which appears to support the NHS as a component of watershed planning. If integration is to be considered, "ecological integrity" should replace "integrity" within the context of demonstrating "no negative impacts" on KNHFs /KHFs and their functions. Extreme Weather Event: The term is used (GP 3.2.7.1, GBP 4.2) yet no definition is provided. "Extreme weather" means different things to different groups (i.e., anything from a 2 -year storm to Hurricane Hazel event). Furthermore, what is "extreme" under current climatic conditions may not remain constant as climate change continues to have worsening impacts. We recommend defining and quantifying the term. Green Infrastructure: The definition should include soils since soils are a critical component of green infrastructure needed to manage water resources. Intermittent streams: The definition does not describe which times of year intermittent streams are dry and for how long. It is, therefore, insufficient to guide their identification since stream permanency is a continuum from perennial to intermittent and then to ephemeral streams. We suggest that either ephemeral streams be included in the suite of KHFs or the broader term "headwater drainage features" be used to cover both intermittent and ephemeral streams. We recommend incorporating definitions from the Evaluation, Classification and Management Guideline for Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines developed by TRCA and the Credit Valley CA. Key Hydrologic Areas (KHAs): Areas of shallow groundwater and high artesian pressure should be added to the suite of KHAs to protect below -grade development from interaction with groundwater, and to prevent the wasteful discharge of groundwater when permanent dewatering is required. Key Hydrologic Features (KHFs): Ephemeral streams are not identified as KHFs but should be to protect their hydrologic functions. By definition, their identification and delineation will be informed by watershed planning and "other evaluations and assessments ". Please consider clarifying what these other evaluations /assessments will be and who will be doing them. The Evaluation, Classification and Management Guideline for Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines developed by TRCA and CVC could help provide a consistent approach to assessing, clarifying and managing stream types according to their function. Low Impact Development (LID): The definition should note that LID must be implemented within a treatment train approach in order to optimize resiliency. Net -Zero Communities: The definition should include references to locally- sourced renewable and /or district energy sources and should stipulate that a net -zero community meets its energy demand (including transportation, electricity and heating) through a mix of carbon -free and /or low carbon energy sources such that net annual greenhouse gas emissions from the community are nil. Public Open Spaces: No definition is provided. If a definition is provided, it could include trails, parks, and conservation areas as defining elements. Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA): There should be standard thresholds for what constitutes SGRAs and highly vulnerable aquifers so the terms are consistently applied throughout the plans. Significant Surface Water Contribution Areas (SSWCAs): The definition does not capture the full suite of functions associated with headwater drainage features (HDFs) and seems rather indistinguishable from "ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas" (as used in the GBP). 90% of the flow within streams can be derived from catchment headwaters; however, individually, HDFs may not contribute significantly to the baseflow volume of streams. We are concerned that this definition may be interpreted as providing protection to all or none of the HDFs within a watershed. Also, baseflow provision, as included in the definition of SSWCAs, is only one function of HDFs. Other functions such as productivity, sediment transport, water quality improvement, erosion protection, and flood attenuation should be considered. To protect these functions, the HDF features themselves need to be considered, not just the broader headwater areas. Stable Top of Bank: The term does not appear to be accurately defined in the context in which is used. The definition of "Top of (valley) Bank (staked or physical)" used in TRCA's Living City Policies document could be incorporated. MHO Storm Water Management Plan: The definition provided in the Growth Plan (and policy 4.2.3.5 of the GBP) could be expanded beyond "impacts to receiving watercourse" to include impacts to natural features like wetlands and species that depend on them or could be adversely impacted by changes in land use that alter the seasonal hydroperiod, impact the quality of water entering the wetland or cause erosion. Total Developable Area (GP and GBP) /Net Developable Area (ORMCP): The definitions are not consistent with the Growth Plan policies that exclude natural hazards and heritage features from development lands (2.2.1.2j, 2.2.7.3) and should be revised to net out hazardous lands and natural heritage features. Net Developable Area must also exclude vegetative buffers associated with KNHFs /HSFs (amend ORMCP). Vulnerability Risk Assessment (VRA): A definition should be provided and guidance materials should be provided for their implementation. A potential definition of a VRA could be, "The analysis of the expected impacts, risks and the adaptive capacity of a region or sector to the effects of climate change ". Watershed Planning, Watershed Plan and Watershed:5ubwatershed plans are identified as being integrated with natural heritage protection; however, this linkage is not iterated in the definitions of watershed plan or watershed planning. The definitions should be expanded to collectively incorporate the full adaptive cycle of IWM, which includes consideration of both the natural heritage and water resource systems. The definitions should also speak to the fad that subwatershed plans should nest within watershed plans. 447 RES. #A141/16 - TRCA AND GTAA ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS Award of Design - Build- Maintain Contract for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at Toronto Pearson Airport. Award of Contract #10002619 for the design, supply, installation and maintenance of 32 electric vehicle charging stations on Greater Toronto Airport Authority lands. Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Contract #10002619 for the design, supply, installation and maintenance of 32 electric vehicle charging stations at four locations on Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) lands be awarded to Precise ParkLink Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $1,806,158.00 plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), GTAA and the Ministry of Transportation's (MTO's) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded design builder, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with other design builders that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder that demonstrated compliance with TRCA, GTAA, and MTO's specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016, Resolution #A113/16 was approved, as follows: THAT TRCA enter into a transfer payment agreement (TPA) with MTO to receive and use $2.685 million, made available through the Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario (EVCO) program, to fund the installation and operation (for a five -year term) of 32 electric vehicle charging stations at four locations on GTAA lands by March 31, 2017; THAT TRCA enter into an agreement with the GTAA to facilitate the procurement and installation of electric vehicle charging stations with funding made available from MTO; THAT TRCA's agreement with GTAA be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the agreement shall be for five years; (ii) that TRCA and GTAA shall collaboratively procure and install the electric vehicle charging stations subject to TRCA's procurement policies; (iii) that GTAA shall be solely responsible for maintaining and operating all electric vehicle charging stations and related assets and services; (iv) that GTAA shall be responsible for any permitting approvals required for the construction and operation of the electric vehicle charging stations; i i (v) that GTAA shall be accountable for and prepare all information required for reporting back to MTO; (vi) that G TAA shall be responsible for any costs incurred in excess of the TPA funding amount; (vii) that GTAA shall brand charging station installations with TRCA program logos, include them as part of TRCA's Open EV Network of existing charging stations in the Greater Toronto Area, and provide TRCA access to station use data; and (viii) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. TRCA has executed the Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) with the MTO, and is currently holding the $2.685 million to fund the procurement of all infrastructure and services required for the installation of charging stations on GTAA lands. The agreement with the GTAA to collaborate on the installation of 32 electric vehicle charging stations on Airport lands, using grant funding provided through MTO's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario (EVCO) program, was executed on August 29, 2016. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Project #10002619 - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Greater Toronto Airports Authority Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Installations was posted to Biddingo.com on August 12, 2016. A Mandatory Site Meeting was held on August 18, 2016, and was attended by representatives from 23 companies. The closing date for proposal submissions was August 31, 2016. Six proponents submitted proposals on August 31, 2016 and were opened on the same day by the Procurement Opening Committee. Following the public opening, proposals were shared with the Evaluation Committee for this project, which included the representatives from TRCA and the GTAA. The Evaluation Committee held phone interviews with the top three proponents and their partnering sub - contractors, to obtain clarification on Committee member inquiries and establish confidence that project timelines, and ensure technical and maintenance program requirements will be met. RATIONALE All proponent submissions were evaluated using a weighted criteria consisting of 40% technical criteria and 60% on the overall cost submitted in the Fee Proposal. A breakdown of the Evaluation Criteria is as follows: Component Submission Weighting Technical Proponent qualifications (15% of technical evaluation Project Team 15% of technical evaluation Management of the work 30% of technical evaluation 40% Compliance to deliverables 40% of technical evaluation Financial Fee proposal otal 60% 100% M . • The proponent with the lowest total fee proposal received all available points (60 %). All other compliant proponents would receive a smaller number of points as determined by the ratio of their costs to the least expensive proposal. The table below summarizes the evaluation results of all six proponent's proposal submissions by the Evaluation Committee. Proponent Technical Technical Financial Financial Total Overall TOTAL Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking TENDER Score Score Score AMOUNT (40 %) (60 %) (100 %) (Plus HST) Beckett 24.15 5 60.00 1 84.15 1 $1,275,000 Electrical Precise 33.97 2 42.36 3 76.33 2 $1,806,158 ParkLink Guild 33.81 3 40.43 4 74.24 3 $1,892,000 Electric Tech 34.53 1 29.42 5 63.95 4 $2,600,000 Mahindra Western 6.15 6 43.27 2 49.42 5 $1,768,137 Mechanical Four Seasons Site 24.61 4 22.70 6 47.31 6 $3,370,000 Development The highest total weighted score was achieved by Beckett Electrical; however, Beckett ranked fifth overall in the technical evaluation. Given Beckett's high score using the weighted criteria, the Evaluation Committee elected to conduct a conference call with Beckett's project team on September 8`h. After responses to Committee inquiries were obtained and a collective cross - referencing of Beckett's proposal, the evaluation criteria, the RFP documentation, and MTO's technical requirements for EVCO funding eligibility, the Evaluation Committee determined that despite Beckett possessing the highest overall score, primarily achieved through the Fee Proposal's heavy weighting in the Evaluation Criteria (Beckett submitted the lowest bid by $490,000) its limited experience with Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, inconsistencies between the scope of work and proposal contents, and a low proposed maintenance program cost reflecting a high risk that the level of service specified in the RFP would not be completed to the satisfaction of the GTAA, justified recommending the award of this contract to a proponent who ranked higher in the Technical Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Committee also conducted calls on September 8 1 with the second and third ranked proponents, Precise ParkLink Inc. and Guild Electric. Both proponents ranked very close in their technical and financial scores; however, the Evaluation Committee determined that Precise ParkLink had a more complete design, build, and maintenance proposal offering which resulted in a slightly higher Technical Score. The strengths and considerations thatjustify recommending Precise ParkLink as the proponent of choice for this project are highlighted below: • Competitive fee proposal (ranked second); • Wealth of experience with electric vehicle charging station installations and working with North American airports; 450 • Long -term experience building, operating and maintaining equipment at Toronto Pearson International Airport; • Detailed and accurate schematics and drawings for electrical and civil scopes of work; • A project plan committing and confirming to meet MTO deadlines; • Vetted equipment manufacturer and networking platform provider in Leviton and Chargepoint; and • Existing technical support team and ability to deliver on rigorous maintenance program requirements and equipment resolution times. As a result, the Evaluation Committee recommends tha Contract #10002619 for the design, build and maintenance of 32 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on GTAA land be awarded to Precise ParkLink Inc. TRCA's Partners in Project Green contribution to the successful implementation of this project will be recognized via logo placement on signage marking the locations and availability of these electric vehicle charging stations at the Airport. The installation of these charging stations will result in the achievement of Partners in Project Green's Open EV Network Project goal of having more than 100 networked stations available for use by the general public. Furthermore, TRCA will have access to charging station use data to track the impact of the Open EV Network project and equate the electricity supplied to electric vehicles with greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved through cleaner and less carbon intensive commuting in the Pearson Eco- Business Zone. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total cost of these goods and services is capped by agreement at $1,806,158, plus 10% contingency, plus HST. Funding for this project are available from the $2.685 million received from the Ministry of Transportation through the EVCO program, which is designated to pay for goods and services associated with the installation of 32 charging stations on GTAA lands. The funds are currently being held in account 940 -37. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The design, installation and commissioning of all charging stations will be completed by March 31, 2017. For Information contact: Adam Vaiya, 416- 275 -8377 Emails: avaiya(@trca.on.ca Date: September 9, 2016 451 RES. #A142 /16 - TRCA WETLAND BALANCE MONITORING PROTOCOL Authority approval of TRCA's Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol, a technical guideline developed to support Appendix D: Water Balance for Protection of Natural Features of TRCA's Stormwater Management (SWM) Criteria document (2012) and The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff review and provide advice on applications for development and site alteration affecting wetlands under the planning, environmental assessment and permitting processes; WHEREAS in 2014 and 2015, in response to requests from the development industry for more technical guidance, TRCA staff developed the draft Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol to articulate TRCA objectives and study requirements for establishing a water balance monitoring program for the protection of wetland hydrology through the development process; AND WHEREAS in 2015, TRCA staff sought input on the draft Protocol from partner municipalities, provincial agencies, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), consulting firms, and neighbouring conservation authorities, and have now finalized the Protocol based on the input received; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the TRCA Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol for use by proponents of development and infrastructure, consultants, and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval process; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, regional and local municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario, and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. AMENDMENT RES. #A143 /16 Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff report back after two years on the results of the monitoring; THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS 452 CARRIED CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff review and provide advice on applications for development and site alteration affecting wetlands under the planning, environmental assessment and permitting processes; WHEREAS in 2014 and 2015, in response to requests from the development industry for more technical guidance, TRCA staff developed the draft Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol to articulate TRCA objectives and study requirements for establishing a water balance monitoring program for the protection of wetland hydrology through the development process; AND WHEREAS in 2015, TRCA staff sought input on the draft Protocol from partner municipalities, provincial agencies, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), consulting firms, and neighbouring conservation authorities, and have now finalized the Protocol based on the input received; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the TRCA Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol for use by proponents of development and infrastructure, consultants, and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval process; THAT staff report back after two years on the results of the monitoring; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, regional and local municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario, and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/12, held on September 28, 2012, Resolution #A173/12 was approved, endorsing the TRCA Stormwater Management Criteria document. In accordance with provincial guidance and TRCA's Living City Policies, applications under TRCA review are required to meet TRCA's four SWM criteria: water quantity; water quality; erosion; and water balance. The Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol is a TRCA technical guideline that will help applicants fulfill the water balance SWM criterion when their proposal for development or infrastructure affects a wetland. The SWM criterion for water balance is explained in a section and in an appendix of the SWM Criteria document; the appendix entitled "Water Balance for the Protection of Natural Features ", provides guidance on TRCA's requirements for maintaining hydrologic functions of natural features that have been recommended for protection through the planning or environmental assessment processes. The scope of the water balance criterion includes considerations for the protection of water balance, or balancing water inflows and outflows within an area, for three types of natural features: wetlands; woodlands; and watercourses. The analysis that informs this criterion is also important in safeguarding municipal infrastructure and minimizing risks and liability associated with nuisance flooding, which may become problematic when water balance for natural features is not given due consideration. 453 During the external consultation process for the SW M Criteria document, TRCA was asked by members of the consulting and development industries to develop further guidance around the water balance study requirements for the protection of natural features. In response to these comments, TRCA staff established an External Stakeholder Committee (ESC), with representatives from municipalities, BILD, the consulting industry, Credit Valley Conservation and other conservation authorities to collaborate on the development of tools that would provide this more detailed guidance. One such tool is the Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol, which has been developed by TRCA staff based on current scientific understanding and knowledge garnered through practical application. TRCA staff will be developing other tools for wetlands as well as tools for woodlands and watercourses collaboratively with the ESC in the coming years. The draft Monitoring Protocol was thoroughly vetted through senior technical and planning staff, directors, and the ESC. The draft document was then circulated more broadly for comment to all of TRCA's partner municipalities, relevant provincial agencies, neighbouring conservation authorities, BILD and the consulting industry. TRCA staff has revised the draft Monitoring Protocol based on the feedback received through this consultation process, and it is now finalized for use by development proponents, consultants and TRCA staff. The final Monitoring Protocol for wetlands provides more specific direction around developing a pre- and post - development monitoring program to inform and confirm the results of a wetland water balance analysis required under the SWM Criteria document and The Living City Policies. The Monitoring Protocol will help to clarify and streamline the water balance data/information and analysis requirements to support applications made through the planning and development processes. Copies of the Monitoring Program are available upon request. RATIONALE Conservation authorities (CAs) regulate wetlands under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act due to their importance in maintaining watershed hydrology and ecology. CAs also advocate for the protection of wetlands in their commenting roles under the planning and environmental assessment review processes. The Living City Policies provide the official guidance to TRCA planning and development staff in carrying out these roles. In this regard, the Monitoring Protocol is consistent with The Living City Policies' objectives for natural hazard and natural heritage protection and management, and is aligned with provincial and municipal partner policies and objectives. A key TRCA objective is resilience of watersheds and communities to cope with future weather extremes. Wetlands help to improve watershed resiliency to the impacts of climate change and other stressors by contributing a variety of important hydrological and related ecological functions. These include water storage and reduction of downstream flooding and erosion, protection of groundwater recharge, provision of habitat for plants and animals, and provision of baseflow and food sources for aquatic species. The hydrology of a wetland refers to the various pathways by which water reaches and leaves the wetland. The term "hydroperiod" is used to describe the seasonal pattern of water level fluctuation within a wetland, and is considered to be the wetland's hydrologic signature. Ecological processes are dependent on the wetland's hydroperiod, and these processes can be disrupted when the balance of water flowing into and out of a wetland, or its "water balance ", is altered through urban development. These changes can also have significant implications on municipal infrastructure and hazard risk management. 454 Where wetlands are identified for protection /conservation through the planning and development process, effort should be made to ensure the long -term protection of these important hydrological and related ecological functions. These wetland functions maybe affected when the surface and groundwater contributing flows are modified in terms of volume, duration or timing. These changes can result from changes in drainage patterns or increases in runoff due to impermeable surfaces associated with development or through water taking. TRCA has documented a number of instances where insufficient wetland water balance considerations created nuisance flooding problems on neighbouring private lots and back -up of water into municipal stormwater infrastructure. These hazards and risks are very difficult to mitigate after - the -fact, and the monitoring data collected as part of this Monitoring Protocol are critical in their up -front identification and mitigation. Hazards and risks are usually avoided or minimized by balancing post - development to pre - development flow volumes, which is made possible through analysis of the monitoring data. For example, by calculating the amount, duration and timing of clean roof water required from the proposed development, the wetland's water balance can be maintained by using low impact development (or green infrastructure) measures to direct flows toward or away from the wetland. These calculations are made using models that are calibrated (adjusted) with the collected pre - development monitoring data as directed through this Monitoring Protocol. The Monitoring Protocol also sets out the guidance for developing a post- construction monitoring program to confirm the wetland hydrology has been protected, as predicted through the modelling, or to direct implementation of additional mitigation measures should that not be the case. This iterative, adaptive approach to wetland management is critical as climate change may further shift the hydrologic regime that supports wetland water balance, beyond what is predicted by the model using current conditions. The guidance provided within this Monitoring Protocol will ensure that TRCA will have the data needed to inform the development of appropriate water management strategies to protect wetland hydrology and to minimize hazards from the effects of both urbanization and climate change when contemplating future development applications. This knowledge is critical to the setting of appropriate development limits, reducing liability, and protecting the vital ecosystem services that wetlands provide to ensure resilience in the face of a changing climate. Content of the Monitoring Protocol The Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol outlines TRCA's preferred procedures for collecting baseline (pre - development) and post - development wetland monitoring data in order to determine the wetland's water balance and to confirm that the results of the water balance analysis were correct. Guidance is provided on technical issues around monitoring specific components of the water balance, and also on when monitoring, reporting, and various analyses are to take place within the planning and development process. The Monitoring Protocol is comprised of the following sections: • Introduction: Provides an overview of the context, rationale, and the scenarios in which the Monitoring Protocol applies or does not apply. The steps involved in completing a wetland water balance are outlined alongside the corresponding stage of the planning and development process where each step is expected to take place. • Wetland Water Balance Equation: Lists the hydrological components of a water balance and provides a definition of the hydroperiod as the basic unit of analysis against which to measure any changes in water levels. 455 • Designing a Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Program: Outlines the types of monitoring questions that may be asked in a monitoring program and the data needed to answer these questions. A list of background information required for the design of a monitoring program is provided. Technical guidance on instrumenting wetlands to measure the different water balance components is also included here. • Post - Planning Monitoring Phases: Outlines the monitoring process during and after construction, and when post - development monitoring may begin. The need for defining triggers for remedial action in consultation with the conservation authority is also discussed. • Reporting: Emphasizes the importance of reporting to the conservation authority at key stages of development and of post - development reporting in particular, as this information is invaluable to the effective evaluation of water balance mitigation strategies. • Technical Appendices: Two appendices are contained in the document; one is a summary of the six steps listed in the SW M Criteria document (2012) for conducting a water balance analysis for the protection of natural features, while the other provides guidance on correcting automated water level measurements using manual measurements. Comments Received on Draft Document External commentators were generally supportive of the intent and content of the draft version of the Monitoring Protocol that was circulated, and most comments consisted of requests for clarification of terms and of applicability of the Protocol to specific development scenarios. A detailed list of comments received and TRCA's response to each is provided in Attachment 1, while a condensed summary is provided below. Province: The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) was the only provincial ministry to comment on the Monitoring Protocol. MTO's concerns were limited to whether the requirements for completing a wetland water balance would apply to linear infrastructure (roads and railways) in general and to their work in particular. TRCA responded that generally a water balance analysis would not be required for roads and railways. TRCA would identify situations where the project could significantly impact the water balance for a wetland (e.g. truncating the surface catchment) and seek mitigation commitments, as needed, through the environmental assessment process. We would also promote that MTO incorporate design practices that minimize hydrological impacts of road construction on wetlands, such as equalization culverts or micro - drainage culverts. Municipalities: Many municipalities commented that they understood the value and intent of the Monitoring Protocol, and that they appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback. The majority of the concerns raised by municipal staff fell into one of the following categories: • clarification of the duration of baseline monitoring required to characterize the pre - development wetland conditions; • applicability or inapplicability of the Monitoring Protocol and water balance process to wetlands within existing fully - developed urban areas as opposed to greenfield developments; • frequency with which the water balance process may be required for development applications affecting smaller wetlands, or for small -scale development applications; rA we • purpose of flora and fauna monitoring within the Monitoring Protocol; or • duration of post- construction monitoring and mechanisms of enforcement to ensure post - development monitoring and reporting occur. TRCA staff revised the draft Monitoring Protocol to further clarify the intent of each of the monitoring requirements, the development scenarios to which the document would or would not apply, and the specific details of monitoring durations and data requirements. Staff reiterated that the Monitoring Protocol would only apply to wetlands identified for protection and requiring a water balance analysis as determined and scoped through the planning and development review process in consultation with the conservation authority and the municipality. Staff also addressed the limitations of the Monitoring Protocol in setting the terms and conditions for post - development monitoring, noting that this would necessarily be an outcome negotiated within the larger development context. Other Conservation Authorities: Staff at Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) expressed support for both the intent and content of the Monitoring Protocol. Many of the comments received concerned minor technical adjustments to the ecological and hydrological data required for background site characterization and monitoring, which were addressed by TRCA staff in their revisions. Consulting Industry: Comments were largely editorial in nature or were minor clarifications, although additional clarity was requested around the applicability of the Monitoring Protocol to wetlands that may be influenced by groundwater dewatering activities such as aggregate extraction. TRCA staff confirmed that the Monitoring Protocol does apply to such situations although the focus of the document is largely on activities influencing patterns of surficial drainage, such as residential development. Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD): TRCA received no formal written comments from BILD members. However, BILD representatives actively participate on the ESC. They have been satisfied with the level of engagement by their consulting industry representatives in collaborating on the development of the Monitoring Protocol. FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of the Monitoring Protocol was supported by capital funding from the regional municipalities of York and Peel. TRCA staff also secured external funding in the form of grants from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and the Toronto Remedial Action Plan. These grants, together with funding from the regions of York and Peel, also support continued wetland water balance monitoring in the jurisdiction being led by TRCA and CVC, and the development of other tools to guide the completion of water balance analyses for the protection of natural features, as discussed further below. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Monitoring Protocol will be implemented through the Planning, Greenspace and Communications Division in review of Planning Act applications, environmental assessment and master planning, and through TRCA's own permitting process. TRCA planners, engineers, and ecologists reviewing applications will continue to work with proponents of development and consultants to streamline the review process while striving for the best possible outcome for environmental and growth management objectives. TRCA's Planning and Development Procedural Manual, Environmental Impact Study Guidelines, and Stormwater Management 457 Criteria document will all be updated to reflect the existence of the Monitoring Protocol and the information contained therein. The Monitoring Protocol will also be updated from time to time to reflect the development of other tools supporting the water balance for natural features criterion as these become available. TRCA is monitoring a number of wetlands throughout the jurisdiction and in the Credit River watershed in partnership with CVC as part of the Wetland Water Balance Study. This study is evaluating changes to the water balance of wetlands located in catchments currently or soon to be impacted by development, as well as wetlands in catchments not undergoing development. Through this study, TRCA hopes to improve the understanding of how best to instrument wetlands, how to best model wetland hydroperiods and potential impacts to wetlands, and what ecological thresholds may exist in wetlands in response to hydrological changes. Staff at TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation, as well as academic partners at the University of Guelph, are using the data produced from the study to determine the impacts of development on wetland hydrology and to evaluate the effectiveness of different green infrastructure designs in mitigating these impacts. This knowledge will inform the development of other tools to support and streamline water balance analyses for the protection of natural features. Report prepared by: Laura Del Giudice and Neil Taylor Emails :IdelgiudiceCq-_)trca.on.ca, ntavlorL&_trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334 Emai Is: Idelgi udice(cDtrca.on.ca Date: July 22, 2016 Attachments: 1 Attachment 1 TRCA Response to Comments on the draft Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol, September 4, 2015 version Commentator Section Comment TRCA Response Revisions Required? City of Toronto, Editorial Although the introductory section says the protocol has been The introduction has been revised to indicate the applicability of the protocol to a variety Y Basement comments produced to provide consistent guidance to proponents of urban of development application types. The requirements for wetland monitoring would not Flooding development, infrastructure or water extraction applications, change substantially for different application types, as the water balance must still be most of the subsequent sections of the document focus on quantified. requirements for urban development. City of Toronto, Editorial Case studies are just "there" with no mention in text as to what Case studies have been re -named "examples" or "figures" to better illustrate their purpose. Y Basement comments value they represent. References to these items in the text have been inserted in several places. Flooding City of Toronto, Editorial The use of the term case study seems inappropriate at times, We agree; case studies have been re- titled as either examples or as figures. Y Toronto Water comments simply using the term example may suffice. City of General This important document provides valuable guidance for Noted. We appreciate the comment. N Markham comments protection of wetlands through proper planning and monitoring. It integrates wetland monitoring within the planning approval process, details the phasing and timing of the monitoring, and also provides specific data collection and instrumentation requirements. We understand that wetlands in general are regulated by TRCA and that the suggested monitoring program could have impacts on the City and developers. 459 City of Markham General comments A Wetland Risk Evaluation, which was referenced in the above noted water balance monitoring document, is currently under development by TRCA and CVC to determine the need for, and scope of wetland water balance monitoring requirements. While this concept is appreciated, we need to see the actual evaluation document as this will determine the need for and the scope of the monitoring. References to the Risk Evaluation Tool have been removed from the document, and instead the current process of consulting with TRCA to scope monitoring requirements for a development proposal is cited. The Risk Evaluation Tool, which we expect to complete in the near future, will undergo a separate external stakeholder consultation process. This tool will provide clear guidance on when a water balance is required and the scope of monitoring and modelling effort required for different development scenarios. Y City of General Although TRCA states that a water balance monitoring will be Text has been revised in Section 1.2, Early Stage, to clarify when the 3 years of baseline Y Markham comments required for both Locally and Provincially Significant Wetlands, a monitoring are to take place within the planning process. The Risk Evaluation Tool, distinction has to be established between the level of monitoring currently under development, will provide additional guidance on the duration and extent effort required for each of these two type of wetlands. We expect of baseline monitoring for different scenarios. For now, the process of consulting with PSW require more detailed and longer period of monitoring TRCA will remain the method of scoping monitoring requirements. compared with the local ones. City of General TRCA did not provide details regarding typical cost and time It is not our intention to require a full water balance analysis for every single wetland, but N Markham comments implications of this wetland monitoring requirement on rather to use a risk -based approach that considers feature sensitivity and scale of water proponents. So, we are concerned about cost and delays balance alteration proposed by an application (e.g. percentage of imperviousness within (especially to establish baseline monitoring data for small scale the wetland catchment) to determine monitoring scope. At present, monitoring developments) impacts on current and future development requirements will continue to be scoped in consultation with TRCA, but we intend to applications. release the Risk Evaluation Tool in the near future which provides guidance on scoping for different development scenarios. Modelling and monitoring requirements are and will continue to be commensurate with the level of risk to the wetland. ME City of General To benefit from the monitoring program, if the post construction In current practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in y Markham comments monitoring shows deficiencies in the water balance (more or less consultation with TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. water to a wetland), what are the next steps? Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. City of General This draft Protocol document references the Water Balance for Updates to the SWM Criteria document will be made comprehensively within the next N Mississauga, comments the Protection of Natural Features criteria. Appendix D.3 of the several years. The Monitoring Protocol will be referenced in our forthcoming updated EIS Infrastructure SWM Criteria document should correspondingly be amended to Guideline document and in other documents as they are updated. Dept. reference the Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol document for ease of access and awareness of the improved monitoring guidelines. City of General Overall the document is well written and informative which The Monitoring Protocol will be added to the technical guidelines under the Procedural N Mississauga, comments should provide good guidance to proponents of urban Manual and refered to in the forthcoming updated EIS Guideline. It will also be cited in Planning Dept. development and infrastructure projects. It would be useful to future updates to the Stormwater Management Criteria Guidelines. include the requirement for a water balance study in the generic Municipal and Conservation Authority Environmental Impact Study terms of reference to inform that this type of study may be required. City of Toronto, General Overall [the Protocol] provides guidelines that will make Based on our experience, the information is suitable to the audience and that the Protocol N Basement comments proponents of development aware of what their obligations are should not be overly prescriptive due to the wide variety of potential scenarios Flooding for monitoring. But it is not prescriptive enough to be of use for (development forms, wetland types) that the Protocol could apply to. Qualified practitioners that will developing and conducting the monitoring consultants should find the level of guidance appropriate to assist them in developing and program. undertaking a monitoring program. 461 City of Toronto, General With respect to the post- construction monitoring time -frame of Ideally, post - development monitoring should take place for a minimum of 5 years. The Y Basement comments three (3) years, there is no mention of the mechanism that will be length of monitoring negotiated will depend to some extent on the site - specific wetland Flooding used to ensure that developers fulfill their obligations and to conditions, the anticipated scale of impacts and the larger development context. In current ensure that they will be follow through on taking corrective action practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in consultation with in the event that monitoring identifies issues with the water TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. The design and balance. length of the monitoring is normally a negotiated outcome; design for water balance and the stormwater system needs to be developed in consultation with the municipality as they will ultimately take responsibility for the infrastructure. Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. City of Toronto, General There is no mention of the requirement for an additional period of Ideally, post - development monitoring should take place for a minimum of 5 years. The Y Basement comments monitoring if corrective action is taken, and similar to the previous length of monitoring negotiated will depend to some extent on the site - specific wetland Flooding point, the mechanism that would be used to ensure that conditions, the anticipated scale of impacts and the larger development context. In current developers fulfill the expanded obligations. practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in consultation with TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. The design and length of the monitoring is normally a negotiated outcome; design for water balance and the stormwater system needs to be developed in consultation with the municipality as they will ultimately take responsibility for the infrastructure. Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. 462 City of Toronto, General The document mentions that the Wetland Risk Evaluation [WRE] References to the Risk Evaluation Tool have been removed from the document, and y Basement comments is currently under development. It seems premature to be issuing instead the current process of consulting with TRCA to scope monitoring requirements for Flooding a monitoring protocol that is dependent on the WRE to define a development proposal is cited. The Risk Evaluation Tool, which we expect to complete in scope. the near future, will undergo a separate external stakeholder consultation process. This tool will provide clear guidance on when a water balance is required and the scope of monitoring and modelling effort required for different development scenarios. City of Toronto, General Although not necessary for completing a water balance The addition of water chemistry data into the monitoring requirements may make the N Basement comments assessment, data on water chemistry and temperature could be Protocol more complex than is desirable. Technical reviewers will ensure that water used Flooding collected using protocols put in place for collecting water balance for mitigation is derived primarily from "clean" sources, such as roof stormwater. We monitoring data. This data could provide additional insight in the intend to conduct more research in the future on the relative effectiveness of different event that wetland characteristics are negatively impacted. mitigation technologies in acheiving wetland water balance. City of Toronto, General Being aware of protocol will assist City of Toronto staff when Noted. N Basement comments reviewing and processing development applications. Flooding City of Toronto, General Will impact Basement Flooding Protection Program and other The determination of whether the wetland can be retained on the landscape will be made N Basement comments infrastructure improvement contracts when there are existing through the EA and planning process prior to any application of this protocol. Flooding and /or new storm outfalls to designated wetland features. In the case of infrastructure upgrades upstream of an existing outfall, This protocol mostly applies to greenfield development; however, there may be there will be limitations on what can be done to take corrective opportunities to restore lost functions to wetlands in existing urban areas. In these action in the event that monitoring identifies that the water instances, a "best efforts" approach should be followed. Monitoring and modelling are balance of a wetland feature has been altered. likely not required, although there may be tools used to identify wetland baseline (i.e. current) conditions and targets to use in wetland restoration or creation projects. City of Toronto, General From City perspective, three (3) years of pre- construction Noted. We appreciate the comment. N Basement comments monitoring should be possible given time frame for infrastructure Flooding improvement projects moving from planning to construction. 463 City of Toronto, General Although monitoring could be done for three (3) years after the Ideally, post - development monitoring should take place for a minimum of 5 years. The Y Basement comments completion of construction, two (2) year warranty period on length of monitoring negotiated will depend to some extent on the site - specific wetland Flooding construction contracts will make it difficult to implement conditions, the anticipated scale of impacts and the larger development context. In current contingency measures in the event that corrective action is practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in consultation with required. TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. The design and length of the monitoring is normally a negotiated outcome; design for water balance and the stormwater system needs to be developed in consultation with the municipality as they will ultimately take responsibility for the infrastructure. Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. City of Toronto, General The protocol document is thorough, and describes the process Noted. We appreciate the comment. N Toronto Water comments well. It will be a valuable document. It is not proscriptive and we understand its direction. City of Toronto, General This document focuses on the data that needs to be collected and Noted. We appreciate the comment. N Toronto Water comments provides upfront definitions of lengths of time that monitoring needs to carried out for the difference stages of land use changes and impacts on a wetland. This is extremely valuable because it will define how much funding that a Developer/ Proponent needs to spend and should assist Consultants in their cost- proposal interactions with a Proponent. i e i City of Toronto, Toronto Water General comments The protocol document is used to support Appendix D of the Stormwater Document. It would be useful to append a two page precis of Appendix D to this document ( perhaps at its end) because quite likely, a reader will only pick up this document and try to use it, but miss key information in Appendix D. Your little drop box re Appendix D on page 1 is useful, but insufficient. In addition, this Protocol document infers that revisions are now needed to Appendix D. Hopefully these edits will be completed in the near future. A summary of the major steps outlined in Appendix D of the SWM Criteria Guideline has been included at the end of the document. We will be updating the SWM Criteria document in the next few years and will include updates such as this at that time. In the meantime, Appendix D in its current form remains the reference that proponents should use and refer to when developing a monitoring program. Y City of Toronto, General Since we use percent imperviousness as a general index to define It is not our intention to require a full water balance analysis for every single wetland, but N Toronto Water comments impacts on receiving waters including wetlands, we understand rather to use a risk -based approach that considers feature sensitivity and scale of water the generality of the'changes in wetland hydrology' mentioned balance alteration proposed by an application (e.g. percentage of imperviousness within on page 1. But we do not see at what scale of wetland and type of the wetland catchment) to determine monitoring scope. At present, monitoring wetland that runoff from an urban area is an impact of concern requirements will continue to be scoped in consultation with TRCA, but we intend to that requires this level of monitoring. For a wetland dominated by release the Risk Evaluation Tool in the near future which provides guidance on scoping for flow from a defined watershed which urbanizes, the literature different development scenarios. Modelling and monitoring requirements are and will indicates that at 10 to 20 % imperviousness, wetlands are continue to be commensurate with the level of risk to the wetland. significantly altered by urban runoff. But this may not be that influential for wetlands which are dominated by floodplane hydrology and receive a portion of their inflow from an upland channel. Additional guidance on this point is essential. City of Toronto, General Points 3 and 4 above are additional needed information which will We recognize that the sensitivities of different wetland types to hydrological changes can N Toronto Water comments assist the Consultant in classifying the sensitivity of a specific vary widely. The Risk Evaluation Tool that we are currently developing and expect to wetland to a specific type of hydrology----- needed info to release in the near future will provide guidance on the scope of monitoring /modelling develop their conceptual model and to develop a cost — effective effort required using a risk -based approach that considers wetland sensitivity and the monitoring program. degree of water balance alteration. In the meantime, this will continue to be assessed by TRCA and municipal experts on a case -by -case basis. 465 City of Toronto, General Wetland Classification. There is a vast literature and I recall This Monitoring Protocol draws on a literature review that TRCA conducted several years N Toronto Water comments textbooks on the sensitivity of wetlands to different types of ago. This review, entitled "The Impacts of Urbanization on the Hydrology of Wetlands: A hydrological perturbations (floodplane, Direct and only runoff Literature Review ", can be found at www.sustainabletechnologies.ca. from a watershed, airborne, etc) Where is this information consolidated in these documents? We recognize that the sensitivities of different wetland types to hydrological changes can vary widely. The Risk Evaluation Tool that we are currently developing and expect to release in the near future will provide guidance on the scope of monitoring /modelling effort required using a risk -based approach that considers wetland sensitivity and the degree of water balance alteration proposed. City of Toronto, General Lots of examples are provided, but no examples are provided with We intend to conduct more research in the future on the relative effectiveness of different N Toronto Water comments regards to the effectiveness of mitigation measures (LID). mitigation technologies in acheiving wetland water balance. It would be premature to provide more detailed guidance at this point. However, it is our intent to provide this guidance on mitigation measures at some point in the near future. City of Toronto, General A sample water balance calculation sheet may inform the The scope of work to be undertaken in the wetland water balance will be outlined in N Toronto Water comments proponent of the level of effort required as part of this work. greater detail in the Risk Evaluation Tool, currently under development and scheduled for release in the near future. Scope of monitoring and modelling effort required will vary depending on scale of proposed water balance alterations and sensitivity of the wetland in question. E • • City of Toronto, General This protocol is primarily geared to greenfield development in the The determination of whether the wetland can be retained on the landscape will be made N Toronto Water comments suburbs and not that relevant to previously developed areas. We through the EA and planning process prior to any application of this protocol. presume that it will have very limited applicability within the City of Toronto. As the City is building additional stormwater This protocol mostly applies to greenfield development; however, there may be infrastructure and outfalls to assist in basement flooding relief opportunities to restore lost functions to wetlands in existing urban areas. In these projects, we'd appreciate receiving from TRCA a screening the instances, a "best efforts" approach should be followed. Monitoring and modelling are hydrological sensitivity of all know wetlands within the City of likely not required, although there may be tools used to identify wetland baseline (i.e. Toronto from TRCA as a atsrting point to address this potential current) conditions and targets to use in wetland restoration or creation projects. issue. In addition we would note that where there existing or potentially new stormsewer outlets to areas where wetland Regarding screening of wetlands, we reccommend that where a specific project is currently exist, particularly in stream valleys, the City would be identified within the catchment of a wetland in the City of Toronto, opportunities to looking to taking over a portion of the existing wetland and turn it remediate or restore wetland hydrology be considered. This should be done in into an opportunity for water quality improvement. consultation with TRCA staff, and our staff can provide the location of known wetlands. We understand that the City is also developing their Environmentally Significant Areas Study, which would include areas where this type of work should be considered. TRCA would typically not support the use of existing wetlands for water quality improvement, but instead would generally support the construction of new wetlands for this purpose, where appropriate. However, we strongly recognize the integrated benefits of considering wetlands and their hydrology in helping to address other water - related concerns, such as water quality issues and flooding. City of Toronto, General It possibly appropriate that some text could be added to existing TRCA would generally support the construction of new wetlands for this purpose, where N Toronto Water comments developed areas, with an emphasis on restoring or creating appropriate. However, this falls outside the scope of this Monitoring Protocol. wetlands as elements of green ravine infrastructure in order to improve ecosystem services and their delivery 467 City of Toronto, General It would be useful to provide a section describing monitoring for The determination of whether the wetland can be retained on the landscape will be made N Toronto Water comments newly created wetlands for existing areas of full urban through the EA and planning process prior to any application of this protocol. development to lessen the impression that this protocol is only for greenfield developments; on the other hand we understand that This protocol mostly applies to greenfield development; however, there may be the need for this document is for areas of new urban opportunities to restore lost functions to wetlands in existing urban areas. In these development, and can accept that its focus is single- mindedly instances, a "best efforts" approach should be followed. Monitoring and modelling are toward areas of new development. If that is the case, then some likely not required, although there may be tools used to identify wetland baseline (i.e. text that speaks to the limits of this document for assessing current) conditions and targets to use in wetland restoration or creation projects. wetlands in areas of existing urban development, should be included, or a statement made that this document does not apply to areas of exiting urban development. CLOCA General The document identifies the variying phases /stages of Noted. We appreciate the comment. N comments development (early, intermediate and late) as well as the required studies which clearly set out the scale and scope of work that is expected in each stage of development. Providing this information is quite helpful in establishing / confirming expectations. Figure 1 is an excellent schematic for explaining the study considerations at the three stages of development. Well doneM CLOCA General Monitoring time periods - reference in the document is made to 1- Monitoring requirements are consistent with what we have indicated in our Stormwater N comments 3 years of monitoring. It is suggested that the word "minimum" be Management Criteria document, which states a minimum of 3 years. We have revised the added immediately before the 1 -3 year timeframe mentioned. text to ensure that this is reflected throughout. ME CVC (Dec. 18, 2015) General comments Overall CVC would like to commend TRCA on this document. It provides an excellent high -level overview of the Conservation Authorities expectation. ...We would find the document a lot more helpful if there was more guidance around specific recommendations rather than statements like 'it could be'. For example rather than saying some post monitoring surveys are needed, which could be 5 years after project completion, I'd prefer to see lists of what CA's generally ask for. We feel that the Protocol should not be overly prescriptive due to the wide vairety of potential scenarios (development forms, wetland types) that the Protocol could apply to. N CVC (Dec. 18, General Indicate that three years of baseline will be required, that Text has been revised in Section 1.2, Early Stage, to clarify when the 3 years of baseline Y 2015) comments ultimately we're looking for a normal, wet and dry year. And that monitoring are to take place within the planning process. Note also that the following at the very least, they should be able to define what they have sentences have been added to the text in Section 3, Step 5: "If it is a climatologically captured (they mention at the end of the report that context extreme year, effort should be made to understand how the wetland would function in an should be provided). If monitoring less than 3 years a average year. This can be done using baseline meteorological data provided by TRCA and precautionary approach to establishing requirements should be based on the conceptual model of the wetland's hydrology, or using a calibrated model undertaken. where one has been developed." CVC (Dec. 18, General Often, the post monitoring duration becomes a sticking point. Ideally, post - development monitoring should take place for a minimum of 5 years. The Y 2015) comments Should provide guidance about what this time period should be length of monitoring negotiated will depend to some extent on the site - specific wetland and how frequent the surveys should be during this period. conditions, the anticipated scale of impacts and the larger development context. In current practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in consultation with TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. The design and length of the monitoring is normally a negotiated outcome. Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. W • CVC (Dec. 18, General In our opinion all the Natural heritage variables should be listed if A list has been included in the revised text of Section 3, Step 2 that outlines the requested Y 2015) comments you are going include them in the report (e.g. amphibian variables. monitoring, vegetation) MTO General It appears the document is not written with linear types of The protocol only applies to wetlands where it has been determined through the Y comments development (i.e. the provincial highway system) in mind, with Environmental Assessment and planning processes that the feature will remain on the typically singular points of water input, but ratyher is municipally landscape. oriented where an impacted wetland is within a development area. A paragraph has been added to the introduction clarifying the applicability of the protocol to different forms of development and types of wetlands. We recognize that the mitigation options for linear infrastructure may generally be better addressed through use of best practice (e.g. inclusion of equalization culverts or micro - drainage culverts). MTO General If the intent is that the protocol apply to MTO work within TRCA's MTO would not typically be required to apply the protocol to their projects. However, N comments jurisdiction, MTO will need to discuss the implications with you in TRCA would identify situations where the project could significantly impact the water detail. The scope and cost of monitoring if applied to our work balance for a wetland (e.g. truncating the surface catchment) and would seek mitigation could be quite substantial with very little benefit. MTO data commitments, as needed, through the environmental assessment process. TRCA would collected would be point sensitive and therefore would not reflect also promote that MTO incorporate road designs that minimize hydrological impacts of the overall health and status of the wetland. road construction on wetlands, such as equalization culverts or microdrainage culverts. MTO General MTO has directives that guide our involvement and input into the Noted. N comments development of sub watershed plans. We do not initiate them but are stakeholders representing provincial transportation interests. 470 Peel Region General In general, the draft Protocol provides a useful guide for Noted. We appreciate the comment. N comments practitioners in preparing urban development, infrastructure and /or water extraction applications in which a wetland water balance analysis is required. We also recognize that the Protocol is intended to provide further details on expectations when completing Steps 2 and 6 of Appendix D.3 of the Stormwater Management Criteria (2012). Richmond Hill General The report integrates the protocol methodology with information We feel that the protocol is straightforward as written, and that a qualified consultant will N comments on technical methods and equipment. Separating these two be able to interpret the monitoring requirements without additional technical guidance. sections into different chapters would be beneficial. For those We have vetted the protocol with a number of consultants on our External Stakeholder who have experience with the equipment and use, they will be Committee and they have not raised any issues in this regard. We have provided much of able to focus on the methodology and requirements for the more technical information in text boxes, which can be easily skipped if it is not submission. For those who need extra technical guidance on relevant information to the reader. equipment and monitoring tips, they can consult an appendix. Richmond Hill General As background information is vital to a successful monitoring Agreed. Text has been added to explicitly state this in Section 1.2. Y comments program, the document should emphasize the need to determine if wetland monitoring is necessary during a pre - consultation process, and the need to commence the monitoring program as soon as possible. Richmond Hill General The document could indicate that pre - consultation with TRCA is Agreed. Text has been added to explicitly state this in Section 1.2. Y comments recommended /required to determine the scope of the study and ensure the information provided is valuable and complete. Richmond Hill General Surface water and groundwater catchments for a specific feature Text has been clairified throughout to reflect the difference between surface water and Y comments may differ. Additionally, development outside the surface water groundwater catchments and the inclusion of these respective elements within the NHS. drainage area for a feature may have drastic impacts on wetland hydrology. Please provide additional technical guidance on this matter in the document. 471 Town of Ajax General comments Details on how high, medium and low risk projects are defined should be within the report References to the Risk Evaluation Tool have been removed from the document, and instead the current process of consulting with TRCA to scope monitoring requirements for a development proposal is cited. The Risk Evaluation Tool, which we expect to complete in the near future, will undergo a separate external stakeholder consultation process. This tool will provide clear guidance on when a water balance is required and the scope of monitoring and modelling effort required for different development scenarios. Y Town of Ajax General How long should post - development monitoring go on for? If Ideally, post - development monitoring should take place for a minimum of 5 years. The Y comments results of the post development monitoring are not favourable, length of monitoring negotiated will depend to some extent on the site - specific wetland what mechanism exists for the authority to implement any further conditions, the anticipated scale of impacts and the larger development context. In current mitigation measures? If permits have been issued and registration practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in consultation with has already happened, then the CA has no way to enforce changes TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. The design and in mitigation measures. Furthermore, the CA has no way of length of the monitoring is normally a negotiated outcome; design for water balance and ensuring that the post development monitoring occurs at all. Does the stormwater system needs to be developed in consultation with the municipality as the CA envision municipalities collecting securities related to they will ultimately take responsibility for the infrastructure. Post - development monitoring monitoring to ensure compliance by developers? could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. York Region General Generally, York Region endorses the principles within the Protocol Noted. We appreciate the comment. N comments and the York Region Official Plan supports the protection of wetlands and ensures that any development adjacent to wetlands will not result in any negative impacts to these features. 472 York Region General York Region Planning staff has no issues with the Protocol and It is not our intention to require a full water balance analysis for every single wetland, but N comments compliments TRCA staff on their initiative, particularly the rather to use a risk -based approach that considers feature sensitivity and scale of water objective of clarifying steps within the Stormwater Management balance alteration to determine monitoring scope. At present, monitoring requirements Criteria. We trust that the Protocol will be applied with discretion will continue to be scoped in consultation with TRCA, but we intend to release the Risk depending on the nature and scale of the application involved Evaluation Tool in the near future which provides guidance on scoping for different given the pre and post monitoring requirements. development scenarios. Monitoring and modelling are and will continue to be commensurate with the level of risk to the wetland posed by the proposed development. RJ Burnside Section 1, Diagram is really helpful and if it came earlier and was used to Agreed; Figure 1 has been moved to earlier within the section. Y Figure 1 guide the text that would be helpful RJ Burnside Section 1, Water taking and pits don't include the impervious cover noted in A sentence has been added here clarifying that factors other than changes in impervious Y Introduction this section cover may also lead to alteration of wetland hydrology. RJ Burnside Section 1, [In regards to the intended uses of the pre - development data] - We feel that including the intended uses of pre - development data is both necessary and N Introduction Not sure how this fits in within the intro strongly related to the introductory text. City of Toronto, Section 1, Page Page 1 paragragh 1 and hereafter. Please emphasize that this Agreed. A statement has been added to the introduction to clarify the intended Y Toronto Water 1 protocol is for 'Natural Wetlands ", particularly for Provincial application of the protocol to natural wetlands. Significant Wetlands or Locally Significantly Wetlands and especially for landscape significant wetlands , but not for Constructed Urban or Rural Stormwater Management Wetlands. Peel Region Section 1.1 We note in Section 1.1 reference to the Protocol as being a living We will continue to engage our municipal and industry partners and our fellow CA's in the N document and hope that you will take the opportunity to continue development of tools and protocols relating to wetland water balance, including through to engage with municipalities and the development industry in our External Stakeholder Committee that has been established for that exact purpose. wetland protection, and on its application ensuring further refinement and development of the protocol. 473 City of Toronto, Basement Flooding Section 1.2 Consideration should be given to changing section heading to "Wetland Water Balance in the Planning Process ". The use of the word "development" in the context of Section 1.2 may be confusing to readers as later in the document the term "development" is used to refer to construction. As this section outlines the timing of monitoring phases throughout the planning process, including before and after construction, it is appropriate to retain the title "Wetland Water Balance in the Planning and Development Process ". N City of Toronto, Section 1.2 Consideration should be given to moving the development of the Agreed. Text has been revised to indicate that mitigation measures should be considered Y Basement mitigation plan from the Late State to the Intermediate Stage. as early as reasonably possible within the planning and design process in order to be Flooding Mitigation measures need to be identified and their preliminary accommodated in functional servicing studies, typically the Intermediate Stage. design completed as part of functional servicing studies as there are typically land use commitments for these measures that need to be known before proceeding with detailed design. By the time the Late Stage is reached in the planning process, it becomes difficult to start adding substantive mitigation measures to the environmental mitigation and stormwater management strategies. Peel Region Section 1.2 Section 1.2 which deals with Wetland Water Balance in the Text has been revised to clarify that it is the early stage of the planning process that is Y Planning and Development Process, there is mention under the referred to here, which can include the official plan. Differences in the planning process sub -head Early Stage where it is stated natural heritage system between different municipalities preclude a more precise definition of the timeline than (NHS) will be established based on features and functions that provided. identified earlier on. It is not clear what is meant by "earlier on" i.e. from Official Plans, or from pre - consultation with the developers and the CAs? We suggest inserting some wording to reflect the fact that for the most part the NHS will be established based on provincial, regional and local municipal official plan policy. 474 Peel Region Section 1.2 Mention is made in the same section about Wetland Risk References to the Risk Evaluation Tool have been removed from the document, and Y Evaluation (under development by TRCA and CVC) being instead the current process of consulting with TRCA to scope monitoring requirements for undertaken to determine the need for and scope of wetland(s) a development proposal is cited. The Risk Evaluation Tool, which we expect to complete in water balance monitoring requirements. This would make the near future, will undergo a separate external stakeholder consultation process. This application of the monitoring protocol seem premature if it has tool will provide clear guidance on when a water balance is required and the scope of not yet been established which wetland(s) would require this monitoring and modelling effort required for different development scenarios. monitoring. It would be useful if some of the preliminary thinking with respect to the risk evaluation is mentioned along with some projected future date for its release. RJ Burnside Section 1.2 In my mind this should be elevated to a section of its own We feel that Section 1.2 is not long enough nor substantially different enough from the rest N of Section 1 to merit elevating this to its own section. RJ Burnside Section 1.2 [three years of baseline data] is a rigid statement. Is it a minimum Monitoring requirements are consistent with what we have indicated in our Stormwater Y of three years? Management Criteria document, which states a minimum of 3 years. We have revised the text to ensure that this is reflected throughout. CLOCA Section 1.2, This protocol suggests on page 2 that the limits of the NHS include Text has been clarified throughout to reflect the difference between surface water and Y Early stage the surface and groundwater catchment areas for sensitive groundwater catchments and the inclusion of these respective elements within the NHS. features. Groundwater recharge zones may be quite far removed We agree that including the entire groundwater catchment will not be feasible where from the wetland features and located far beyond the wetlands are connected to large aquifer systems, but have indicated that proponents development area, for instance, on the ORM. Identifying the should strive to include groundwater recharge areas contributing significant quantities of entire catchment area as part of the NHS may be the theoretical water to features within the NHS, particularly if they will be impacted by the proposed preference, but in an urban and /or urbanizing area, this cannot development. realistically be achieved. It is recommended that rather than referring to the catchment as NHS, it could be referenced as "important contributing zone" or wording to that effect. In addition, opportunities to incorporate avoidance and /or mitigation tools and techniques within these zones could also be included. 475 CLOCA Section 1.2, On page 3, the last sentence of the 1st paragraph states, "We Text has been clarified throughout to reflect the difference between surface water and Y Early stage note that water balance modeling and monitoring can be avoided groundwater catchments and the inclusion of these respective elements within the NHS. by eliminating or reducing development or water extraction /discharge activities within the wetland's catchment." Reference to wetland catchment should state whether this is surface water or groundwater catchment, or both. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 1.2, This is confusing. Do you mean to say: "...however, consideration Revised text reads: "consideration will need to be given to maintaining overall water Y 2015) Early stage will need to be given to ways of maintaining overall water balance balance for the site, and watershed -level ecosystem services for the wetland (e.g. for the site and watershed -level ecosystem service for the groundwater recharge) will need to be maintained or enhanced." wetland will need to be maintained or enhanced ". CVC (Sept. 30, Section 1.2, It is not immediately clear that 1 -3 years of monitoring refers to Text has been revised in Section 1.2, Early Stage, to clarify when the 3 years of baseline Y 2015) Early stage what is completed in the "Early Stage" — suggest clarification as monitoring are to take place within the planning process. The Risk Evaluation Tool, noted currently under development, will provide additional guidance on the duration and extent of baseline monitoring for different scenarios. For now, the process of consulting with TRCA will remain the method of scoping monitoring requirements. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 1.2, Consider: "These data are used as inputs for the preliminary Revised text reads as suggested. Y 2015) Early stage modelling work conducted as part of the initial impact assessment." RJ Burnside Section 1.2, Phase 1 is not well defined.. text suggests that Phase 1 is related Text has been revised to clarify that it is the early stage of the planning process that is Y Early stage to MESP referred to here, which can include the official plan. Differences in the planning process between different municipalities preclude a more precise definition of the timeline than that provided. RJ Burnside Section 1.2, "Next, the natural heritage system (NHS) will be established based Text has been revised to clarify that it is the early stage of the planning process that is Y Early stage on the features and functions identified earlier on." - should try referred to here, which can include the official plan. Differences in the planning process and make these timelines clear... what is earlier on? between different municipalities preclude a more precise definition of the timeline than that provided. 476 CLOCA Section 1.2, Also on page 3 in the 2nd paragraph the meaning of the second Text has been revised in Section 1.2, Early Stage, to clarify when the 3 years of baseline y Early stage sentence is unclear. monitoring are to take place within the planning process. The Risk Evaluation Tool, currently under development, will provide additional guidance on the duration and extent of baseline monitoring for different scenarios. For now, the process of consulting with TRCA will remain the method of scoping monitoring requirements. RJ Burnside Section 1.2, "If a water balance is required for the wetland, as determined by Text has been revised in Section 1.2, Early Stage, to clarify when the 3 years of baseline y Intermediate the level of risk, a minimum of one year of monitoring is monitoring are to take place within the planning process. Monitoring requirements are stage required." - how does this relate to the 3 years previously consistent with what we have indicated in our Stormwater Management Criteria mentioned? document, which states a minimum of 3 years. City of Toronto, Section 1.2, Page 3 Intermediate Stage /Late Stage, it is our opinion that Text has been revised to indicate that mitigation measures should be considered as early y Toronto Water Intermediate /L mitigation measures should be part of the intermediate stage, as reasonably possible within the planning and design process in order to be ate stage because the results of the water balance analysis should inform accommodated in functional servicing studies, typically at the Intermediate Stage. the functional servicing report. Leaving this all to detailed design may result in a limited mitigation plan being shoehorned in at the final stage. We can appreciate why it is shown as at the final stage (because small wetland projects may skip the Intermediate stage when it makes it way to TRCA, but point out that it really needs to be at the earlier stage. CLOCA Section 2 Description of the wetland water balance equation on pages 4 and We do not see how the existence of other tools affects the basic structure of the water N 5 is at a pretty course level. There are more advanced tools balance equation. We feel that qualified consultants will be able to interpret the available. Is there a reason why mention is not made regarding monitoring requirements for water balance without additional technical guidance in this other tools for determining water balance equations? document. 477 CVC (Dec. 18, Section 2 On page 4, box indicates 5 components of the wetland Yes, the numbers are different for water balance components and hydroperiod, but these Y 2015) hydroperiod but text 7 components to a water balance. are two different things. The hydroperiod components characterize the pattern of changes in water level within the wetland, while the water balance components are the various inflows and outflows that produce these water level changes. A new figure, Figure 2, has been added to Section 2 to visually illustrate the hydroperiod. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 2, What is "residual "? Is it necessary to include this, since any The residual term has been removed; this term represents cumulative error across the Y 2015) Water balance residual would automatically become OS? If not, it would be water balance components, but we feel it would be more valuable to attempt to quantify equation worth defining alongside the other variables. error within each term. CVC (Dec. 18, Section 3 A table that lists the questions from section 3 and how The addition of such a table may be interpreted by readers as the only correct approach to Y 2015) proponents would go about answering them would be a nice, answering the research questions, and we would prefer to avoid being overly prescriptive clean way of providing guidance that can easily be followed. In my in outlining approaches while still maintaining clarity on what information is required. It experience I notice that sometimes people do not implement the would be very difficult to present this table in a way that ancitipated all of the possible appropriate procedures to answer the proposed questions. If they methods of answering the research questions according to different potential scenarios have a table to refer to, this may make the process of developing while keeping it concise and useful. a monitoring plan much easier. CVC (Dec. 18, Section 3 Table 1 does not match Figure 3. Table 1 matches Figure 3, as far as we are able to discern. N 2015) CVC (Sept. 30, Section 3, Figures 2 and 3 are not referenced in the text References to these figures have been added in the revised text. Y 2015) Examples of equipment (p. 11) City of Toronto, Section 3, Page Page 12 case study, word missing. Should read'Monitoring wells This has been addressed in revisions. Y Toronto Water 12 - Case study, should be distributed around the wetland to establish the datacollection direction of groundwater flow' and instrumentatio n Eff 001 CVC (Dec. 18, Section 3, Step Page 5 — should the question be asked included wetland functions The list has been revised to include this item. Y 2015) 1 e.g. sensitive species, wildlife habitat. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 3, Step Results of groundwater modelling may be required (i.e. for Text has been clairified throughout to reflect the difference between surface water and Y 2015) 1 groundwater taking/quarries below water table) for gw -fed groundwater catchments and the inclusion of these respective elements within the NHS. wetlands whose surficial drainage area falls outside the development area, but are still within the zone of influence. RJ Burnside Section 3, Step Would be nice if you provided an indication of how these The questions outlined in Section 3, Step 1 are intended to generally frame the questions Y 1 (framing the questions will impact the monitoring program that need to be answered in the design of the monitoring program. We have revised the questions) title of this step to make this intent clearer. CVC (Dec. 18, Section 3, Step Mention characterizing fauna and flora. Because ELC is mentioned The requirements for characterizing site flora and fauna have been clarified in a list in Y 2015) 2 in Chapter /Section 3 Step 2, should also pinpoint amphibian MMP Section 3, Step 4. Flora and fauna have been removed from the mandatory wetland water (frog /toad surveys) as ultimately this seems to be an important balance monitoring requirements due to the difficulties of using these as indicators of piece of information for any wetland work. hydrologic alteration within a wetland (i.e. their absence may be due to other factors not related to hydrological alteration). These data may still be collected as part of a broader monitoring program and can be used to help demonstrate the success of a mitigation strategy at achieving a particular goal, however hydroperiod will be the main factor determining impacts of hydrologic alteration. Note that flora and fauna data are still required as part of the site characterization as indicated in Figure 1 of the Protocol. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 3, Step If the intent of the "residual' term is to help balance the equation The residual term has been removed; this term represents cumulative error across the Y 2015) 3 through iterative convergence, it should be noted where the AS water balance components, but we feel it would be more valuable to attempt to quantify equation is first presented. error within each term. 479 City of Toronto, Section 3, Step (From mark -up) There is no mention of flora or fauna monitoring The requirements for characterizing site flora and fauna have been clarified in a list in Y Basement 4 requirements as part of the water balance assessment presented Section 3, Step 4. Flora and fauna have been removed from the mandatory wetland water Flooding in Appendix D or the rest of this document. Recommend removing balance monitoring requirements due to the difficulties of using these as indicators of it or at least scaling down the discussion. hydrologic alteration within a wetland (i.e. their absence may be due to other factors not related to hydrological alteration). These data may still be collected as part of a broader monitoring program and can be used to help demonstrate the success of a mitigation strategy at achieving a particular goal, however hydroperiod will be the main factor determining impacts of hydrologic alteration. Note that flora and fauna data are still required as part of the site characterization as indicated in Figure 1 of the Protocol. CLOCA Section 3, Step In the 2nd paragraph on page 9 it is recommended that the This paragraph has been removed from the revised document, as requirements for Y 4 monitoring stations be flagged and surveyed. ecological monitoring have been largely removed from the protocol. CVC (Dec. 18, Section 3, Step Page 8 last paragraph is dealing with wildlife rather than The requirements for characterizing site flora and fauna have been clarified in a list in Y 2015) 4 hydrology. Does TRCA want the document to deal with only Section 3, Step 4. Flora and fauna have been removed from the mandatory wetland water hydrology is this Protocol? When getting flora and fauna data balance monitoring requirements due to the difficulties of using these as indicators of there is a need to describe if the data collection is for inventorying hydrologic alteration within a wetland (i.e. their absence may be due to other factors not or monitoring. In many cases data for monitoring is not collected related to hydrological alteration). These data may still be collected as part of a broader as part of development proposals. monitoring program and can be used to help demonstrate the success of a mitigation strategy at achieving a particular goal, however hydroperiod will be the main factor determining impacts of hydrologic alteration. Note that flora and fauna data are still required as part of the site characterization as indicated in Figure 1 of the Protocol. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 3, Step "...effort should be made to understand how the wetland would Revised text reads: "If it is a climatologically extreme year, effort should be made to Y 2015) 5 function in an average year based on the one -year baseline data understand how the wetland would function in an average year. This can be done using by the TRCA. " - How? baseline meteorological data provided by TRCA and based on the conceptual model of the wetland's hydrology, or using a calibrated model where one has been developed." B RJ Burnside Section 3, Step TRCA would do this? [would provide monitoring data where single Revised text reads: "If it is a climatologically extreme year, effort should be made to Y 5 year of data is climatologically extreme] understand how the wetland would function in an average year. This can be done using baseline meteorological data provided by TRCA and based on the conceptual model of the wetland's hydrology, or using a calibrated model where one has been developed." City of Toronto, Section 3, Steps The protocol proposes (pages 7 to 9) that a conceptual model of We feel that, naturally, any investigator will develop early -on a rough conceptual N Toronto Water 1 -3 the wetland should be developed at Step 3. We disagree, but see hydrological model of the wetland. However, certain features of the "mental" model, why it is written up this way. A knowledgeable consultant will be particularly the quantity of groundwater inputs and the rate of infiltration across the site, able to read the current wetland system and develop a mental can only be reasonably included after some investigation. Note that no computer model of the effects of runoff on the wetland in Step 1, meaning modelling occurs at this stage - -the conceptual model is the hypothesized "mental' model that Step 3 would then be confirmation of the conceptual model that is confirmed during Step 3 of the SWM Criteria Document Appendix D "Developing the hypothesized in Step 1. Please consider this point in your Existing Conditions Water Budget Model'. regigging your write -up City of Toronto, Section 3, The amount of text dedicated to describing this aspect of The requirements for characterizing site flora and fauna have been clarified in a list in Y Basement Step 4 monitoring seems excessive given that it is not mentioned in the Section 3, Step 4. Flora and fauna have been removed from the mandatory wetland water Flooding "Water Balance for Protection of Natural Features" document or balance monitoring requirements due to the difficulties of using these as indicators of other sections of the "Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Balance hydrologic alteration within a wetland (i.e. their absence may be due to other factors not Protocol' document. related to hydrological alteration). These data may still be collected as part of a broader monitoring program and can be used to help demonstrate the success of a mitigation strategy at achieving a particular goal, however hydroperiod will be the main factor determining impacts of hydrologic alteration. Note that flora and fauna data are still required as part of the site characterization as indicated in Figure 1 of the Protocol. City of Toronto, Section 3, Change in the water balance is only one factor of many that could See above comment Y Basement Step 4 lead to changes in flora and fauna in a wetland setting. Flooding EFOOF City of Toronto, Section 3, Typically collection of data on flora and fauna would be required See above comment Y Basement Step 4 to satisfy other environmental commitments, but it wouldn't be Flooding specifically required as part of a water balance monitoring program. CLOCA Section 3, Table 1 offers a summary of monitoring equipment. It would be We feel that, given the variety of ways of categorizing wetlands and the possibility of N Table 1 beneficial to add a column that identifies those instruments which exceptions to any categorization scheme, this is best determined by the consultant are best used for monitoring specific types of wetlands. according to the specific site characteristics. CVC (Sept. 30, Section 3, Guidance on installation location? i.e., staff gauge installations Additional guidance /text has been added into Table 1. Y 2015) Table 1 within pools /deep points RJ Burnside Section 3, Need to link instrumentation section to Table 1. Table seems to References to figures /tables within text have been added in revised document. Y Table 1 be parachuted in with no link to rest of document RON CLOCA Section 4 Page 14, having an implementation mechanism to provide for In current practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in Y remedial works in the event monitoring results indicate a negative consultation with TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. or unanticipated impact to the feature /function has been Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the noticed /identified would be a positive addition to the protocol. subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. Peel Region Section 4 Section 4 which deals with Post - Planning Monitoring Phases (3rd Interim measures may be necessary because the surface water catchment size and runoff N paragraph) mentions grounwater or surface water catchment conveyance systems may be dynamic during construction and it is hard to anticipate all the being altered prior to the implementation of mitigation measures possible effects this could have on natural features. Therefore, we feel it is appropriate to and therefore interim mitigation measures may have to be mention interim measures in the Protocol. These may be triggered by significant changes initiated. The possibility of this scenario occuring should have in wetland water levels or other attributes identified from monitoring during construction. been captured inany evaluative stidu of the proposal (EIA) with appropriate mitigation measures identified, rather than it being RJ Burnside Section 4, Case This figure is very helpful Noted. We appreciate the comment. Y study, phasing and timing CLOCA Section 4, Page 14, the 3rd paragraph speaks to the disruption of catchment Yes, this is consistent with the surface water catchment and the important groundwater N Development area services suring construction. Is this consistent with the recharge contributing areas referred to on pg. 2. Interim mitigation measures would be phase catchment areas being included within the limits of the NHS as initiated based on monitoring triggers identified prior to the construction phase in identified on page 2? Recommendations regarding temporary or consultation with TRCA; implementation would have to be a negotiated process. Post - interim mitigation to protect the wetland are provided on page development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the subdivision 14; however, it is unclear as to how this provision couldbe agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in order to take implemented. remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). . ON CVC (Sept. 30, Section 4, "Triggers" isn't defined in the text. Consider adding a sentence The development of triggers and thresholds for mitigation activities is outside the scope of N 2015) Development that explains how remedial or mitigation activities are triggered this document. Consultation with CA staff will be required to address this issue, and phase when pre- determined environmental indicators exceed or cross a triggers and mitigation plans will be based on expert judgement. We are currently threshold value. investigating various tools that will help proponents to define triggers based on baseline monitoring data and wetland characteristics, which would reduce the need for consultation on this issue. City of Section 4, 1 don't believe ", but" is necessary here. Revised text reads: "On large construction projects, there is often a substantial amount of Y Mississauga, Development- The sentence should continue "...has been altered, prior to the..." time when a wetland's groundwater or surface water catchment has been altered, but Infrastructure phase mitigation measures have not yet been implemented" Dept. monitoring City of Toronto, Section 4, Page Page 15 case study, under development phase bubble, the 3rd This has been addressed in revisions. Y Toronto Water 15 - Case study, and 4th bullet say the same thing, delete one or the other; under phasing and post - development phase bubble, arrow overlaps text. timing BE City of Mississauga, Infrastructure Dept. Section 4, Post- development phase If supplemental roof drainage is required to provide a subject feature with surface water inflow, the remaining portion (15 -20)% of development that is not yet built -out may be a significant portion, or potentially all, of the planned clean water collection roof area. A statement providing the following two clarification points should be made: 1) Supplemental clean roof drainage is considered as a mitigation measure, and Text has been modified to clarify purpose and timing of post - development monitoring. Supplemental clean roof draiange is recommended as a mitigation measure in Appendix D of the TRCA SWM Criteria. Y City of Section 4, post- Although the current (Sept, 2015) Draft Protocol states "...post- Text has been revised to clarify at what phase of development the post - development Y Mississauga, development development data collection may begin... as long as all mitigation monitoring may begin. Infrastructure phase measures designed to protect wetland hydrology have been Dept. implemented. ", more clarity such as that provided above would aid in preventing future improper applications of this policy. CVC (Dec. 18, Section 5 The reporting section is so high -level I'm not sure what we'd We feel that the Protocol should not be overly prescriptive due to the wide vairety of N 2015) expect proponents to take away from it. I guess it's trying to potential scenarios (development forms, wetland types) that the Protocol could apply to. balance providing some guidance without being too prescriptive. A site - specific Terms of Reference for the monitoring program, including reporting At the very least I would like to see that reports should follow a requirements, should be developed in consultation with the conservation authority and certain format with the following sections and pieces? municipality. Hoop CVC (Sept. 30, Section 5 "Development phase reporting will vary from project to project. In current practice, a monitoring plan is negotiated through the planning process in y 2015) For example, if triggers for action during construction have been consultation with TRCA, the proponent and the municipality prior to draft plan approval. deemed necessary, development phase reporting frequency may Post - development monitoring could be a condition of TRCA permits or part of the be more intensive" - Any requirements for notification if triggers subdivision agreement tied to the phases of development. Securities could be held in are enacted and mitigation required? order to take remedial action if deemed necessary through the monitoring, either by the municipality under the subdivision or site plan agreement, or by the CA under the permit (s). Text has been added to Sections 3 and 4 to clarify the process for post - planning monitoring, as well as the definition of triggers for remedial action. E We RES. #A144/16 - YELLOW CREEK NEAR HEATH STREET EAST SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENT July 8, 2013 Severe Weather Event. Award of Contract #10002159 for geotechnical engineering services on a preferred source basis to complete a slope stability and erosion risk assessment behind 10 residential properties along Yellow Creek near Heath Street East in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS a slope stability and erosion risk assessment of the valley slope below Heath Street East was completed by GeoTerre Ltd. in 2015 as part of a City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation initiative to replace a failing staircase following the July 8, 2013 severe weather event; AND WHEREAS a visual assessment by GeoTerre Ltd. noted signs of potential slope and structural instability for the larger surrounding area in proximity to the failing staircase; AND WHEREAS the City of Toronto's Parks, Forestry & Recreation (PF &R) Division, following the receipt of GeoTerre's observations and recommendations, requested that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide financial and technical assistance with an expanded geotechnical investigation to assess the extent of risk to 10 private properties at the top of slope; AND WHEREAS staff was subsequently authorized at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to commence with said investigation; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #10002159 to complete a slope stability and erosion risk assessment be awarded to GeoTerre Ltd. on a preferred source basis to supplement the geotechnical investigation previously completed by GeoTerre in 2015 for a total cost not to exceed $83,410.00 plus 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST. AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In late 2015 the City of Toronto requested that TRCA staff undertake a detailed geotechnical investigation of the valley slope in the Heath Street East area, to assess the extent of risk to 10 private properties that are located in close proximity to a failing staircase that the City's PF &R Division intends to replace once the extent of risk to the larger surrounding area is known. It is TRCA's understanding that the City initiated the replacement staircase project following the partial collapse of the staircase during the July 8, 2013 severe weather event. Schollen Company Landscape Architects (Schollen) was subsequently retained by the City in 2015 to develop detailed designs for the proposed replacement stairway. As part of the design process, Schollen retained GeoTerre Ltd. to complete a local slope stability and erosion risk assessment. The outcome of the slope stability analysis determined that the slope, in its current condition, is unsafe for the purpose of implementing a stairway in any alignment as the slope does not achieve the Reeli minimum overall slope stability factor of safety of 1.5. The final report also noted potential slope and retaining wall instability in the larger surrounding area. In light of concerns raised that the removal of the existing staircase and the construction of a new replacement staircase could further destabilize these retaining walls and /or trigger a slope failure, GeoTerre recommended that an expanded slope stability assessment be completed before finalizing the detailed design plans. This type of study, however, was beyond the City's financial and technical ability to manage, leading them to request TRCA's assistance using its Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding to address problems of this scale and complexity. Following a review of existing information and a delineation of the proposed expanded study limits (Attachment 1), staff received approval to commence with the "Yellow Creek near Heath Street East Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Assessment ", hereinafter referred to as the "Project ", from the Authority under Resolution #A71/16 at Meeting #4/16 held on May 27, 2016. RATIONALE As it is imperative that the expanded geotechnical study be completed as soon as possible in light of the potential risk to private property should the staircase and /or the slope fail, and given GeoTerre Ltd.'s intimate knowledge of the site, staff recommends that Contract #10002159 be awarded to GeoTerre Ltd. on a preferred source basis for a total cost not to exceed $83,410.00 for a total cost per property of $8,341.00, plus a 10% contingency, plus HST. Approval to retain GeoTerre Ltd. on a preferred source basis is in compliance with TRCA's Purchasing Policy requirements under Section 9.3(3) which states: The required goods and services are to be supplied by a vendor or supplier having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be reasonably provided by any other supplier. Noting that the average slope stability assessment for an urban residential property costs approximately $10,000, GeoTerre's estimate of $8,341 per property is competitively priced, and reflects the cost savings realized by utilizing a consultant who is already familiar with the study area, requiring less hours to complete the assignment. FINANCIAL DETAILS The upset limit for this project is $83,410.00, plus a 10% contingency, plus HST. Funding for this contract is available through TRCA's 2016 Critical Erosion and Flood Works budget. All funding for Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects is provided by the City of Toronto under account #133 -01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA has proposed to undertake a slope stability and erosion risk assessment to identify the full extent of risk to the 10 residential properties at the top of the slope in order to support a City of Toronto PF &R initiative to replace a failing stairway behind Heath Street East which provides access to the Vale of Avoca ravine system and nearby David A. Balfour Park. . . The slope stability and erosion risk assessment will supplement the geotechnical investigation completed by GeoTerre Ltd. in 2015, and will inform potential future works, including a future replacement stairway, protection of the dwellings identified to be at risk, and protection of the existing trail at the toe of the slope. Report prepared by: Courtney Rennie, 416- 392 -9690 Emails: crennie(aDtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416- 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell(cDtrca.on.ca Date: September 6, 2016 Attachments: 1 • Attatchment 1 �1 W Legend Project Area Watercourses •••••• Floodline L J Regulation Limit TRCA Property 0 Parcel Assessment Project Area\ A 1� W \\ o� PPS Toronto and Regian Conservation for The Living City 0 20 40 80 Meters © Queen's Printer for Ontado and its licensors. [2005] May Not be Reproducerywjuioy� Permission. THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. wee otr,no RES. #A145/16 - RELEASE OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is releasing a progress report titled Within Reach: 2015 Toronto and Region RAP Progress Report. This report outlines the key actions that have been carried out, and the progress that has been made, since the last progress report was completed in 2007. Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with the Toronto and Region RAP team, federal, provincial and municipal staff, the academic community, environmental non - governmental organizations and others to address the Key Actions identified in Within Reach: 2015 Toronto and Region RAP Progress Report highlights; AND FURTHER THAT the progress report be made available to federal government departments, provincial ministries, Members of Parliament and Members of Provincial Parliament, councillors, community groups, universities, schools, libraries and the public throughout the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan is aimed at restoring the health of Toronto's waters and habitats and has been underway since 1987. This report Within Reach: 2015 Toronto and Region RAP Progress Report outlines the key actions that have been carried out and the progress that has been made since the last progress report was completed in 2007. This update highlights the positive strides made towards delisting. Since the RAP began in 1987, agencies, municipalities and non - governmental organizations have worked together to improve the environmental conditions in the Toronto RAP area. Implementation of remedial and restoration actions began in 1994 and has led to significant and demonstrable improvements in the quality of water and sediment, the amount and condition of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and the health of aquatic biota and aquatic communities. Key outcomes highlighted in the report include: • phosphorus levels along the waterfront are no longer an issue and meet the mesotrophic target set for the RAP (although continued work on critical wet weather flow infrastructure is needed to ensure that this does not change); • there has been a substantial reduction in loadings of E. coli to the waterfront which has resulted in a steady decline in beach closings and the awarding of Blue Flag status to eight of Toronto's 11 waterfront beaches; • the aesthetics of watercourses and the waterfront in the Toronto RAP area are good (meaning the water in rivers and along the waterfront is generally free of substances such as oil slicks or surface scum); • bottom sediments along the waterfront are getting cleaner and will continue to improve as critical wet weather flow infrastructure projects are completed; • the health of benthic communities has improved as a result of cleaner sediments; • after decades of declines as urbanization has taken place, the amount of habitat (natural cover) is relatively stable in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) jurisdiction; 491 • the restoration of habitats and the creation of hundreds of hectares of terrestrial and aquatic habitat along streams and along the waterfront have improved conditions for both fish and wildlife; • aquatic habitat improvements including the creation and restoration of habitats for migration, spawning, nursery, feeding, shelter and overwintering support an increased diversity of fish species along the waterfront and the north shore of the Inner Harbour; • in terms of ecosystem health, the fish community along the waterfront is "fair ", with a proportion of top predator fish that is approaching (or perhaps is at) a healthy level; • levels of contaminants (mercury and PCBs) in fish continue to decline and there are no restrictions on consumption of many resident fish due to contaminants; and • fish - eating wildlife in the Toronto RAP area are not at risk from contaminants. A measure of progress is that five (Degradation of benthos, Restrictions on dredging, Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems, Fish tumours or other deformities, Degradation of aesthetics) of the original 11 Beneficial Use Impairments that were identified as "Impaired" 30 years ago have now been redesignated as "Not Impaired ". Of course, all is not good news. Levels of chloride in the watersheds, primarily caused by the salting of roads in the winter, continue to rise in relation to the amount of urbanization that has taken place. In the watersheds there has been a decrease in native fish species and an increase in tolerant species. Levels of PCB in migratory fish species and in two resident species continue to restrict consumption. Along the waterfront, fish populations are dominated by degradation tolerant species. And wildlife species continue to be adversely affected by urbanization, with continuing loss of some species. The take home message from the progress report is this: In many fundamental ways the conditions of Toronto's waters, fish, wildlife and habitats have improved since 1994, in part due to actions taken under the Remedial Action Plan. But the work is not yet completed and there is much to be done before the RAP finishes. Continued vigilance is necessary to preserve the gains that have been made, given continued population growth in the Toronto area. Over the next five years, the Toronto and Region RAP will focus on the remaining four Beneficial Use Impairments that continue to be designated as "Impaired ". These are: • Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae; • Beach Closures; • Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations; and • Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. This report identifies the targets that need to be reached for these Beneficial Use Impairments to be re- designated as "Not Impaired ", along with the key actions that need to be carried out to meet these targets. It also identifies actions that will be taken relating to the Restrictions on Fish Consumption and Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations Beneficial Use Impairments. More study needs to be done for these to demonstrate that they are also "Not Impaired ". The goal, to be ready for delisting the Toronto and Region Area of Concern by 2020, will be challenging to meet, but it is indeed, within reach. 492 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this progress report was provided through Remedial Action Plan funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Remedial Action Plan provides $500,000 in funding annually (from ECCC and MOECC) to various projects undertaken by TRCA that contribute to delisting the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. An additional $690,000 has been provided during the federal fiscal year (April 1, 2016 — March 31, 2017) by ECCC's Great Lakes Sustainably Fund along with an additional $107,000 from MOECC. Staff will continue to work on projects towards delisting the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. Report prepared by: Shari Dahmer, extension 5576 Emails: sdahmer @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney @trca.on.ca Date: August 3, 2016 493 RES. #A146/16 - MORNINGSIDE CREEK RESTORATION PLAN Steeles Avenue to Old Finch Avenue. Opportunity to restore and enhance natural heritage habitats associated with Morningside Creek. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT approval be granted for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to work with the City of Toronto for the restoration of habitats along Morningside Creek; THAT authorized TRCA staff be directed to take any action necessary to implement the program including obtaining any required design, approvals and the signing and execution of documents CARRIED BACKGROUND Morningside Creek has been significantly altered, most recently in the late 1990s and early 2000s by adjacent residential housing developments. Portions of the creek channel were relocated and restored at that time through construction of a meandering natural channel. However, much of the associated creek floodplain remains an open, grassy area which does not provide much shade for the creek or diverse habitat for wildlife. There are records of redside dace, a provincially endangered minnow, in Morningside Creek as recently as 2009. This is the only remaining redside dace creek in Toronto so it is particularly important to develop and implement restoration efforts to protect and enhance the functional habitat of this fish. In addition, there are opportunities to improve the several stormwater management ponds that outlet to the creek and floodplain, as well as several large areas of mowed grass associated with a Hydro One right -of -way which does not provide much by way of terrestrial habitat for wildlife. There exists significant opportunities to undertake strategic restoration projects that will provide important habitat benefits for both the creek and floodplain and the local community. These benefits include: 1. Riparian and upland shrub and tree plantings to help cool the creek and provide natural cover for wildlife; 2. Ongoing temperature monitoring of the creek and outlets of the stormwater ponds to determine if future efforts are required to further cool the water coming in to the creek; 3. Improving butterfly habitat along the Finch /Gatineau hydro corridors; 4. Engaging the local community in planting events and outreach about the importance of Morningside Creek. There have been periodic small scale habitat projects undertaken in the Morningside Creek watershed in the past years. In 2010, TRCA received $300,000 from Metrolinx/Toronto Transit Commission to provide compensation for portions of Morningside Creek that would be impacted by construction of a light rail facility. This initial funding highlighted the need to develop a comprehensive, integrated concept plan that all agencies could agree to and would help facilitate further implementation. In December 2013, TRCA staff hosted a meeting of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto Zoo, City of Toronto and TRCA technical staff to discuss and develop such a plan for this stream reach. There was consensus and approval of a comprehensive planting strategy as part of this overall restoration plan. A portion of the agreed upon areas were planted in 2014 and temperature data was collected in 2014 and 2015. • A In addition, in late 2013, TRCA staff began negotiations with Save the Rouge Valley System for additional funds that would provide for more extensive restoration. The recent securement of $1 million from the Save the Rouge Valley System has reenergized this initiative. TRCA will again host a meeting of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Toronto Zoo, City of Toronto and TRCA technical staff in October to discuss and prioritize implementation and direct future restoration efforts. There is also a significant future opportunity in the southern reach of Morningside Creek, although the projects there are complicated and will require significant engineering design as well as approvals and funding. RATIONALE Morningside Creek has experienced considerable alteration in the past and this project provides the opportunity to restore some of the natural diversity and ecological function of the system. The project will integrate upland, riparian and native grass meadows. The project provides an opportunity to work closely with TRCA's partners to enhance the natural environment along the only stream in Toronto that is occupied by redside dace. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The project will be completed over three years. Staff is in discussions with various agencies and partners to finalize the conceptual plans. In spring 2017, riparian and upland plantings will be undertaken, preparation of the site for a future native grass meadow will occur and studies of the relationship of stormwater ponds and the stream environment will be continued. Final delivery of all components will be completed in 2019. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA has already received $300,000 from Metrolinx/Toronto Transit Commission and has now received $1 million from Save the Rouge Valley System. Costs for the project will not exceed these amounts. Report prepared by: Emma Followes, extension 5783 Emails: efollowes(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Emails: gmacpherson(o�trca.on.ca Date: September 1, 2016 495 RES. #A147/16 - MEETING SCHEDULE 2017 -2018 Schedule of board meetings for the period beginning February 24, 2017 and ending February 23, 2018. Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Meeting Schedule 2017 -2018, dated August 9, 2016, be approved; THAT the Executive Committee be delegated the powers of the Authority during the month of August, 2017, as defined in Section 2.10 of the Rules of Conduct; AND FURTHER THAT the CEO's Office distribute this schedule at the earliest opportunity to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) watershed municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. CARRIED RATIONALE Since most Authority Members also sit on municipal councils, boards or committees, which usually meet on days other than Friday, the recommended schedule accommodates TRCA board meetings on Fridays. Staff has made every effort to avoid conflicts with municipal council meetings, Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) annual conference and Board of Directors meetings, Board of Governors of Exhibition Place meetings, statutory holidays and school March breaks, in selecting the proposed meeting days, while still maintaining a schedule which meets TRCA's functional needs. There are some meetings that are the same week as Toronto City Council, so if the City meeting runs into extra days, a conflict may occur. Given the long weekends, other conflicts noted above and TRCA reporting requirements, these are the optimal dates for the meetings. An Authority meeting is not scheduled in the month of August due to summer vacations. To accommodate the large number of permit requests at this time, an Executive Committee meeting is scheduled. Should an item require Authority approval in August, Section 2.10 of the Authority's Rules of Conduct permits the Authority to delegate its powers to the Executive Committee: 2.10 to exercise such additional powers, excluding those powers set out in Clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 30 of the Act, as may be assigned to it by the Authority during the months of July and August provided that a report be given to the Authority at the first meeting of the Authority thereafter, Staff is recommending powers be assigned to the Executive Committee for August, 2017, with the required report being brought to the Authority at its meeting proposed to be held on September 22, 2017. Staff is also recommending that the August Executive Committee meeting be conducted with the option of teleconferencing due to the lighter agenda, unless otherwise advised as a result of items scheduled. At Authority Annual Meeting #1/02, held on January 25, 2002, Resolution #A6/02 was approved in part as follows: r 9 • THAT the dates of future Annual Meetings be changed to accommodate the budget meeting schedule for our member municipalities, such that the Annual Meeting held following a municipal election be in January while the Annual Meetings in the interim two years between elections be moved to February; In accordance with Resolution #A6/02, the 2018 annual Authority meeting is proposed to be held on Friday, February 23, 2018. The January and February 2017 meetings were previously approved in Meeting Schedule 2016 -2017, but are provided below for assistance in updating calendars. Meetings will be held at TRCA's Head Office at 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan. The Authority and Executive Committee meetings will be held at 9:30 a.m. with the exception of the Annual meeting which will be held at 10:30 a.m.. The Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BARB) meetings will be held at 8:30 a.m. Members are requested to enter all board meetings in their calendars upon receipt of the annual schedule. Members are further requested to schedule to be in attendance at Authority and Executive Committee meetings until at least 1:30 p.m. to ensure quorum is maintained. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks @trca.on.ca Date: August 9, 2016 Attachments: 1 497 Attachment 1 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2017 - 2018 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS P1 MM 'Ba Su M Tu W Th F a u I+f U' W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 CLW I.. 14 15 16 17 21 11MAj.-AlLul 23 24 28 29 30 31 27 28 29 W Th Sa Su. M Tu Su M Tu W Th F Sa 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 4 1 2 1 AUTH #10/16 _ EC #12/16 EXEC #1f I 8 9 10 11 12 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 1111 2 3 4 5 6 8 19 11/16 EXEC #11/13 20 21 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17I 18� 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 9 24 27 ANNUALAUTH 24 22 23 24 25 26 28 19 20 21 22 23 25 19 20 21 22 23 BAAB #1/17 25 16 17 18 19 20 22 AUTH #11116 #1/17 AUTH #2117 (10:30 am) J 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 P1 MM 'Ba Su M Tu W Th F a u I+f U' W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 13 18 AUTH #4117 20 25 26 27 + 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 L� 9 F Sa 7 1 2 9 3 3 4 10 8 g26 10 14 21 28 15 AUTH #7/17 29 16 23 30 Su M Tu W Th Sa Su. M Tu W Th 1 9 F Sa 7 1 2 9 3 3 4 10 8 g26 10 14 21 28 15 AUTH #7/17 29 16 23 30 17 17 18 25 24 22 23 24 25 31 1 9 F Sa 5 6 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 25 21 22 23 24 25 31 28 29 30 1 9 F Sa 5 6 8 6 AUTH #10/17 11 12 14 15 13 EXEC #11117 18 18 20 26 30 25 27 AUTH #11/17 30 1 9 3 4 BAAB #2/17 10 6 8 EXEC #4/17 10 11 16 17 14 15 23 24 AUTH 17 18 #5/17 22 23 30 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 AUT -- 1 Su M Tu W 18 19 20 1 21 1 22 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 F 6� 7 13 BAAB #3/17 14 EXEC #8/117, 20 21 27 28 AUTH #8/17 F i 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 1 21 1 22 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 F 6� 7 13 BAAB #3/17 14 EXEC #8/117, 20 21 27 28 AUTH #8/17 F Sa 2 3 4 3 -' EC #12/17 7 9 10 16 17 23 13 ANNUAL AUTH 24 #1/18 16 (10:30 am) 18 3V 31 • .• Su M Tu. W Th F Sa 1 2 C #9114 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AUTH #9/17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 --1 AUTH = Authority EXEC = Executive Committee BAAB = Budget/Audit Advisory Board Holidays March Break 498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 15 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AUT -- 1 29 3V 31 • .• Su M Tu. W Th F Sa 1 2 C #9114 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AUTH #9/17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 --1 AUTH = Authority EXEC = Executive Committee BAAB = Budget/Audit Advisory Board Holidays March Break 498 Su 3 M 4 Tu 5 Su M Tu W ,T` 1 2 3 1, •' Th 7 1 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su 3 M 4 Tu 5 I. _ W 6 1, •' Th 7 1 8 Sa 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 All AUTHORITY & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE meetings will be held from 9:30 am until 1:30 pm at TRCA Head Office, 101 Exchange Ave. Vaughan, unless otherwise noted on the agenda. All BAAB meetings will held at 8:30 am unless otherwise noted on the agenda. RESMA148 /16 - CANADA CULTURAL SPACES FUND Funding Application Submission for Black Creek Pioneer Village. Board approval and authorization of a funding application submission to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund. Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS the federal government, led by the Department of Canadian Heritage, provides funding to support the costs of renovations for arts and heritage spaces through the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund; AND WHEREAS project applications and the name of the signing authority for the applicant must be duly authorized or endorsed by a resolution of the Authority and submitted as a component of the application; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) submit a funding application to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund to support the transformation of Black Creek Pioneer Village's passive historic environments into interactive history hubs; THAT the signing authority of TRCA's Chief Financial Officer, Rocco Sgambelluri, is acknowledged as a requirement of the funding application submission; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Department of Canadian Heritage offers the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF), a funding program aimed at improving physical conditions for arts and heritage related creation, presentation, preservation and exhibition, and at increasing and improving access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts, museum collections and heritage displays. Eligible projects include construction and /or renovation projects, feasibility studies and specialized equipment purchases related to cultural infrastructure projects intended for professional arts and /or heritage activities. The program will finance up to 50% of eligible project expenses. CCSF requires that project applications and the name of the signing authority for the applicant be duly authorized or endorsed by a board resolution. The resolution must be submitted at the time of the application. TRCA staff would like to submit a funding application for a construction and /or renovation project at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) that will help transform four of the museum's passive historic spaces into interactive history hubs. This project will complete capital work that is foundational to realizing BCPV's vision. At Authority Meeting #9/15, held on October 30, 2015, Resolution #A201115 was approved, in part, as follows: THEREFORE LET /T BE RESOLVED THAT the BCPV North Lands Master Plan be approved in principle; THAT the BCPV Vision be approved in principle; � • • AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with the municipalities and community to foster support. RATIONALE BCPV is an outdoor living history museum in Toronto that welcomes 135,000 visitors annually to experience the immersive setting of its 19'h century building, artifacts, heritage breed farm animals and gardens. Over the next several years, TRCA will be transforming eight of BCPV's passive historic spaces into interactive history hubs to inspire active participation and deeper engagement in heritage. The hubs will build on BCPV's most successful hands -on programs and will combine these with innovative practices from top tier North American facilities to create family- centered cultural heritage experiences that will excite visitors of all ages. History museums are not generally interactive, but this is precisely what our communities of users are demanding. Recent studies show that culture enriches communities' wellbeing, yet declining participation indicates that a new approach is urgently needed. The interactive history hubs will use a flexible, family learning model that will be accessible to and benefit BCPV's communities of users, which include families, new and longtime Canadians, older adults, school -age children, English language learners, and people with special needs. The museum community will also benefit through BCPV's experience in implementing a new model of animating cultural heritage in Canada. TRCA will seek funding from CCSF to support the first phase of production, which will address any capital maintenance work required to bring BCPV's 19`h century buildings to an optimal state of repair, safety, accessibility and energy efficiency to receive the hubs. FINANCIAL DETAILS The scope for this phase of the project will not exceed $2,000,000. TRCA will seek 50% funding from CCSF. The remaining balance will be funded through TRCA's budget, private donors and additional funding programs, such as the Ontario Trillium Foundation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will submit a funding application to CCSF in early October. Should the funding application be successful, the project will be presented to the Authority for further approvals as required. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424 Emails: SDemetriou @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: DEdwards @trca.on.ca Date: September 16, 2016 500 RES. #A149/16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Acquisition for the Jennifer Court Erosion Control Project, Humber River Watershed 2 and 4 Jennifer Court, City of Toronto, CFN 55065 and CFN 55066. Acquisition of property located at 2 and 4 Jennifer Court, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #873116) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT a parcel of land containing 0.005 hectares (0.012 acres) being Lots 22 & 23, registered Plan M -879, designated as Part 9 and Part 10 on registered Plan 66R -28319 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres) being Lots 22 & 23, registered Plan M -879, designated as Part 8 and Part 11 on registered Plan 66R- 28319, at the rear of 2 Jennifer Court, City of Toronto, be purchased by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) from Nicoletta Ginevra; THAT a parcel of land containing 0.010 hectares (0.025 acres) being Lots 22 & 23, registered Plan M -879, designated as Part 3 and Part 6 on registered Plan 66R -28319 and a permanent easement of 0.004 hectares (0.009 acres) being Lots 22 & 23, registered Plan M -879, designated as Part 2 and Part 5 on registered Plan 66R- 28319, at the rear of 4 Jennifer Court, City of Toronto, be purchased by TRCA from Carrington and Denise Forbes; THAT the purchase price for each of the parcels of land and permanent easements at 2 and 4 Jennifer Court be $2.00 in addition to each vendor's reasonable legal costs, and survey if required; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the lands at 2 and 4 Jennifer Court free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transactions at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 501 RES. #A150 116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Bolton Gateway Developments Inc. CFN 56266, Acquisition of property located between Regional Road 50 and Albion- Vaughan Road, north of Mayfield Road, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #874116) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 0.89 hectares (2.20 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located between Regional Road 50 and Albion- Vaughan Road north of Mayfield Road, said land being Part of Lot 2, Concession 7 ALBION and designated as Blocks 56 and 57 on a draft plan of subdivision prepared by MMM Geomatics Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 21 -13- 031- 000 -000, Drawing No. 14 -11 -218 -100, Revision Date: March 14, 2016, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be purchased from Bolton Gateway Developments Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A151 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed PowerStream Inc., CFN 56094. Acquisition of property located west of Kipling Avenue and north of Major MacKenzie Drive West, municipally known as 5400 Kirby Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #875116) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: John Sprovieri 502 THAT 5.100 hectares (12.602 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Kipling Avenue and north of Major MacKenzie Drive West, said land being Part of Lot 31, Concession 8, designated as Parts 1, 3 and 6 on draft plan prepared by Dino Astri Surveying Ltd., Project No. 14123_RPLAN2, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from PowerStream Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A152116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek Watershed Oxford Homes, CFN 56293. Acquisition of property located west of Brock Road and north of Webb Road, municipally known as 2549 Concession Road 4, in the Township of Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duff ins Creek watershed. (Executive Res. #876116) Moved by: Michael Di Blase Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 11.162 hectares (27.581 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Brock Road and north of Webb Road, said land being Parts of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 4, designated as Blocks 34, 35, 38, 39, 40 and 41 on draft plan of subdivision prepared by R. G. McKibbon Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, File O- II -OIMF, Township of Uxbridge, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Oxford Homes; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; 503 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A153 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Longyard Properties Inc., CFN 56432. Acquisition of property located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Bathurst Street, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed. (Executive Res. #877116) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 0.009 hectares (0.023 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Bathurst Street, said land being Block 409, Registered Plan 65M -4425, designated as Part 2 on Registered Plan 65R- 36379, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Longyard Properties Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A154 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Matt Mahoney Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT Section II items 10.1.1 — 10.1.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/16, held on August 5, 2016, be received. CARRIED 504 Section II Items 10.1.1 — 10.1.4 DENISON ROAD WEST MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT (Executive Res. #863116) COATSWORTH CUT PROJECT (Executive Res. #864116) MUD CREEK RESTORATION - REACH 6 PROJECT (Executive Res. #865116) GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY EV CHARGING STATIONS (Executive Res. #866116) RES. #A155/16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Section II items 11.2.1 — 11.2.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/16, held on September 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 11.2.1 — 11.2.4 WESTERN WATERFRONT MAJOR MAINTENANCE STRATEGY (Executive Res. #878116) UPPER HIGHLAND CREEK AT ELLESMERE ROAD PAN AM PATH CONNECTION PROJECT (Executive Res. #879116) CHALET SEPTIC SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROJECT (Executive Res. #880116) LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT — PHASE II CONSTRUCTION (Executive Res. 4881116) 505 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A156/16 - BILL 100, SUPPORTING ONTARIO'S TRAIL ACT Report on TRCA's Support and Involvement in the Ontario Trails Act. Updating Authority Members on the Ontario Trails Act as it relates to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger WHEREAS the Province of Ontario developed and released the Ontario Trails Strategy in 2005, which Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provided input to; AND WHEREAS the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport determined a need to strengthen the Ontario Trails Strategy in 2013 by developing the Ontario Trails Act, which addressed legislative needs on easements, liability and trespass, as well as develop ways to celebrate the extensive trail system in Ontario; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the report on TRCA's support and involvement in the Ontario Trails Act be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Ontario Trails Strategy was developed and released in 2005. It was created in collaboration with provincial ministries and agencies, stakeholders and Aboriginal groups. The strategy established long -term strategic directions for planning, managing, promoting and using trails in Ontario. In 2013, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport conducted consultations to strengthen the Ontario Trails Strategy. The outcome of this consultation was the identification of legislative needs including a mechanism for trail easements to help secure long -term access to land for trails, amendments to the Occupiers' Liability Act to clarify the "free entry" provision, and amendments to the Trespass to Property Act to increase fines and remove the limit on compensation for damages. The proposed Supporting Ontario Trails Act, 2015 (Bill 100) included six schedules: 1. Ontario Trails Act 2. Motorized Snow Vehicles Act 3. Occupiers' Liability Act 4. Off -Road Vehicles Act 5. Public Lands Act 6. Trespass to Property Act Of the six schedules, the Ontario Trails Act and amendments to Occupiers Liability Act pertain to TRCA. The Ontario Trails Act requires the Minister of Tourism Culture and Sport to maintain an Ontario Trail Strategy, proclaim an annual trails week beginning on the first Saturday in June, recognize Ontario trails of distinction, create a voluntary trail classification system, and create a mechanism for eligible bodies to enter into trail easements for the long term securement of land. e The Occupiers Liability Act amendment clarifies that charging for 'incidentals to entry' such as parking does not constitute as pay for entry in the traditional sense, that receipt of funding to a non - profit from the government or a government agency, does not constitute a pay for entry situation, and adds portages to the list of lands where lower standard of care applies. The Supporting Ontario Trails Act aimed to address many long- standing trail issues, including the need for a legislative mechanism to establish trail easements, clarifying liability and the standard of care required by not - for - profits and public organizations, and increasing allowable compensation for damage to property due to trespassing. The Act also aims to provide opportunities for enhanced trails tourism and the enhanced management, promotion and use of trails. On June 1, 2016, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario approved Bill 100, Supporting Ontario's Trail Act, 2016. The purpose of the Act is to: • increase awareness about and encourages the use of trails; • enhance trails and the trail experience; • protect trails for today's generation and future generations; and • recognize the contribution that trails make to quality of life in Ontario. The Supporting Ontario's Trails Act aims to strengthen Ontario's trail system, increase user access by making it simple for trail users to understand the existing types of trail experiences and encourage the expansion of the trail network by: • Providing the trails community with enhanced tools to effectively develop, operate and promote trails. • Removing barriers to help connect and expand trails across the Province of Ontario. • Increasing trail awareness and promoting local tourism by establishing an Ontario Trails Week each year and enabling the recognition of Ontario trails of distinction that support communities and jobs across Ontario. • Enabling the development of a classification system to help users find trails that match their interest and ability. TRCA'S Involvement TRCA provided comments on the discussion paper "Strengthening Ontario's Trail Strategy" in 2013 and proposed recommendations to create an improved proposal that would better support the world -class network of trails envisioned in the Ontario Trail Strategy. TRCA highlighted that the most critical assistance that the Ontario Trail Strategy is able to provide to landowners or managers pursing the development or management of trails in Ontario is in the field of provincial policy. TRCA recommended a clarification in terms of liability, requirements for landowners, and standards of practice in trail management at the provincial level to ensure longstanding and far - reaching access to greenspace for all Ontarians, and the environmentally responsible use of trails. Implications and Opportunities for TRCA and Partner Municipalities The release of the Ontario Trails Act provides several opportunities for TRCA to achieve a number of its own goals and objectives. One of TRCA's current initiatives is the development of a Toronto region trail strategy and handbook, which is a project that will guide and direct the completion of a connected and diverse trail system, linking communities from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine through our natural greenspace system. TRCA will engage the Province and municipal partners in the project, ensuring that it aligns with and supports the framework provided by the Province. 507 Working collaboratively on the trail strategy and handbook, TRCA has developed a concept for a connected greenspace trail system (Attachment 1), and is in the process of collecting trail information from all of TRCA's municipal partners. Staff will then be updating TRCA's mapping and developing strategic directions that will guide the implementation of the trail strategy over the coming years. TRCA will work with all interested partners to achieve shared goals and objectives, such as the development of a trail classification system and establishing best practices for trail development in the Province. In addition, the establishment of a provincial 'Trails Week' and 'Trails of Distinction' will be incorporated into TRCA's trail strategy, ensuring that staff will develop programming to celebrate the trails in the Toronto region. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Some of the more specific details related to several of the initiatives proposed by the Ontario Trails Act have not been developed and released. Therefore it is recommended that TRCA continue to monitor the status of key deliverables of the Act and Strategy and work with the Province and TRCA's municipal partners on the TRCA trail strategy and handbook to ensure incorporation of the provincial framework and alignment with the various elements of the Act. Report prepared by: Adam Dembe, extension 5939; Zahrah Khan Emails: adembe @trca.on.ca, zkhan @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adam Dembe, extension 5939; Mike Bender, extension 5287 Emails: adembe @trca.on.ca, mbender @trca.on.ca Date: August 26, 2016 PfIF90 Attachment 1 - L Trail Strategy Map w oax _ O a TTQ � 509 r e �oa n X04 do�0 ` w a ° , k -C a 0 .p R �� Qo xa � ® a R C o � 0 Y Q r ti imago® _ �Q �O u a r e �oa n X04 do�0 ` w a ° , k -C a 5 R � � F 2 R C a x f'�.N RES. #A157/16 - GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from April through June 2016. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the summary of Good News Stories from April through June 2016 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for from April through June 2016 are as follows: April • Partners in Project Green's 2015 annual report, outlining the Pearson Eco- Business community's numerous success stories was released hftp://ar2Ol5.partnersinprojectgreen.com/ • Partners in Project Green co- hosted the Green Business Forum in partnership with the Green Living Show. Over 200 business representatives came out to hear Deputy Minister Evans (MOECC), Christopher Ragan (Chair, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission) and many more speak about Ontario's transition to a clean economy. • Partners in Project Green assisted Region of Peel staff in the diversion of 6.7 tonnes of furniture and household goods from three Peel community recycling centres (previously operated by Goodwill). Materials went to Oasis Clothing Bank to support the Oasis Addiction Recovery Society as well as Habitat for Humanity to be sold for re -sale at Mississauga Re- Stores. • Partners in Project Green facilitated an exchange of 800 kg of bamboo material between Toronto Zoo and TRCA that will be used to create pollinator structures across TRCA's jurisdiction. • Received funding ($26,000 in total) from the Great Lakes Community Guardian Fund for the following two projects: $13,000 for Watershed Wide Clean -Up Campaign to expand efforts beyond the Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds into other TRCA watersheds; $13,000 for Heart Lake Road Ecology Habitat Enhancement & Monitoring Project to support post project monitoring efforts for the Heart Lake EcoPassage and to support the installation of habitat features such as turtle nesting beaches adjacent to the eco- passage. • Released new video to promote TRCA's Watershed Wide Clean -Up Campaign (https: / /youtu.be /p2dzz7wgtO4) and hosted community clean -up events at three sites across the Etobicoke Creek watershed on April 17`h. These events had about 180 people participate and remove more than 2,000 Ibs of garbage from natural spaces, valleylands and waterways within the Etobicoke Creek watershed. • Worked with City of Brampton to install a dedicated wildlife culvert (eco - passage) along a section of Heart Lake Road, just south of Countryside Drive, that bisects the provincially significant Heart Lake wetland complex, helping to direct wildlife to the eco - passage and providing a safer alternative for local turtles that have traditionally used the gravel road shoulder to nest. • Developed and launched a Citizen Scientist Road Ecology Monitoring project in the Humber and Etobicoke watersheds . Secured 35 volunteers for the project that will run from May to October 2016 and that will help us monitor the success of the Heart Lake Road eco - passage. 510 TRCA hosted our 2nd of three annual Cumulative Effects Workshops to facilitate collaboration amongst researchers conducting studies within TRCA's watersheds. This workshop advances our understanding of cumulative effects and develops a decision support system for linking land use changes to aquatic impacts. Staff plan to disseminate the findings more broadly at the Latornell Conservation Symposium this year, and will host another conference with a broader range of participants, including our municipal partners. 2016 Floods Happen workshop had attendance from 10 of the upper and lower tier municipalities within TRCA's jurisdiction. • Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) receiving $160,000 through Evergreen CityWorks Program to undertake renewable energy technology evaluations across Ontario. Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) article published in ReNew magazine, profiling the neighbourhood based approach to infrastructure renewal. $250,000 negotiated as compensation funds for the removal of isolated wetlands in Markham. This creates an implementing precedent for TRCA's Draft Compensation Protocol which includes funds for the future acquisition of land, as well as the construction of a new wetland. • TRCA attended the 15` annual Parks Summit in Canmore. Presented with Parks Canada staff on collaboration, showcasing the Rouge National Urban Park relationship and TRCA's collaborative working style in general. Intent of the conference was to determine how we can get more people out of doors and into Canada's parks. • TRCA has been communicating with the Smart City Office and the Urban Forestry/Ecology Department in Melbourne, Australia. They are completing a Biodiversity Strategy for their City and are interested in sharing information on the biodiversity monitoring and reporting activities undertaken in Toronto. • Staff health and safety training benefits demonstrated through life saving CPR procedure applied to truck driver making a delivery to one of TRCA's restoration projects. The driver suffered a major heart attack and staff kept him alive until paramedics could arrive and take over treatment. Further, as a result of the critical injury, the Ministry of Labour initiated a complete review of TRCA's construction site protocols and practices and no major deficiencies were noted. • Approved for $90,000 grant from Celebrate Ontario for maple syrup program. Received $60,000 from RBC to undertake an Asian carp surveillance program on Toronto waterfront, with Fisheries and Oceans Canada assigning TRCA as the lead in Toronto due to the effectiveness of TRCA's programs. • Canadian Urban Institute held the "Trees in the Public Realm" workshop, where the panel of experts discussed the current challenges of implementing tree planting in urbanizing areas, and the state of the urban forest within the city region, inclusive of urban neighbourhoods and natural system landscapes. More to come when the new Green Infrastructure Ontario report is released in early June. May Held 2nd York Region Nature Collaborative conference, Play and Nature Summit, at BCPV and Kortright, May 13 -15, for early childhood educators with over 160 in attendance. Over 200 high school students and teachers participated in the 2nd annual My Great Lakes, My Future conference at Tommy Thompson Park and the Harbourfront Centre. Held 4`" annual Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) symposium, with over 200 participants and over $9,000 in ticket sales and $20,000 in sponsorship. Speakers were from across Canada. 511 • Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program received approval from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund for $244,000 over three years to conduct evaluations of low carbon technologies and best practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in cities. • Albion Hills Field Centre piloted the first ever all school day with over 300 local elementary school participants and their teachers engaging in numerous environmental education activities. • Hosted a researcher from Germany who is looking at carbon neutral cities and who selected Toronto and TRCA due to our guide for municipalities "Getting to Carbon Neutral ". He was impressed with the amount of on the ground work that TRCA is doing. • Toronto Catholic District School Board recognized TRCA with an award for our work supporting the Specialist High Skills Major Program in Toronto secondary schools. • A lake sturgeon (provincially rare fish species) was caught off shore in Lake Ontario from the Main Sewage Treatment Plant in Toronto. This fish was thought to be extirpated from the lake in the 1970's but these fish are now showing up in our waterfront. • Annual Tommy Thompson Park spring bird festival held with over 1,000 people in attendance. • Over 300 boats and 750 people went down the Don River for the annual Paddle the Don event. Manulife has signed on for another three year commitment valued at $150,000. • Received $50,000 through the City of Toronto's Culture Build Investment Program to upgrade artifact environmental control system at BCPV. • Official opening of education centre run by York Region District School Board at TRCA's Swan Lake Centre, the first new education centre that the school board has opened since 2004. • 6,053 elementary students were educated at the 2016 Peel Children's Water Festival, and the festival welcomed its 100,000th visitor. June • Received a $40,000 grant from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund to determine the overall benefit of past in- stream barrier mitigation projects (since 1980) on aquatic habitat connectivity to meet objectives and commitments outlined by the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan (RAP). This work will help with defining RAP delisting criteria, update priority habitat restoration and be available as an interactive GIS layer for other planning and management activities. In addition, we have been asked to write up this project as part of a special issue in the Journal Aquatic Ecosystem Heath and Management. • After finalizing a framework for undertaking climate change vulnerability assessment for York Region, the Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) received direct funding to assist the City of Vaughan with implementing the framework to assess stormwater management vulnerabilities to extreme weather and climate change. The custom climate trends report for York Region, a critical knowledge piece needed to undertake vulnerability assessments, was completed by the OCC and posted (www.climateconnections.ca). • BCPV and The Living City Foundation hosted a successful donor cultivation dinner, resulting in a large in -kind commitment from Precise ParkLink and expressions of interest from other attendees. • TRCA entered a team in the 24 -hour Summer Solstice mountain bike race at Albion Hills, and ended 10`h out of 134. Overall about 10,000 people participated; the highest attended event of its kind in North America. • Over 300 people participated in the 7`h annual Rouge Days. Twenty -one free outdoor events were held over five days to celebrate the Rouge River watershed. • Received project approval from TRCA Authority Board to make formal funding submissions to TRCA's partner municipalities for the new 5 Shoreham Drive head office project. 512 For the first time in its history, Claremont Field Centre is hosting eight weeks of "Summer Nature Day Camp" for children aged 5 -11 yrs. Weekly program highlights include Wilderness Survival, 'Bug'Ology and the Junior Archaeologist camp. TRCA helped to deliver the 7 t annual Canadian Water Summit. The event had over 200 participants, three TRCA centric side events, along with a full moderated panel by TRCA staff. Partners in Project Green and Plug'n Drive hosted a successful roundtable at Toronto Pearson Airport on the "Life after EVCO: the future of electric vehicle incentive programming "; attended by 64 industry stakeholders. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca Date: September 2, 2016 513 RES. #A158/16 - PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION AND ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Government Funding to Initiate Design and Construction of Phase 1: Essroc Quay. Initial funding approval of $65 million from three levels of government to proceed with detailed design and the initial construction of the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the update report on the initial Port Lands funding announcement be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto Port Lands are a man -made area created by decades of infilling what was once one of the largest wetlands on Lake Ontario. Beginning in the 1880s, the area was gradually filled in to make more land available for industry and shipping. As the natural mouth of the Don River was filled in, the Keating Channel was created to provide an outlet for the Don River watershed into Lake Ontario. Today, approximately 290 hectares of the Port Lands are deemed vulnerable to flooding under a Regulatory flood event (a Hurricane Hazel -sized event). On January 28, 2015, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA). The DMNP EA was completed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (Waterfront Toronto) and the City of Toronto. The DMNP EA had a three - pronged goal of: providing Regulatory Flood protection for the Port Lands; establishing a naturalized mouth of the Don River; and integrating with plans for the Revitalization of the Toronto Waterfront, within the Port Lands. At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on Friday March 27, 2015, Resolution #A38/15 was approved, in part, directing TRCA staff to: "...to work in conjunction with the City of Toronto, TWRC, Toronto Port Lands Company and other stakeholders and agencies, in order to further develop project schedules, budgets, and the planning approach for preliminary design and due diligence related to the Lower Don Lands and Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, referenced in the Toronto 2015 Budget as the Port Lands Flood Protection Project..." The Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project is a comprehensive plan that builds upon the DMNP EA by integrating it with the outcomes of the approved Lower Don Lands Environmental Assessment (LDL EA), which addresses associated city building, including transit, roads, bridges, water, wastewater and stormwater management. Together, the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project will provide protection from flooding to over 250 hectares of land in southeastern downtown Toronto, including parts of the Port Lands, South Riverdale, Leslieville, south of Eastern Avenue and the First Gulf /Unilever development site, that are at risk of flooding. The Project addresses the fundamental challenge of transforming the underused and post - industrial Port Lands into a long -term asset that will support Toronto's growth and economic competitiveness. 514 The Port Lands Flood Protection Project would create a new mouth for the Don River in the middle of the Port Lands between the ship channel and the Keating Channel, as well as a new urban island neighbourhood called Villiers Island, continuous riverfront open space and expanded opportunities for interaction with the water. It will also enhance habitat for natural species and will re- establish wetlands in the area, which provide social and environmental benefits and naturally moderate the effects of flooding and erosion. Naturalizing the mouth of the Don River will provide the necessary flood protection and unlock the development potential of this premier waterfront area. Providing flood protection for the Port Lands was identified as a top priority by all three levels of government when they first established Waterfront Toronto in 2001. Waterfront Toronto is currently finalizing the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Due Diligence Report, which will provide greater certainty on the costs, risks, scheduling and implementation strategy associated with the proposal to naturalize the mouth of the Don River and provide flood protection to the area. The report will inform government decision - making on this project. Waterfront Toronto will make the report public later this fall. RATIONALE On September 14, 2016, a funding announcement was made by all three levels of government for an initial quick start element of the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project, referred to as the Essroc Quay Land Creation Project. Essroc Quay is located on the south side of the Keating Channel, where it meets Toronto's Inner Harbour. The project will create a new landmass around the current Essroc Quay (Attachment 1) through lakefilling. This will stabilize the area shoreline under flood conditions, as the current dockwall on Essroc Quay is old and is at risk of collapsing under flooding conditions. Infilling Essroc Quay is an important element of safely conveying increasing storm and flood waters, although it does not eliminate the flood plain designation in the Port Lands. The project will improve water quality, optimize water and storm infrastructure, and create new naturalized open spaces and aquatic habitat. Completing this work will also further accommodate the construction of roads and transit into the Port Lands as part of the economic revitalization of this area. This project is a prerequisite for significant work required to address a major stormwater conveyance issue caused by the existing Cherry Street Bridge over the Keating Channel which currently restricts stormwater flows during flood events. In order to remove this restriction, lakefilling around Essroc Quay is necessary to facilitate the future re- alignment of Cherry Street and the construction of a new bridge that will have a higher span over the Keating Channel to accommodate anticipated flood levels. Additional project components will include diverting an existing storm sewer that currently discharges stormwater into the Essroc Quay and enhancing aquatic habitat. The project will ultimately form part of the proposed Promontory Park, which is a component of the larger Port Lands Flood Protection project. The project also includes two pilot studies that will be conducted to: 1. Assess alternative technologies for dredging and managing sediment in the Keating Channel; and 515 2. Determine how excavated and dredged materials from the Port Lands and other brownfield sites may be treated through innovative technologies to allow for their potential reuse for purposes such as lakefill — resulting in sediment being treated as an asset, as opposed to a liability. Subject to Toronto City Council approval, the project will start construction in mid -2017 and will be completed within 18 months. Funding for the project is $65 million as follows: • Government of Canada: $32,500,000 • Province of Ontario: $16,250,000 • City of Toronto: $16,250,000 The Essroc Quay Lakefilling Project, while part of the proposed scope of work for the larger Port Lands Flood Protection Project, is a self- contained and stand -alone project that can be advanced independently of the larger scope of work. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff is currently in discussions with Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto to finalize a scope of work to proceed with the authorized activities, including costs associated with TRCA's participation through the process. A new series of accounts will be established to track TRCA's involvement in the detailed design and construction management process going forward. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will report back to the Authority regarding the details of the upcoming work involved with this initial funding commitment. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion @trca.on.ca Date: September 19, 2016 Attachments: 1 516 Attachment 1 517 RES. #A159 116 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT Section III item 11.3.1 — Provincial Review of the Conservation Authorities Act, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/16, held on September 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED RES. #A160 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza THAT confidential Section III item 11.3.2 — Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7116, held on September 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A161 116 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 10.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/16, held on August 5, 2016, be received. CARRIED RES. #A162 /16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 11.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/16, held on September 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED 518 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:06 p.m., on Friday, September 23, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 519 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #8/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, October 28, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:46 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Innis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Kevin Ashe Member Vincent Crisanti Member Justin Di Ciano Member Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Ron Moeser Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Jim Tovey Member RES. #A163/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/16, held on September 23, 2016, be approved. CARRIED DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Susan Walmer, Executive Director, Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, in regard to item 7.3 - GTA West Corridor Review Panel. 520 RES. #A164 /16 - Moved by: Seconded by: DELEGATIONS Ronald Chopowick Michael Di Biase THAT above -noted delegation 4.1 be received. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer, TRCA, in regard to TRCA's Strategic Plan and Big Initiatives. 5.2 A presentation by Beth Williston, Associate Director, EA Planning, TRCA, in regard to item 7.3 - GTA West Corridor Review Panel. 5.3 A presentation by Ralph Toninger, Senior Manager, Habitat Restoration, TRCA, in regard to item 7.2 — Dam Decommissioning at Albion Hills Conservation Area. RES. #A165 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT above -noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED RES. #A166 /16 - Moved by: Seconded by: PRESENTATIONS Jennifer McKelvie Jennifer Innis THAT above -noted presentation 5.2 be received. CARRIED RES. #A167 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT above -noted presentation 5.3 be heard and received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 A letter dated October 26, 2016 from Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, City of Toronto, in regard to Rear Passenger Door Mirrors on TRCA Vehicles. 521 RES. #A168/16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be requested to examine the feasibility of requiring rear door passenger mirrors on all TRCA vehicles. CARRIED 522 Correspondence 6.1 HTORONTO Glenn De Baeremaeker City Councillor - Ward 38, Scarborough Centre October 26, 2016 Dear Chair and Members of the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority Board of Directors: Please accept this letter as my request for your support for the following motion: "That staff be requested to examine the feasibility of requiring rear door passenger mirrors on all TRCA passenger vehicles." It has recently been brought to my attention that rear door passenger mirrors are currently installed on over 150,000 taxicabs in Korea, China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Thailand. This safety mirror is now spreading to North America with over 4,000 sets currently installed on taxicabs in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Niagara Falls and Toronto. I believe this product save lives, prevents injury, prevents car and bicycle damage, prevents medical costs, prevents increases in insurance rates, reduces insurance claims, reduces fines and demerit points, and perhaps most importantly, reduces pain and suffering due to avoided accidents. The rear door passenger mirrors are a set of mirrors that are installed on the outside of vehicles- for -hire, allowing passengers to view upcoming cyclists before opening their passenger door. I believe that these mirrors should also be installed on all TRCA passenger vehicles which have rear passenger doors. If you have questions regarding this motion please feel free to contact me at 416 - 392 -0204. Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38, Scarborough Centre Scarborough Civic Centre, 2 "d Floor • 150 99��pp Drive • Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4N7 Telephone: 416 - 392 -0204 • Fax: 416 -39232 ail: councillor_debaeremaeker @toronto.ca Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A169/16 - CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED PLAN Process for Completing the Watershed Plan. To clarify the process for completing the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan relative to the Authority's amended resolution providing comments on the review of the four provincial plans. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS amended Resolution #A139/16 of the Authority asking the Province of Ontario to designate headwaters in the Carruthers Creek as Greenbelt is seen by the Region of Durham to either negate the need for a watershed plan update or potentially bias the ability of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to undertake a comprehensive and fair analysis of any potential land use changes; AND WHEREAS the timing of any decision by the Province concerning potential expansion of the Greenbelt is uncertain; AND WHEREAS any future land use planning decisions are likely to require a watershed planning context; AND WHEREAS the role of TRCA is to provide information, analysis and management recommendations for the Carruthers watershed to assist the Region of Durham with its consideration of planning and infrastructure decisions as well as protection of the Region's natural heritage and water resources; AND WHEREAS the purpose of the watershed plan update is to not only provide the analysis of potential implications and opportunities associated with possible land use changes but also to identify important restoration and stewardship priorities within both developed and undeveloped parts of the watershed both now and into the future; AND WHEREAS TRCA and the Region of Durham staff team have agreed to move forward with joint oversight and additional provisions such as: a) An external peer review by a reviewer satisfactory to the Region; and b) Updates to the Region's Committee of the Whole prior to TRCA staff reporting to the Authority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA assure the Region of Durham of its ongoing commitment to provide the best possible advice to assist the Region with its challenging responsibilities about growth management and environmental stewardship; THAT TRCA is committed to undertaking the watershed study in a manner that exceeds the standard of practice, and is supportive of the staff recommendation to undertake an external peer review and regular reporting to the Region's Committee of the Whole; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority expresses their support for continuing the work of the watershed plan and the role of science in informing future actions by all parties that will benefit the Carruthers watershed. CARRIED 524 BACKGROUND TRCA staff comments on the review of the four provincial plans were included on the agenda for approval at Authority Meeting #7/16, held on September 23, 2016. Resolution #A139/16 approved the comments which were subsequently amended by Resolution #A140/16. The substance of the amendment was to change the wording in the second bullet of item #4 from "seriously consider" adding headwater areas of TRCA watersheds to the Greenbelt, including those in the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber watersheds, to "designate" those lands as Greenbelt. This amendment caused concern for the Region of Durham, as expressed in the letter from the Regional Chair dated September 30, 2016 (Attachment 1). Region of Durham staff is of the opinion that the amended recommendation to "designate' lands as Greenbelt was premature given the ongoing work of the watershed study. Further, they felt the amended resolution had undermined the watershed study process and questioned how TRCA staff can provide an independent and unbiased expert evaluation of development scenarios for lands on which the Authority had already taken a position. TRCA's Chief Executive Officer provided a response to the Regional Chair on October 4, 2016 (Attachment 2). The letter outlined the watershed study process, the technical studies being undertaken and that the watershed study will help to ensure that any future development, including infill, intensification and greenfield, can be accommodated in a safe and sustainable manner. Further, the watershed plan will help the Region to assess and manage risks from natural hazards through recommendations on flood management and remediation strategies and optimizing approaches for new stormwater management facilities and retrofit opportunities. The letter also made specific reference to staff recommendations in the four plan review report highlighting the need of watershed planning in identification of lands to grow the Greenbelt. The letter further noted that exclusion of the watershed context in this particular recommendation was an oversight by staff. Subsequently, TRCA watershed planning staff met with Durham Region staff to discuss the above noted correspondence and a mutually agreeable approach to move forward with the watershed study. Region staff is supportive of the work undertaken and approach thus far. It was recommended that future updates on this study be provided to the Region's Committee of the Whole prior to TRCA staff reporting to the Authority. Further, a peer review process will be included in the watershed study with technical experts agreed to, and /or suggested by Region of Durham staff. TRCA staff support both of these suggestions, as they help ensure that an objective scientific study of the Carruthers watershed is undertaken. Staff at both TRCA and the Region is committed to completing the watershed plan, in a manner that exceeds the standard of practice, and adopts accepted principles of scientific reporting. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416 - 271 -8944 Emails: gbowen @trca.on.ca Date: October 17, 2016 Attachments: 2 525 Attachment 1 The Regional Municipality of Durham Office of the Regional Chair 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E. PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON LIN 6A3 CANADA 905- 668 -7711 1- 800 - 372 -1102 Fax: 905 -668 -1567 Email: roger.anderson ®durham.ca September 30, 2016 Mr. Brian Denney Chief Executive Officer and Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Mr. Denney: At the September 23, 2016 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting, a staff report was provided recommending comments to the Province on the ongoing Provincial Plans Review (Agenda Item 7.1) www.durham.ca Roger M. Anderson Recommendation 4 of that report requests that the "headwater areas of Regional Chair and CEO rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be seriously considered for additions to the Greenbelt, especially for those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber river watersheds ". This recommendation was further augmented by a motion at the meeting, changing the wording from "be seriously considered for additions to the Greenbelt' to "be designated as Greenbelt lands ", so that it now reads, "headwater areas of rivers and creeks within TRCA watersheds be designated as Greenbelt lands, especially those areas that are almost fully surrounded by other Greenbelt lands, such as those in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek and the Rouge and Humber river watersheds." As you are aware, the Region of Durham is currently funding the update of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, at the considerable cost of over one million dollars. This exercise includes a robust evaluation and inventory of the watershed's various natural processes. In addition, the assignment includes identifying and defining sensitive features in the headwaters area and assessing the watershed's ability to accommodate future development in Northeast Pickering. The protection of significant environmental features within the watershed and the prevention of downstream impacts as a result of upstream development are fundamental components of the Watershed Plan update. If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact n the Accessibility Co- ordinator at 1- 800 - 372 -1102 ext. 2009. Page 1 of 2 fo �o, ce " 100% Post Consumer 526 When the Region and the TRCA developed the work plan and service agreement for the Watershed Plan update, it was on the basis of a robust, science - based, and unbiased process. It was also agreed that the outcomes of the Watershed Plan would determine which features and lands required additional protection. This approach has been the consistent message of both Regional and TRCA staff since the project was initiated in 2015. Given that the watershed study has not been completed, the staff recommendation is premature at best. The Board resolution as outlined above completely pre -empts the results of its own watershed study. Does the Board truly believe the completed study will be of no value in determining appropriate uses of the headwaters lands? If so, the Region could have saved its money. How can the TRCA recommend the broad -brush application of the Greenbelt Plan when the technical evaluation of the headwaters area is still ongoing? Even if the lands remain outside of the Greenbelt Plan, the entire process has been undermined by this resolution of the TRCA Board. How can TRCA staff provide an independent and unbiased expert evaluation of development scenarios for lands on which their Board already has taken a position? Subject to further discussions, there is a possibility that the Region may need to terminate its contract with TRCA, have monies paid to date returned, and engage a new consultant to complete the watershed plan update. The Region has serious concerns with TRCA's current position on this matter. I look forward to discussing a solution that respects the evidence -based process underway to assess the protections needed in the Carruthers Creek watershed. Yours truly, Roger Anderson Regional Chair and CEO cc: Minister Bill Mauro, Ministry of Municipal Affairs Minister Kathryn McGarry, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Mayor Dave Ryan, City of Pickering Page 2 of 2 527 Attachment 2 Chief Executive Officer October 4, 2016 Mr. Roger Anderson Chair, Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Dear Chair Anderson: Toronto and Region ". Conservation for The Living City- Sent via email chair(cDdurham.ca I acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 30, 2016 concerning the resolution adopted by the board (Authority) of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) on September 23rd related to recommendations to the Province of Ontario on potential expansion of the Greenbelt in headwater areas within TRCA's jurisdiction. I will ensure that your letter is before the Authority at its next meeting on October 28th. As you point out in your letter, the Authority chose to make a stronger recommendation to the Province than the TRCA staff had prepared. This is of course an action that the Authority is empowered to take. TRCA deals every day with challenges within existing communities that result, at least in part, from the impacts of upstream development. It is natural that TRCA would seek to limit those potential impacts whenever possible. As we all know, the Province started a review of the four provincial plans with the stated intent to look at possible ways to grow the Greenbelt. It is not unreasonable for TRCA to make suggestions as to where potential expansions of the Greenbelt are preferred from the perspective of TRCA. The Province has many challenges and pressures to balance in making any possible determinations about possible expansions. The TRCA comments letter regarding the provincial plans review states on two occasions that any additions to the Greenbelt should be based on watershed planning. The second sentence in #4) Growing the Greenbelt, (page 428) states that TRCA supports "an ongoing process to identify and add ecologically and hydrologically significant lands to the Greenbelt, as identified through watershed planning." Similarly, the first bullet recommendation in this section (page 429) recommends additional features that could be included as components of Key Hydrologic Areas, "to be assessed through watershed planning" for potential additions to the Greenbelt. The recommendation that was amended by the Authority should also have initially included the phrase "to be assessed through watershed planning ". TRCA planning staff regrets not including this phrase and apologizes to the Region of Durham for the confusion this oversight may have caused. Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info @trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Member of Conscrvation Ontario ww528 ca We note that provincial documents frequently reference the need to make planning decisions with the benefit of information provided by watershed plans. As a result, we believe it is still relevant and important to proceed with the update to the Watershed Plan for Carruthers Creek to ensure that the best possible information is available to guide both land use planning decisions as well as actions to protect and restore the health of the watershed. The watershed plan will provide the information and analysis to ensure that future development, including infill, intensification and greenfield, can be accommodated in a safe and sustainable manner. The watershed plan will help the Region to assess and manage the risks from natural hazards through recommendations on flood management and remediation strategies and optimizing approaches for new stormwater management facilities and retrofit opportunities. The work plan for the Carruthers Creek watershed plan was developed in collaboration with the Region of Durham Planning Department, with a key objective of investigating the health and conditions of the entire watershed. Our intention was, and remains, that the built -up urban areas of the watershed would receive the same consideration as the headwaters, in order to comprehensively assess the health of the watershed. Throughout Phase 1 of the watershed study, staff studied the headwaters, the mid - reaches, and the urban areas to characterize the watershed. These studies included aquatic and terrestrial features, water quality and quantity, hydrology, hydrogeology, and geomorphology. This first phase is now coming to a close, and TRCA plans to present the reports for these studies to Durham staff in early 2017, after undergoing technical peer review. Through peer review of our technical studies, TRCA will ensure that our staff provides a rigorous, unbiased and scientifically defensible assessment of the watershed's health. The TRCA staff team is well aware that our role is to provide the best possible science and analysis to help TRCA's municipal partners make difficult decisions about how to achieve healthy communities. That process requires a clear understanding about how natural systems work and how they will react to extreme weather events, among other pressures. It also requires access to the best available tools to model how potential changes in land use will impact the health of the watershed. The work plan that was developed between our respective staff teams will enable us to establish a sound plan for the Carruthers Creek watershed that can guide any future land use planning decisions, establish any necessary mitigation measures and guide restoration practices in parts of the watershed that are already developed. TRCA will develop the scenarios in consultation with Durham Planning staff, as we continue to work collaboratively on all major steps in the watershed plan. I want to assure you that the TRCA staff team continues to be committed to the preparation of an integrated watershed plan for Carruthers Creek that will include the assessment of various potential land use scenarios. That is the approach that TRCA takes in all of our watershed planning work. The plans need to be developed for the long -term, in full recognition of potential future changes that could develop as a result of the rapidly growing population in this dynamic region. 529 I trust that this clarifies our staff position and that our respective teams can continue with this important work. I will certainly advise you of any action that results from the consideration of your letter by the Authority. Sincerely, Brian Denney, P.Eng. Chief Executive Officer cc: Kevin Ashe, Regional Councillor, Ward 1, City of Pickering Jack Ballinger, Regional Councillor, Township of Uxbridge Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner, Planning and Economic Development, Durham Region Colleen Jordan, Regional Councillor, Wards 3 and 4, Town of Ajax Bill Mauro, Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs Kathryn McGarry, Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Dave Ryan, Mayor, City of Pickering 530 RES. #A170/16 - DAM DECOMMISSIONING AT ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA Request for Tenders #10002636 and #10002411 — Concrete Works for Installation of New Culvert. Award of Contracts #10002636 and #10002411 for concrete work to include poured footing and pedestal walls in preparation of a new pre -cast arch culvert and pre -cast concrete culvert, respectively, to be installed at Albion Hills Conservation Area as part of the Albion Hills Dam Decommissioning Project. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT Contract #10002636 for the concrete work of poured footing and pedestal walls for the Albion Hills Dam Decommissioning be awarded to Metric Contracting Services Corporation at the total cost not to exceed $600,000.00, plus HST, it being the lowest price resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Tender; THAT Contract #10002411 for the concrete work of pre -cast concrete culvert for the Albion Hills Dam Decommissioning be awarded to Metric Contracting Services Corporation at the total cost not to exceed $390,000.00, plus HST, it being the lowest price resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Tender; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract(s) cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Albion Hills Pond is located in the Albion Hills Conservation Area, north of Bolton, on Regional Road 50 (Highway 50). The pond is situated on Centreville Creek approximately 500 m upstream of the confluence of the Humber River. The original dam structure was built in the 1950s and reconstructed in 1965 to create a pond for recreational purposes. The approximate size of Albion Hills Pond is 3.2 ha with an approximate perimeter of 1,000 m. The water control structure and the earth fill dam are of typical construction for the age of the structure measuring 70 metres (m) in length, and approximately 5 m in height. The main control structure consists of a drop inlet corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culvert attached to a bulkhead fitted with 12 stop -logs, which are used to control water levels in the pond. The dam was retrofitted as a bottom draw structure in the late 1990's to reduce downstream water temperature, and benefit the local cold water fishery. As a result of perceived safety concerns with the dam and structure, a comprehensive dam safety review was completed in 2012. The review identified several deficiencies including: insufficient foundation, internal erosion, structural failure, and inconsistent dam construction. These deficiencies could lead to a dam failure, and it was recommended to complete additional risk and safety assessments. A Bridge Condition Assessment was subsequently completed in 2013, identifying temporary measures that should be undertaken, including: monitor CSPs for deformation, post load restriction signage at entrance road, provide temporary support under the most deformed CSP roof walls, and repair and resurface existing asphalt roadway. These 531 measures were implemented in 2013 to reduce the risk of sudden failure and to improve the capacity of the bridge and road structure. The lifespan of these temporary measures are short-term and are nearing the end of their use. In 2014, an Opinion of Probable Cost Study and a Hydraulic and Fluvial Geomorphic Investigation were completed to better understand the feasibility of various options for resolving the problems with the dam. The cost to replace the existing dam with a new structure that meets all current dam safety regulations was estimated in the range of approximately $2 million. It was also suggested that in this current regulatory climate, and for the benefit of the Humber River watershed, a new dam would not be supported. TRCA developed a process to address the project, and convened an Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) of TRCA staff, as well as a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of individuals, interest groups and regulatory agencies. TRCA also formed a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) to receive input for the development of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan. Options for dam mitigation were considered, including: complete removal; partial removal; and retention of an offline water feature. To support this process, the engineering firm of Greck and Associates Ltd. was retained in the winter of 2015 -16. Through the work of staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, and TRCA's consultants, it was decided to remove the dam and construct a new crossing as the preferred alternative. The anticipated benefits of this work include: • Re- establishment of natural channel form and function; • Fish barrier mitigation and improved aquatic habitat; • Restored hydrology; • Improved riparian and floodplain habitat in the restored Albion Hills Pond area; • Opportunities for public outreach, education and outdoor recreation. The Albion Hills Dam Decommissioning Project will provide ecological and recreational benefits to the area as well as replace failing infrastructure. Ecologically, the removal of this dam will provide access to Centerville creek to resident and migratory salmonids. In the future, Centerville Creek will provide high quality spawning and juvenile habitat for the reintroduction of Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario. The decommissioning of the pond will provide additional recreation space within Albion Hills Conservation Area and is supported by the recommendations of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan. Resolution #A40/16 at Authority Meeting #3/16, held on April 22, 2016 approved the Master Plan. RATIONALE As outlined in the engineering studies, detailed Requests for Tender were developed for the supply and installation of poured concrete footings and pedestal walls and the supply, delivery and installation of pre -cast concrete works (bridge structure). These two components were separated because they are discrete works and staff wanted to see if there was any financial benefit to having more contractors bid in the tender process. Both tenders were posted on biddingo.com, a website that specializes in connecting government contracts with suppliers and contractors. In total, seven companies provided quotations for Contract #10002636 —Supply and Installation of Poured Concrete Footing and Pedestal Walls and four companies provided quotations for Contract #10002411 — Supply, Delivery and Installation of Pre -cast Concrete Works. Below are the results of the tendering process. 532 Received Submissions Metric Contracting Services Corporation provided the lowest bid on both contracts and met the terms of the tender document. The seven bidders were evaluated for each contract based on bidder's price, relevant work experience and references provided. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is provided in accounts 107 -44 and 112 -06 for the Albion Hills Pond Dam Decommissioning Infrastructure and Restoration. The project budget is $1.4 million, with Peel Capital providing $1.2 million. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, in partnership with TRCA, was successful in securing $200,000 in funds for the dam decommissioning from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Report prepared by: Jody Marks, extension 5926 and Lauren MacNeil, extension 5383 Emails: jmarks(atrca.on.ca, Imacneil(atrca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366, John DiRocco, extension 5231 Emails: rtoninger(�i)trca.on.ca, jdirocco(atrca.on.ca Date: October 12, 2016 533 Contract #10002636 Supply Contract #10002411 Bidders and Installation of Poured Supply, Delivery and Concrete Footing and Installation of Pre -cast Pedestal Walls Concrete Works Metric Contracting Services $600,000.00 $390,000.00 Corporation Soncin Construction $632,400.00 Alexman Contracting $746,145.00 Marbridge Construction Ltd. $877,000.00 $677,000.00 Clearway $897,600.00 $441,724.01 W.G. Kelly Construction $1,063,303.00 dpSL Group Ltd. $1,215,000.00 j $595,000.00 Metric Contracting Services Corporation provided the lowest bid on both contracts and met the terms of the tender document. The seven bidders were evaluated for each contract based on bidder's price, relevant work experience and references provided. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is provided in accounts 107 -44 and 112 -06 for the Albion Hills Pond Dam Decommissioning Infrastructure and Restoration. The project budget is $1.4 million, with Peel Capital providing $1.2 million. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, in partnership with TRCA, was successful in securing $200,000 in funds for the dam decommissioning from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Report prepared by: Jody Marks, extension 5926 and Lauren MacNeil, extension 5383 Emails: jmarks(atrca.on.ca, Imacneil(atrca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366, John DiRocco, extension 5231 Emails: rtoninger(�i)trca.on.ca, jdirocco(atrca.on.ca Date: October 12, 2016 533 RES. #A171/16 - GTA WEST CORRIDOR ADVISORY PANEL Recommendations to the GTA West Advisory Panel. Authority endorsement of staff recommendations to the GTA West Advisory Panel regarding the proposed transportation corridor between Milton and Highway 400. Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS the Authority commends the Province of Ontario for initiating a review of the impacts that recent policy objectives and changing technologies may have on the GTA West Corridor; AND WHEREAS the Authority acknowledges that development of a new highway corridor in the sensitive headwaters of Etobicoke Creek, and the East and West Humber River subwatersheds, as well as through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) -owned Nashville Resource Management Tract of the Main Humber, is permissible in Ontario's Greenbelt Plan, and not subject to regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act; AND WHEREAS the GTA West Corridor is intended to provide transportation infrastructure to meet coming growth in both population and employment, including providing greater connectivity between urban growth centres and greater economic vitality and in doing so, it is anticipated that there will be increased development within the whitebelt area in the vicinity of the highway corridor; AND WHEREAS as future development occurs along the corridor, and within the sensitive headwater areas, there will be increasing stresses on the local ecosystems, as well as downstream river, systems flood plains and natural heritage corridors; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT should the GTA West Corridor Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) proceed, the Authority recommends to the GTA West Corridor Advisory Panel: THAT a sustainability strategy be developed that is at par with, or better than, the sustainability strategy that has been drafted by Metrolinx, and considers inclusion of goals to: Become Climate Resilient, Reduce Energy Use and Emissions, Enhance Sustainability in Capital Projects and Divert Waste, Minimize Impact to Ecosystems, and Enhance Community Responsibility; THAT a commitment to conservation be made that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of York Region for the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer Southeast Collector Project, and include initiatives from the Nashville Resource Management Enhancement Plan, as well as for securement and enhancement strategies of the Etobicoke Creek, and West and East Humber branches; THAT comprehensive tree compensation guidelines be developed, including natural heritage system features, functions and land base, as well as right of way, municipal and private property trees, that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of Metrolinx in its Electrification EA. 534 THAT an additional strategy supporting comprehensive compensation be developed, including natural heritage system features, functions and land base, as well as right of way, municipal and private property trees, that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of Metrolinx in its Electrification Environmental Assessment (EA); THAT a commitment be made to developing a Living Green Corridor, whereby the climate change and growth impacts of building a new highway would be somewhat mitigated through actions related resilience of natural systems, community well- being, transportation relation emission reductions, district energy considerations and green infrastructure considerations; THAT a commitment be made to ensure cycling and pedestrian connections are examined, and where appropriate provided, beneath bridges and into commuter lots and mobility hubs, and that further consideration be given for providing a connected and naturalized cycling and pedestrian system that parallels the highway corridor and also provides wildlife connections and passage; THAT in updating The Big Move, Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan, consideration be given to the strategic movement of people and goods on existing and new rail corridors, including opportunities across the northern part of the GTA and potentially within the GTA West Corridor; THAT MTO be required to complete all technical studies previously identified by TRCA in order for staff to complete its review of the proposed alignments and make appropriate recommendations during the Stage 2 phase of the IEA, and continue to work with TRCA until the filing of the notice of completion; THAT MTO be required to address TRCA policy and program interests as outlined in the TRCA Living City Policies, and in particular ensure concerns related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands are addressed during the detailed design stage by following the TRCA Voluntary Project Review protocol, including but not limited to a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, and that consideration be given to entering into a service level agreement with TRCA for the provision of these review services; THAT the Authority would like to thank the Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation, for including conservation authorities in the formal review process through the GTA West Advisory Panel, and for the opportunity to present to the panel regarding TRCA interests, concerns and recommendations; THAT the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, regional municipalities of Peel and York, the Town of Caledon, the City of Brampton and the City of Vaughan, be circulated a copy of this staff report and presentation; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to report back to the Authority as required. CARRIED 535 AMENDMENT RES. #A172/16 Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the following paragraph be inserted before the third last paragraph of the main motion: THAT TRCA support our regional municipalities and request that the EA be completed; CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Authority commends the Province of Ontario for initiating a review of the impacts that recent policy objectives and changing technologies may have on the GTA West Corridor; AND WHEREAS the Authority acknowledges that development of a new highway corridor in the sensitive headwaters of Etobicoke Creek, and the East and West Humber River subwatersheds, as well as through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) -owned Nashville Resource Management Tract of the Main Humber, is permissible in Ontario's Greenbelt Plan, and not subject to regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act; AND WHEREAS the GTA West Corridor is intended to provide transportation infrastructure to meet coming growth in both population and employment, including providing greater connectivity between urban growth centres and greater economic vitality and in doing so, it is anticipated that there will be increased development within the whitebelt area in the vicinity of the highway corridor; AND WHEREAS as future development occurs along the corridor, and within the sensitive headwater areas, there will be increasing stresses on the local ecosystems, as well as downstream river, systems flood plains and natural heritage corridors; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT should the GTA West Corridor Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) proceed, the Authority recommends to the GTA West Corridor Advisory Panel: THAT a sustainability strategy be developed that is at par with, or better than, the sustainability strategy that has been drafted by Metrolinx, and considers inclusion of goals to: Become Climate Resilient, Reduce Energy Use and Emissions, Enhance Sustainability in Capital Projects and Divert Waste, Minimize Impact to Ecosystems, and Enhance Community Responsibility; THAT a commitment to conservation be made that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of York Region for the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer Southeast Collector Project, and include initiatives from the Nashville Resource Management Enhancement Plan, as well as for securement and enhancement strategies of the Etobicoke Creek, and West and East Humber branches; 536 THAT comprehensive tree compensation guidelines be developed, including natural heritage system features, functions and land base, as well as right of way, municipal and private property trees, that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of Metrolinx in its Electrification EA. THAT an additional strategy supporting comprehensive compensation be developed, including natural heritage system features, functions and land base, as well as right of way, municipal and private property trees, that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of Metrolinx in its Electrification Environmental Assessment (EA); THAT a commitment be made to developing a Living Green Corridor, whereby the climate change and growth impacts of building a new highway would be somewhat mitigated through actions related resilience of natural systems, community well- being, transportation relation emission reductions, district energy considerations and green infrastructure considerations; THAT a commitment be made to ensure cycling and pedestrian connections are examined, and where appropriate provided, beneath bridges and into commuter lots and mobility hubs, and that further consideration be given for providing a connected and naturalized cycling and pedestrian system that parallels the highway corridor and also provides wildlife connections and passage; THAT in updating The Big Move, Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan, consideration be given to the strategic movement of people and goods on existing and new rail corridors, including opportunities across the northern part of the GTA and potentially within the GTA West Corridor; THAT MTO be required to complete all technical studies previously identified by TRCA in order for staff to complete its review of the proposed alignments and make appropriate recommendations during the Stage 2 phase of the IEA, and continue to work with TRCA until the filing of the notice of completion; THAT MTO be required to address TRCA policy and program interests as outlined in the TRCA Living City Policies, and in particular ensure concerns related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands are addressed during the detailed design stage by following the TRCA Voluntary Project Review protocol, including but not limited to a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, and that consideration be given to entering into a service level agreement with TRCA for the provision of these review services; THAT TRCA support our regional municipalities and request that the EA be completed; THAT the Authority would like to thank the Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation, for including conservation authorities in the formal review process through the GTA West Advisory Panel, and for the opportunity to present to the panel regarding TRCA interests, concerns and recommendations; THAT the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, regional municipalities of Peel and York, the Town of Caledon, the City of Brampton and the City of Vaughan, be circulated a copy of this staff report and presentation; 537 AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to report back to the Authority as required. BACKGROUND In January 2007, the Ministry of Transportation began the Individual Environmental Assessment Study for the GTA West Corridor to examine long -term transportation problems and opportunities while considering alternatives to provide better linkages to urban growth centres from approximately Highway 400 west to the Guelph area. During Stage 1 of the evaluation, the route was scoped to approximately Highway 400 west to the Milton Area (Attachment 1), and includes watersheds within the jurisdictions of TRCA, Credit Valley Conservation and Halton Conservation. TRCA staff has reported to the Authority on this project on two separate occasions. During Phase 2 of the evaluation, preliminary route planning was commenced. Completion of Phase 2 was suspended by the provincial government in 2015 so that further study regarding government policy and changing technologies could be undertaken. Stage 1 — Evaluation of Preliminary Planning Alternatives At Authority Meeting #6/11, held on June 24, 2011, Resolution #A122/11 was approved as follows: THAT the Ministry of Transportation be advised that TRCA staff understands the provincial need for the new corridor, and that staff is committed to working with the Province to ensure the environmental impacts to the natural heritage system within the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek watersheds are avoided, mitigated and compensated as the IEA is developed, THAT the Ministry of Transportation be required to further consider modifications to the draft preliminary route planning study area to minimize fragmentation of the natural heritage system, particularly in the area of the Nashville Resource Management Tract; THAT the Ministry of Transportation be required to provide an extensive review of existing natural features, impacts of crossings on the natural features and their functions, and provide a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy for those areas that will be impacted; THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to establish a working group with TRCA staff to examine the alternatives at a site specific level, to identify and scope the true implications to valleyland corridors and large tracts of natural heritage system within the Humber River watershed and impacts to the Nashville Resource Management Tract (lands in TRCA ownership); THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to work with the Ontario Road Ecology Group (GREG) to inform the planning and design of the GTA West Corridor in terms of priority areas for wildlife crossing mitigation; THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested, due to the historical significance of the Humber River (designated a Canadian Heritage River in 1999) to involve First Nations, local heritage groups, municipalities and TRCA early in the planning process, as the potential for significant archaeological findings within this watershed is extremely high; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff continue involvement in the review and stakeholder consultation processes as related to the GTA West Corridor and report back to the Authority when alternative alignments have been determined. 538 Stage 2 - Preliminary Route Planning At Authority Meeting #4/15, held on April 24, 2015, Resolution #A64/15 was approved as follows: WHEREAS an update on the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) West Highway Stage 1 Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) was provided at Authority Meeting #6111, held on June 24, 2011, with the understanding that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff will report back to the Authority once alternative alignments within the transportation corridor have been determined; AND WHEREAS the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has initiated the final stage of the IEA process (Stage 2) and is currently evaluating alignment alternatives and interchange locations within the planning study area in order to determine the preferred route; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has notified MTO and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) of significant concerns regarding the Stage 2 preliminary information, including potential impacts to natural features, flooding and erosion hazards, impacts of crossings on the natural heritage system and their functions; requested further study of these impacts; and further requested that a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy be established for any unavoidable areas of impact during the IEA process; AND WHEREAS federal and provincial agencies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under the Conservation Authorities Act and, as such, formal permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166106 are not required by the Province of Ontario; AND WHEREAS in order to ensure that TRCA interests related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands are addressed during the detailed design stage of provincial projects, TRCA offers a Voluntary Project Review, designed to ensure that projects meet the interests, objectives and tests of TRCA's permit requirements, fees are charged and regular TRCA review process and service delivery timelines are followed; AND WHEREAS TRCA has requested that MTO commit to following the Voluntary Review Process upon completion of the IEA; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the recommendations as detailed in Authority Meeting #6111, held on June 24, 2011, be carried forward into Stage 2 of the IEA; THAT should MTO choose not to undergo the Voluntary Project Review process at the detailed design stage, that it be requested that TRCA concerns related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands be fully addressed in the IEA; THAT staff continue involvement in the review and stakeholder consultation processes as it relates to the GTA West Corridor IEA and report back to the Authority when a final alignment has been determined, AND FURTHER THAT MTO, MOECC, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Credit Valley Conservation, Conservation Halton and municipalities affected by this new highway corridor be circulated a copy of this staff report. 539 Current Proiect Status In December 2015, the Ministry of Transportation suspended work on the environmental assessment of the GTA West Corridor in order to review the work undertaken to date and to ensure the project aligns with recent changes in government policy and emerging technologies. To assist with the review, an advisory panel made up of industry experts was appointed. Panel members include Gail Beggs, former Deputy Minister of Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs; Rod Northey, environmental lawyer and partner at Gowling WLG; and Matthias Sweet, Assistant Professor at Ryerson University with research interests in transportation policy, land use planning and urban economics. The panel was specifically tasked with conducting a strategic assessment of the alternatives to meeting future transportation demand and other transportation infrastructure needs for passenger and goods movement in the GTA West corridor. On October 11, 2016, TRCA staff was invited to present to the panel on October 21, 2016, and respond to seven suggested questions: 1. How is your organization planning for the introduction and adoption of new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles, and how do you think they may change travel and transit demand in the Greater Toronto Area? 2. How does your organization foresee car sharing services, such as Uber, influencing travel and transit demand in the Greater Toronto Area? 3. How do you foresee recent provincial policy directions, such as Moving Ontario Forward, Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, and the Coordinated Review of Provincial Plans, impacting the GTA West Corridor? 4. Are there other infrastructure improvements that could be made to address goods movement in the Greater Toronto Area? 5. Are there any other recent studies related to other infrastructure that are related to the GTA West Corridor? 6. Should the GTA West Corridor be protected for other transportation needs? 7. What are your views on the appropriate path forward for the Environmental Assessment? TRCA staff coordinated its presentation with Conservation Halton (CH) and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), and provided the panel with joint comments, concerns and recommendations for its consideration. CH contributed to the presentation, but was unable to attend. That CVC and TRCA staff spoke to the interests of all three CAs was noted and appreciated by the panel. RATIONALE During its presentation, staff initiated the discussion by acknowledging that while building a new highway corridor in the headwaters of its rivers and through the greenbelt seems to be at odds with both the intent of the Greenbelt Plan and the many policies of the provincial government, it is a permitted land use, and conservation authorities have no regulatory authority to oppose. Through discussions with municipal partners, staff is also keenly aware of the municipal support for a transportation corridor route. As such, staff took the position that should the panel advise the province that the IEA proceed, TRCA recommends eight actions be considered by the panel: 540 Develop a Sustainability Strategy Metrolinx, a division of the Ministry of Transportation, has identified sustainability as being one of the major pillars of the Regional Transportation Plan and the Metrolinx mandate. The Big Move includes the principle of balancing a sustainable transportation system that supports a high quality of life, and a thriving and protected environment, with a prosperous and competitive economy. In August, 2016, TRCA was asked to comment on a draft Metrolinx Sustainability Strategy that included goals to: Become Climate Resilient, Reduce Energy Use and Emissions, Enhance Sustainability in Capital Projects and Divert Waste, Minimize Impact to Ecosystems, and Enhance Community Responsibility. Recommendation: MTO, for the GTA West Corridor, develop a sustainability strategy that is at par with, or better than, the sustainability strategy that has been drafted by Metrolinx, and considers inclusion of goals to: Become Climate Resilient, Reduce Energy Use and Emissions, Enhance Sustainability in Capital Projects and Divert Waste, Minimize Impact to Ecosystems, and Enhance Community Responsibility. 2. Invest in a Commitment to Conservation On March 31, 2010, the Minister of the Environment approved the IEA for York Region's Southeast Collector Project in the Regional Municipality of York, subject to a number of conditions. One condition was that the Region was to provide environmental and cultural enhancements that went beyond normal mitigation measures required under an IEA process. Such enhancements are aimed at creating a lasting improvement to the natural environment or human communities impacted by the project. Mitigation measures are applied to eliminate, reduce, or address adverse effects from a project or component of the project by restoring, replacing, compensating for or using other means to address actual or potential impacts to environmental features and functions. The enhancement funding from York Region was directed to the Bob Hunter Memorial Park, which was built by TRCA as a partnership between York Region, City of Markham, TRCA, Parks Canada, Friends of the Rouge and the Hunter Family, and was formally opened on October 22, 2016. A similar commitment to a community and ecosystem benefit as a result of this project should be contemplated as part of this project. Recommendation: MTO, for the GTA West Corridor, make a commitment to conservation that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of York Region for the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer Southeast Collector Project, and include initiatives from the Nashville Resource Management Enhancement Plan, as well as for securement and enhancement strategies of the Etobicoke Creek, and West and East Humber branches. 3. Develop Comprehensive Tree Compensation Guidelines Metrolinx is currently working with TRCA to develop comprehensive tree compensation guidelines that includes natural heritage system features, functions and land base, and right of way, municipal and private property trees. Outreach to the four other conservation authorities and 24 municipalities that will be impacted by the Electrification EA has begun. Compensation is intended to go beyond what is required, in order to ensure it is appropriate and fair and leaves a lasting green infrastructure legacy. Recommendation: MTO, for the GTA West Corridor, develop comprehensive tree compensation guidelines, including natural heritage system features, functions and land base, as well as right of way, municipal and private property trees, that is at par with, or greater than, the commitment of Metrolinx in its Electrification EA. 541 4. Create a Living Green Corridor In building a new transportation corridor, it is imperative that impacts associated with climate change and growth be identified and addressed. Through the creation of an east -west transportation and ecosystem connector, a Living Green Corridor, climate change and growth impacts could be managed through a: Big Ecological Move, with considerations being made for a) Natural Heritage Enhancements and Linkages, must recognize that wildlife impacts at the local and regional scale, as well as at the provincial scale, could be significantly impacted through the construction of a new highway and as such, consideration must be mitigation opportunities through highway design, including items such as the creation of ecopassages and sensitive lighting, and restoring in -site habitats, as well as to providing compensation for overall net losses in both conservation land as well as the natural features and functions of that land b) Long -term Flood and Stormwater Management Solutions, including flood attenuation, wetland preservation and compensation, opportunities for low impact development and living green infrastructure alternatives, and that meet watershed -base standards and protect downstream communities from impacts associated with flood and erosion. It was noted to the panel that further information on living green infrastructure can be obtained from the Green Infrastructure Ontario website at www.greeninfrastructureontario.org. Big Community Move, with considerations enhanced greenspace that serves as people connectors and carbon sink creating a legacy landscape integrating existing and future communities, that maximize parkland, capitalize on visual design, integrate tourist destinations, connect cycling and pedestrian routes, and integrate community energy plans. Big Energy Move, with commitments to advancing low carbon communities related to a) vehicle fuels that include providing electric vehicle charging stations and access to other low carbon fuels, b) facility design that consider energy use included in mobility hubs and commuter parking, and c) linear design that consider energy use in lighting and signage. It was noted that further information can be obtained from the Ontario Climate Consortium website at httg: / /climateconnections.ca. Big Land Development Move, with acknowledgement and consideration for whitebelt land use changes, including development that is typically planned along highways, which will ultimately result in further changes to hydrology (including regional flows and water balance) and downstream impacts in urban centres related to erosion. Big Infrastructure Move, with efforts being made to minimize infrastructure footprints while ensuring needs for commuter and goods movement are maximized through highways, railways and transitways, integrate climate resilience, and use best alternatives, including salt management. Recommendation: MTO, for the GTA West Corridor, commits to developing a Living Green Corridor, whereby the climate change and growth impacts of building a new highway would be somewhat mitigated through actions related resilience of natural systems, community well- being, transportation relation emission reductions, district energy considerations and green infrastructure considerations. 542 5. Adapt "Complete Streets" into a "Complete Highway" Complete Streets is a reasonably new transportation planning philosophy being used by municipalities across Canada. Its aim is to ensure that the entire street network is for all road users, not only motorists, including provisions for goods movement, transit, cyclists and pedestrians. Recommendation: MTO, for the GTA West Corridor, commits to ensuring that cycling and pedestrian connections are examined, and where appropriate provided, beneath bridges and into commuter lots and mobility hubs, and that further consideration be given for providing a connected and naturalized cycling and pedestrian system that parallels the highway corridor and also provides wildlife connections and passage; 6. Better Consider Rail Movement for Goods and People Metrolinx is currently updating its Regional Transportation Plan, The Big Move. The GTA West Corridor project is being undertaken as art of part of The Big Move. Highway and transit facilities need to address opportunities for, and the competing interests of, the movement of both people and goods, and alternatives for better integrating, or separating, commuter and freight rail systems. This evaluation should feed back into the GTA West Corridor IEA. Recommendation: In updating The Big Move, Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan, MTO ensure consideration be given to the strategic movement of people and goods on existing and new rail corridors, including opportunities across the northern part of the GTA and potentially within the GTA West Corridor. 7. Complete technical studies and continues to work with TRCA through the IEA During Phase 2 of the IEA for the GTA West, insufficient technical information in support of the alternative and preferred routes was submitted to TRCA and as such, staff was not able to provide meaningful input in to the route selection of the preferred alternative for the highway. This was addressed in Authority Resolution #A64/15, in part, as follows: ...AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has notified MTO and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) of significant concerns regarding the Stage 2 preliminary information, including potential impacts to natural features, flooding and erosion hazards, impacts of crossings on the natural heritage system and their functions; requested further study of these impacts; and further requested that a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy be established for any unavoidable areas of impact during the IEA process;... Recommendation: MTO be required to complete all technical studies previously identified by TRCA in order for staff to complete its review of the proposed alignments and make appropriate recommendations during the Stage 2 phase of the IEA, and continue to work with TRCA until the filing of the notice of completion. 543 Commit to the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process, including a partnership -based Service Level Agreement In the planning and design of the early phases of Highway 407, MTO and TRCA worked through a memorandum, of understanding for the project design and implementation of stormwater management, bridges and culvert sizing, and natural heritage system considerations. This level of review was not undertaken for the most recent extension phases of the highway, nor has it been employed for any other highway building projects in TRCA's jurisdiction. TRCA has expressed continued concern that facilities and sizing are not meeting our watershed -based flood control requirements, do not adequately provide for regional and local species migration, nor do they adequately address mitigating impacts to conservation lands and natural heritage systems, including forests, wetlands, watercourses, and headwater drainage features, and additionally, do not include community connections such as trails. During construction, there has been significant concern of inadequate erosion and sediment controls resulting in significant releases of sediment to watercourses, impacting TRCA property, concluding in significant clean -up and restoration efforts. Furthermore, there was also insufficient attention made to implementing the recommendations and commitments of the approved environmental assessment during detailed design, with bridge and culvert sizes being modified and stormwater design not meeting TRCA standards. TRCA's concern related to lack of involvement during the detailed design and implementation phases was also addressed in Authority Resolution #A64/15, in part, as follows: ...AND WHEREAS in order to ensure that TRCA interests related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands are addressed during the detailed design stage of provincial projects, TRCA offers a Voluntary Project Review, designed to ensure that projects meet the interests, objectives and tests of TRCA's permit requirements, fees are charged and regular TRCA review process and service delivery timelines are followed;... Recommendation: MTO be required to address TRCA policy and program interests as outlined in the TRCA Living City Policies, and in particular ensure concerns related to flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of lands are addressed during the detailed design stage by following the TRCA Voluntary Project Review protocol, including but not limited to a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, and that consideration be given to entering into a service level agreement with TRCA for the provision of these review services. FINANCIAL DETAILS Should the Province agree to enter into a service level agreement with TRCA, or pursue approvals through the TRCA Voluntary Review Protocol, fees for these services will be charged based on service delivery requirements that are consistent with either the TRCA Fee Schedule or the service level agreement with Metrolinx. Additional negotiations regarding monetary requirements for tree compensation or commitments to conservation enhancement strategies and compensation for natural features (forests, wetlands, watercourses and headwater drainage features) will also need to formal agreements. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 1. A copy of the Authority recommendations, report and presentation will be submitted to the panel, together with a copy of the presentation made by staff to the panel on October 21, 2016, by the November 11, 2016 deadline. 2. Should the Province of Ontario proceed with the GTA West Corridor IEA, TRCA staff will continue to work with MTO staff through the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group and to report to the Authority at key milestones in the project. 544 3. Should the Province of Ontario move forward with any of the recommendations of the Authority, staff will develop appropriate relationships with MTO and provide feedback and assistance as required. Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Emails: bwilliston(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Emails: bwilliston(a)trca.on.ca Date: October 25, 2016 Attachments: 1 545 Attachment - \��' 546 LIE % � � ■ jlld s!!! \ E ■ 1 \ di °U F - !! Ggg LIE % RES. #A173 /16 - TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LIMITED Request for a Permanent Easement for a New Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 42 Inch Diameter Natural Gas Pipeline City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed CFN 55377. Receipt of a request from TransCanada Pipelines Limited to provide a permanent easement for a new NPS 42 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, north of Kirby Road, west and east of Huntington Road, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: David Barrow THAT confidential item 7.4 — TransCanada Pipelines Limited be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED RES. #A174 /16 - 2017 BUDGET Update on the status of the 2017 TRCA budget process. (SAAB Res. #C12 116) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Michael Di Blase THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2017 budget make provision for a cost of living adjustment (COLA) on wages of one and one quarter percent (1.25 %) effective April 2, 2017; THAT the 2017 budget include municipal levy provisions consistent with the guidelines provided by the participating municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit the 2017 estimates and multi -year funding requests to the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala - Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED RES. #A175 /16 - AUDIT SERVICES Approval of award of contract and appointment of auditors. (BAAB Res. #C13 116) Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT KPMG LLP be appointed auditor of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the year 2016, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act; 547 THAT the term of the engagement be limited to five years subject to annual appointments by the Authority based on satisfactory performance; ANF FURTHER THAT the remuneration of the auditor be set at $46,000 per annum ($230,000 over the five year term) for each year of the five year term including incidental expenses, plus an inflationary allowance and taxes. CARRIED RES. #A176 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed LIUNA Local 506 Training Centre, CFN 56663. Acquisition of land located at 1600 Major Mackenzie Drive East, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016- 2020", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res. #891116) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 2.27 hectares (5.61 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at 1600 Major Mackenzie Drive East, said land being Part of Lot 21, Concession 3 and designated as Part 1 on a draft plan of survey prepared by Lloyd & Purcell Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 16 -321, dated April 11, 2016, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from LIUNA Local 506 Training Centre; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A177 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Toronto Community Housing Corporation, CFN 56523. Acquisition of property located north of Sheppard Avenue and west of Leslie Street, municipally known as 1 Adra Villaway, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #892116) zFee Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 0.310 hectares (0.766 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Leslie Street and north of Sheppard Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 17, Concession 2 designated as Block 4 on Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, reference 16 -15- 005 -00, dated July 5, 2016, municipally known as 1 Adra Villaway, in the City of Toronto, be purchased from Toronto and Community Housing Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A178116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River and Rouge River Watersheds 8356394 Canada Corp., CFN 56187. Acquisition of property located north of Bethesda Sideroad and east of Bayview Avenue, municipally known as 1100 Bethesda Sideroad, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016- 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River and Rouge River watersheds. (Executive Res. #893116) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 0.79 hectares (1.96 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Bethesda Sideroad and east of Bayview Avenue, municipally known as 1100 Bethesda Sideroad, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of Lot 6, Concession 2, designated as Part 3 on Registered Plan 65R- 36424, be purchased from 8356394 Canada Corp; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 549 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A179 /16 - GREENLAND ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Metrolinx, CFN 30465. Acquisition of property located south of Rutherford Road, east of Keele Street and west of Dufferin Street, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 -2020, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #894116) Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 3.12 hectares (7.7 acres), more or less, of vacant land located south of Rutherford Road, east of Keele Street and west of Dufferin Street, being part of Block 187 on Plan 65M -3365 designated as Part 2, 3, and 4 on Plan 65R- 36449, be purchased from Metrolinx; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A180 /16 - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA -OWNED LANDS Outfront Media Canada L.P. Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, CFN 56429. Receipt of a request from Outfront Media Canada L.P. to lease Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -owned lands for the construction and operation of both electronic and static advertising signs at various locations throughout the regional municipalities of Peel and York. (Executive Res. #895116 & Res. #896116) 550 Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Outfront Media Canada L.P. ( Outfront Media) to enter into various lease agreements to construct and operate both electronic and static advertising signs at various locations on TRCA properties; WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Outfront Media in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into leases with Outfront Media for the use of TRCA land at the following locations: (1) Part of Lot 5, Concession 9, Northern Division, Toronto Gore, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of the greater of 35% of gross sales or $60,000 annually; (2) Part of Lot 5, Concession 8, Northern Division, Toronto Gore, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (3) Part of Lot 6, Concession 8, Northern Division, Toronto Gore, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (4) Part of Lot 5, Concession 8, Northern Division, Toronto Gore, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (5) Part of Lot 6, Concession 8, Northern Division, Toronto Gore, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (6) Part of Lot 17, Concession 2, East of Centre Road, Chinguacousy, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of the greater of 35% of gross sales or $35,000 annually; (7) Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, East of Centre Road, Chinguacousy, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (8) Part of Lot 9, Concession 7, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (9) Part of Lot 12, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (10) Part of Lot 21, Concession 8, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of the greater of 35% of gross sales or $35,000 annually; (11) Part of Lot 21, Concession 8, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (12) Part of Lot 20, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (13) Part of Lot 16, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; (14) Part of Lot 15, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York for the consideration of $10,000 annually; THAT each lease with Outfront Media be subject to the following general terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the lease be for up to five years, with three further renewal options of five years each, at TRCA's sole option; (ii) that Outfront Media shall be responsible for any permitting approvals required for the construction and operation of the advertising signs; 551 (iii) that Outfront Media shall be responsible for any costs associated with the construction and operation of the advertising signs and associated equipment; (iv) that TRCA receive up to 5% of the available advertising time at no cost to TRCA; (v) that consideration increase at a rate of 2% per annum throughout the term of the agreement; (vi) that the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; (vii) that the sign not be illuminated between 11 pm and 7 am; THAT archaeological reviews be completed with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff at the expense of Outfront Media; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RESMA181 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Section II items 10.2.1 — 10.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/16, held on October 14, 2016, be received. CARRIED 552 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A182/16 - GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from July through September 2016. Moved by: Matt Mahoney Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the summary of Good News Stories from July through September 2016 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for from July through September 2016 are as follows: Summer • TRCA completed a bank stabilization and habitat improvement project in August within Boyd Conservation Area along a section of the recreational Humber Trail that was at -risk of being cut -off due to erosion. The trail has now been restored for safe use and the bank treatment itself includes native vegetation and other features to provide habitat improvements for sensitive fish species. • Completed the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Inspection and Maintenance Guide. This guide is a companion to another guide that TRCA completed earlier this year on the inspection and maintenance of constructed wetlands and stormwater ponds. Both guides were developed through extensive consultation with internal and external stakeholders and are available for download from the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) website ( www .sustainabletechnologies.ca). • STEP published two featured articles in the July /August issues of Water Canada and Environmental Connection on topics related to stormwater operation and maintenance. • Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation and TRCA signed the Phase 2 Memorandum of Understanding to proceed with construction of Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Navigation Protection Act approvals were received to proceed with the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project. Construction commenced immediately. • Bayview Glen SNAP (Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan) Residential Retrofit Program was launched to help homeowners make their homes greener. Residents are showing great interest in electric vehicles, solar heating systems and sustainable swimming pools. Most residents are committing to undertake at least two initial actions. • The County Court SNAP Neighbourhood Festival took place on August 13th. The event was organized by SNAP and the City of Brampton. Despite inclement weather, more than 200 people and 10 organizations attended this event, which is growing year after year. • Jays Care Foundation providing $150,000 grant to Bolton Braves for the Field of Dreams project, to build an accessible baseball diamond at Bolton Camp in partnership with TRCA and the Town of Caledon, providing children with disabilities a place to play. • TRCA and York Region signed a five year renewal of its service agreement for TRCA to undertake expedited environmental review of the Region's infrastructure projects, including both environmental assessments and permits, ensuring timely and effective project delivery of municipal services. 553 • TRCA partnered with the Town of Caledon and City of Brampton to construct a new inter - regional trail link to connect the two municipalities on the Etobicoke Creek trail from Mayfield Road to the Hwy 410 overpass. TRCA recently completed the construction of the new 1,500 metre multi -use granular surface trail link. • TRCA launched and implemented a Road Ecology Citizen Science project to assist staff with the validation of TRCA's Terrestrial Habitat Connectivity Model. Through this project, 21 volunteers were recruited and trained and contributed over 500 hours to help collect data that quantified the number of species and number of animals that are struck and killed by vehicles on roadways at selected sites in the Etobicoke Creek and Humber River watersheds within the Region of Peel. • TRCA's Watershed Tree Caching Program (www.tctrca.ca) launched at four locations including Heart Lake Conservation Area, Valleywood in Caledon, Claireville Conservation Area, and the community of Woodbridge. • TRCA's Watershed Wide Cleanup Program was delivered across the TRCA jurisdiction through funding secured through the Great Lakes Community Fund. Over the past couple of months, TRCA has hosted 11 community cleanups at key locations in the Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek and Humber River watersheds, engaging approximately 350 participants and removing more than 3,300 Ibs of waste from our natural areas and watercourses. • The State of the Urban Forest in the GTA Report was released in partnership with the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition. The report has since garnered media attention on Metro morning, CBC.ca, Metro News, a Toronto Environmental Alliance blog feature and the radio program 'As it Happens'. • The annual Mud Hero obstacle race held August 27- 28, 2016 at Albion Hills Conservation Area saw a record number of participants this year at 9,843, plus spectators. • BMX Stouffville hosted their first BMX Canada Provincial Race at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area July 16 -17, 2016. • For the second year, Kortright engaged the community in an evening bat hike on July 7 &14, with over 130 people attending over the two nights. Participants learned about bats from an expert, built bat boxes and went on an evening hike in search of bats. • TRCA partnered with Pierre Berton Library to engage Kortright Leader in Training summer camp participants in new maker space activities being offered at the Library. • Green LEF (Learning Enrichment Foundation), a social enterprise, provided 16 days of professional landscaping services and grounds maintenance at Kortright this summer. This initiative in was a joint partnership with Ontario Parks Association and engaged a crew of five, providing them with employment and training in the landscaping industry. • TRCA received $125,000 for creation of amphibian breeding habitat on lands TRCA manages north of Kortright as partial compensation for the loss of a tableland wetland on a development block in Vaughan. The proponent will also construct a small wetland in the valley within the development block. The overall compensation amounts (area and dollars) were supported through the application of TRCA's draft Compensation Protocol. • TRCA secured $2.685 million through Partners in Project Green (PPG) from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for the development of 32 electric vehicle charging stations (22 dual port Level II stations and 10 Level III) at Toronto Pearson International Airport. • TRCA finalized an agreement with Koben Systems Incorporated for the installation of 21 electric vehicle charging stations (18 dual port Level II stations and 3 Level III) across 14 TRCA sites. Thanks to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, all charging stations ($500,000 value) will be provided and installed for free, and have the potential of generating a small profit for TRCA. • Using PPG's MaterialExchange.ca, Runnymede Healthcare Centre diverted 3.3 tonnes of materials away from landfill by exchanging six hospital bathtubs and hospital lifts ($110,000 value) with two Ontario long -term care facilities - Sarsfield Colonial Homes and Jarlette Health Services. Website link 554 • Partners in Project Green facilitated the diversion of 2.2 tonnes of waste from landfill by helping Toronto Pearson recycle a number of electric motors, heavy steel and electrical wire with Peel Scrap Metal Recycling. • In July, TRCA staff presented "Integrating Leading -Edge Water Resource Technologies into Municipal Growth Planning" to the 2016 Canadian Institute of Planners' Conference in Quebec City. • Over the last two to three years, TRCA Planning and Development staff worked closely with City of Toronto planning staff to update and strengthen the City's environmental policies in their official plan. The Official Plan Amendment for the revised policies was approved by City Council and was not appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. • In partnership with Ducks Unlimited Canada, TRCA's Conservation Youth Corps was piloted at Tommy Thompson Park over the week of July 18 — 22. This program provided high schools students with the opportunity to earn volunteer hours through outdoor stewardship work. Participants were also trained to become Wetland Ambassadors. They will help to lead new wetland programming to younger students visiting Tommy Thompson Park. • For the first time, TRCA engaged young people in summer camps at all five of TRCA's education centres, hosting youth in camps that provided experiences in everything from heritage education to natural history to arts and culture and sports and recreation. September • The 2016 People Power Challenge came to a close on September 15`h. Twelve competitors representing over 10,000 employees achieved 16,637 pledges; 2,011 great green ideas; and, 379 projects, 83 of which are joint initiatives. This represents increases of 70 %, 82 %, 51 % and 1975% over 2015 results, respectively. • Partners in Project Green (PPG) completed an anaerobic digestion market viability study for a potential centralized anaerobic digestion facility in the GTA. • Partners in Project Green received approval from McDonald's Canada to design a water audit pilot (14 restaurants) and help identify replicable retrofit opportunities to be implemented across the GTA (80 restaurants) and nation -wide (1,500 restaurants) by 2018. • PPG helped Maple Leaf Foods and Decor Group of Companies divert Paraffin wax food packaging and have it remanufactured as fire starters. This ongoing exchange has the potential of diverting approximately 9.5 tonnes of materials each year. • TRCA held a 1.5 day Western Lake Ontario Workshop at Claremont Field Centre for 90 people, representing provincial and federal governments, municipalities, conservation authorities, NGOs and academics to: gauge interest in Western Lake Ontario; discuss the merits of working together to protect the Lake; and to make the connections between actions on land and the health of the Lake. • TRCA's Multicultural Connections Program received $83,530 over three years from EcoAction. The project aims to engage 2,500 newcomers from the City of Toronto, and Peel and York regions, in a biodiversity presentation, English as a Second Language (ESL) instructor training and field trips to plant 21,000 pollinator plants. • On September 11`h, over 40 riders took part in The Humber Ride 4 Real Food. Participants traveled by bicycle from Etienne Brule Park in Toronto along the Humber River to the McVean Farm in Brampton. Together with our partners, Parkdale Activity- Recreation Centre, West End Food Coop and Greenest City, TRCA hosted the event, which raised over $33,500 to support local food and promote awareness of food security issues in the Toronto region. • On September 7h, TRCA farms hosted an #IEatLocal Twitter party to help create awareness about local food, security, TRCA farms and the work of TRCA's partners. A total of 331 participants were engaged, with a total of 2,944 tweets and a combined reach of 2,471,282. • GIS delivered a training module to PATE participants as part of TRCA's bridge- training program for internationally trained professionals. 555 • Received LIDAR data delivery, 10,000 tiles of data which doubled our data holdings. • The 7`" Annual Salmon Festival at Highland Creek sold out, with about 1,500 people registering to view the fall salmon run at Morningside Park. • Green Durham Association and the East Duffins Headwaters Stewardship group hosted a trail and outdoor recreation community forum in Goodwood with about 75 participants. Guest speakers from the United States and Iceland presented on the importance of trails around the world, developing trails and public use in the landscape, as well as relationship building with the community. • Article on aquatic habitat being published in the Journal of Landscape Ecology. The work is the science that underpins the basis for the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) delisting and informing stream restoration priorities. • In partnership with Clear Air Partnership, convened first meeting with adaptation practitioners in the Province. Provincial staff would like to discuss how we might continue to help them determine the potential for more formal collaboration across Ontario. • Announcement of $65 million in funding from the Government of Canada, Province of Ontario and City of Toronto is a first step to restoring the lower Don River and providing necessary flood protection measures for the Port Lands. • Hosted the first, sold out, Partnership Workshop for Consultants and Municipal Project Managers, facilitated by a multi - disciplinary team of planners, ecologists and engineers, aimed at helping participants navigate the Environmental Assessment and permit application review process. • TRCA staff provided the Keynote dinner address to the Environmental Committee of the Transportation Association of Canada on the History of Conservation. • Hosting first Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River Student Summit for secondary school students from across Ontario. They will pitch solutions to Great Lakes issues to key decision makers and get feedback on what they can do locally. • Monarch Teacher Network of Canada (a program of TRCA) has been invited to attend planning sessions with Tri- national Planning Committee to consider strategic Monarch conservation efforts between Canada, US, Mexico in the next two years. • Wrapped up three weeks of unique sampling on fisheries around the Toronto harbour in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The work contributes to delisting of the RAP and adds to our knowledge to support large scale restoration activities. • Ribbon cutting at Tommy Thompson Park celebrating the transformation of Cell 2 from a confined sediment disposal facility to a 9.5 hectare hemi marsh. • Three of our six member municipalities have approved funding for the new 5 Shoreham Drive Head Office project. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(a@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(aDtrca.on.ca Date: October 5, 2016 556 RES. #A183 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE AUTHORITY Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT Section III item 9.2.1 — 2016 Financial Progress Report to August 31, 2016, contained in Budget/Audit Advisory Board Minutes #3/16, held on October 14, 2016, be received. CARRIED RES. #A184 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE AUTHORITY Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Section III item 10.3.1 — Black Creek Pioneer Village, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/16, held on October 14, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/16, As Amended RES. #A185 /16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 10.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/16, held on October 14, 2016, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:03 a.m., on Friday, October 28, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 557 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #9/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, November 18, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Vincent Crisanti Member Michael Di Blase Vice Chair Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Ronald Chopowick Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Justin Di Ciano Member Jennifer Drake Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Frances Nunziata Member RES. #A186/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the Minutes of Meeting #8/16, held on October 28, 2016, be approved. CARRIED 558 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A187/16 - FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE STATE OF REPAIR REPORT Report on the current state of repair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's flood infrastructure including major deficiencies, dam safety guidelines, risk management and repair projects. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns 11 dams and 15 flood control structures; AND WHEREAS TRCA is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of its flood infrastructure; AND WHEREAS TRCA's flood infrastructure is susceptible to deterioration through normal operations, aging and environmental conditions; AND WHEREAS TRCA identifies structure deficiencies through inspections and engineering investigations; AND WHEREAS the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) requires regular reporting of dam safety status to senior management and Authority members; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff implement flood infrastructure repairs and studies according to the work plan outlined in this report; THAT TRCA request funding from both federal and provincial agencies to assist with implementation of major deficiency repairs once designs are complete; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be permitted to make in -year adjustments to the 2016 -2018 work plan due to changing priorities and potential project delays as necessary, contingent upon reporting on these adjustments in 2018. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/13, held on May 24, 2013, Resolution #A87/13 was approved as follows THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Flood Management Service Flood Infrastructure State of Repair Report be updated and reported to the Authority bi- annually. The purpose of the Flood Infrastructure State of Repair Report is to document the current state of repair of TRCA -owned flood infrastructure and to outline the major capital improvement projects that have been implemented or are required in the future. Information on the process of identifying projects, funding sources and the regulatory framework for dam safety in Ontario is also included in this report. The report was delayed until 2016 as three major dam safety reviews were not finalized until August 2016. Dam safety reviews provide detailed condition assessments, outline the deficiencies discovered during the investigation of the structure and are critical in identifying future capital projects. 559 TRCA's Building The Living City Strategic Plan states in Strategy 2, Objective 4 that TRCA will oversee the "reduction or elimination of existing flood risk within our jurisdiction ". Conservation authorities are mandated, under Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to ensure conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario's water resources. Specifically Section 21 states that conservation authorities are empowered to; to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise; to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effect thereof; As part of this mandate, TRCA chooses to develop and maintain programs to prevent loss of life and property damage from flooding and erosion hazards. To meet this objective TRCA has constructed many flood control structures to reduce flood risk in Flood Vulnerable Area's (FVA's). TRCA currently owns 11 dams and 15 flood control structures that include channels, dykes and flood walls. TRCA's dam inventory consists of 11 dams of which four provide flood protection. The other dams are historical mill and industrial dams acquired through land acquisitions. TRCA dams range in age between 40 -80 years and most are in need of major capital improvements to meet current dam safety guidelines. Internationally, there have been several large dam failures over the last several years that have resulted in loss of life and substantial property damage. This underscores the importance of having a robust dam maintenance program at TRCA. TRCA's channels, berms and other structures are also experiencing some deterioration. For example, some TRCA channels have reduced flood capacity due to the accumulation of sediment, establishment of vegetation, failed concrete panels and erosion of channel banks. These structures were built between the 1950's and 1980's and the design life of these types of structures is typically around 50 years and some structures are in need of some major repairs to extend their functional life. Recent storms such as the July 8, 2013 and the August 19, 2005 events have demonstrated the critical importance of having properly maintained flood channels so that flood conveyance is maximized and the risk to the public is reduced. Over the last ten years TRCA has made significant investments to remediate its inventory of flood protection structures in order to meet its objectives of protecting the public from flood damage. TRCA is committed to continued improvement to all dams, channel and dyke systems that it manages. This report will discuss TRCA's Engineering Services section, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) Dam Safety Guidelines, risk management and future capital requirements. The Flood Infrastructure State of Repair report will be updated in 2018 and will document completed flood infrastructure projects from the period and outline the work plan for the following two years. TRCA's Engineering Services Engineering Services is comprised of several sections including Water Resource Engineering, Hydrogeology, Flood Infrastructure, Hydrometrics and Flood Risk Communications. The core objective of Engineering Services is focused on reducing the flood risk to life and property within TRCA's jurisdiction by providing professional guidance, reliable data and support to TRCA's municipal /regional partners and the public. Engineering Services monitors watershed conditions 24/7 so TRCA can issue flood messages to partner agencies so appropriate actions can be implemented to reduce flood risk to the public. 560 A key part of Engineering Services role in reducing flood risk is to operate, monitor and maintain various flood protection structures. The Flood Infrastructure and Hydrometrics section conduct daily, monthly and annual inspections on each structure depending on the level of risk and the technical standard of surveillance. For example, large dams with high associated risks are required to have daily, monthly and annual inspections. Small, lower risk structures such as flood protection channels are required to undergo only an annual inspection. Starting in 2016, in order to further reduce risk, TRCA has increased surveillance of small dams so that they will receive monthly and annual inspections. All flood control channels and dykes are inspected annually. The results of these inspections are used to determine if the structure is safe and to prioritize capital works to maintain the safety of these structures. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act In 2011, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) introduced the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Administrative Guide, Technical Bulletins and Best Management Practices Guide (LRIA). These documents are based on criteria developed by MNRF and the Canadian Dam Association (CDA), and provide guidelines for the safe design, construction, management and operation of dams in Ontario. It is a resource for engineers, operators and owners to use when assessing the safety of a dam. The LRIA Guidelines are not legislated, but rather a document that defines best management practices and therefore the minimum standard of safety for dam owners. A critical component of the LRIA is the Dam Safety Review (DSR). The DSR is an in depth engineering study of a dam. Components of a DSR include a geotechnical analysis of stability, a public safety review, a hydro - technical review, a structural inspection and other investigations. Based on the results of the DSR, the dam is given a Hazard Potential Classification (HPC). The HPC determines the risk to the public if a dam were to fail. Dams with higher risks are required to meet more stringent and conservative engineering standards. Attachment 1 is from the LRIA Classification and Inflow Design Flood Technical Bulletin and outlines the criteria for determining the HPC of dams. HPC's for all TRCA owned dams can be found in Attachment 2. TRCA's four largest dams are located in urban areas. As such, a failure of one of these dams would have a significant impact on downstream populations. For example, the 2011 Dam Safety Review of G. Ross Lord Dam determined that a failure of the dam could put about 3,000 persons at risk and cause approximately $1.3 billion in property damage. Proper management and maintenance of these dams is critical for public safety. TRCA has adopted the LRIA into its dam safety program and is in the process of upgrading each structure to meet the guidelines contained in the LRIA where possible. However, there are technical difficulties in bringing each structure up to meet modern design guidelines. Older dams were constructed using the engineering principles of the period in which they were built and may not meet newer requirements unless substantial modifications are made. In particular, old legacy dams (such as mill and fishery dams) were built without any proper engineering or construction techniques that may never be able to meet LRIA guidelines. In these cases options are limited to decommissioning the dam or increased risk management and tolerance. 561 Risk Management for TRCA Flood Infrastructure The Canadian Dam Association defines risk as "the consequence of an adverse event and the probability of such an event occurring ". It is recognized in the dam safety community that if an infinite amount of money was available, the risk around dams could be reduced to zero. For reasons of economics this is not possible. Using modern engineering analysis and techniques, however, it is possible to greatly reduce risk. When hazards are greater for a particular structure, the safety requirements are proportionately more rigorous to offset the increased risk. The Flood Infrastructure and Hydrometrics section evaluates each structure and categorizes them in terms of the "impact of failure" and the "probability of failure ". Impact of failure is based on the expected damage to life and property should the structure fail. The probability of failure is based on the condition of the structure and estimates the likelihood of a deficiency causing the structure to fail. TRCA uses Hatch Energy Limited's rating system for ranking the condition of a structure. Hatch Energy is an international consulting firm that specializes in dam engineering and has been retained by TRCA for several dam safety projects. Each structure is given a ranking that ranges from "Satisfactory" to "Unsatisfactory" which helps prioritize capital improvements. Attachment 3 lists the impact of failure and the probability of failure for all TRCA flood structures and outlines the criteria for ranking structures. In order to reduce risk and meet due diligence requirements, TRCA performs the following 1. TRCA evaluates each structure through field inspections and determines what the impacts would be if the structure failed or performed below its design criteria. 2. The structure is inspected to identify any deficiencies that could cause the structure to fail. Channels and other flood control devices can fail by erosion, overtopping and blockages. Deficiencies that can lead to a dam failure are also known as "failure modes ". A failure mode is the process by which dam collapse happens. Dams have three main types of failure modes: • Overtopping - where the dam is unable to pass incoming flows and the dam overtops leading to a breach of the embankment; • Collapse - this can occur because of earthquake, overloading of the structure due to poor design and other component failures; • Internal Erosion - where embankment materials are leached from the dam embankment in uncontrolled seepage through the structure. 3. A repair to mitigate the potential failure mode or hazard is designed and implemented when funding becomes available. Engineering Services is in the process of ensuring DSR's on all TRCA dams are up to date. The findings contained in these DSR's helps TRCA understand what deficiencies exist at the dams and how to prioritize the repairs. It should be noted that there are limitations to determining risk. The complexity of forces acting on a structure is difficult to quantify and therefore determining the probability of failure is difficult. Experience, training and engineering judgment are used to assess the stability and performance of flood infrastructure. But the process for evaluating structures is somewhat subjective. With the limitations of current inspection techniques it is not possible to say with certainty that a structure will or will not fail. Inspections can identify potential failure modes but the complexity of the loads and stresses placed upon structures cannot be precisely measured and so there is a degree of unpredictability in evaluating them. 562 Current Flood Infrastructure Funding TRCA is moving forward with improving the performance and reliability of its flood infrastructure through capital improvements. Current annual funding for all operation, maintenance and surveillance of flood infrastructure totals approximately $840,000 from all TRCA funding partners. These funds are used for operations, preventative maintenance, inspections, dam safety studies and minor capital works. Special funding requests for specific, large scale construction projects are used and will continue to be required in the future once the appropriate studies and designs are completed. Matching Funding from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is assisting conservation authorities to undertake maintenance activities throughout Ontario with the Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure Program (WECI). Under this program, repairs and studies undertaken on structures are eligible for 50% matching funds from the Province of Ontario. Projects reviewed and prioritized by MNRF and only the highest ranked projects are awarded grants. TRCA applies for WECI funding every year for both repairs and studies. The WECI program has become a critical tool for funding capital improvement projects. Completed Major Flood Infrastructure Projects 2013 -2016 Project Name Total Cost Stouffville Channel Clean Out Phase II $48,000 Stouffville Dam Safety Review* $74,000 Stouffville Dam Major Deficiency Repair Design Project* $115,000 G. Ross Lord Dam Emergency Gate Upgrades* $396,000 G. Ross Lord Dam Emergency Generator Replacement* $90,000 G. Ross Lord Dam Low Level Gate Motor Replacement* $65,000 Claireville Dam Bridge Railing Replacement* $71,000 Black Creek Channel Major Maintenance Phase II (401 to Queens Drive)* $490,000 Scarlett Channel Major Maintenance and Concrete Repairs* $241,000 G. Ross Lord Dam Low Level Gate Back -Up System Replacement* $25,000 G. Ross Lord Dam Control Building Upgrades* $150,000 Albion Hills Opinion of Probable Cost and Geofluvial Morphology Stud $24,000 Claireville Dam Safety Review* $110,000 Milne Dam Safety Review* $102,000 Public Safety Around Dams Project $15,000 TOTAL $2,016,000 *Received matching WED funding. 563 Major Flood Infrastructure Capital Projects for 2016 — 2018 (Funding Secured) Project Name Project Year(s) Total Cost (Estimated) Stouffville Dam Embankment Liquefaction 2017 $50,000* Stud Yonge/York Mills Channel Major 2016 -2017 $1,100,000 Maintenance Claireville Dam Deficiency Risk Analysis 2017 $150,000* and Design Project Milne Dam Deficiency Risk Analysis and 2018 $100,000* Design Project Bolton Channel and Dyke Hydraulic and 2016 -2017 $80,000 Stability Stud Mimico /Malton Channel Major 2016 -2017 $700,000 ** Maintenance* Black Creek Dam Safety Review and 2016 -2017 $70,000 Sediment Management Plan Black Creek Dam Sediment Management 2018 $500,000* Plan Implementation Albion Hills Dam Decommissioning 2016 -2018 $620,000 Palgrave Dam Safety Review 2017 -2018 $60,000* Large Dam Emergency Response and 2016 -2018 $30,000 Preparedness Plans Development TOTAL $3,390,000 *Estimated, Potential for WECI Funding 2017/2018 * *WECI Funding Approved Priorities may change on a year to year basis as previously undiscovered deficiencies may be found during the annual inspection cycle. The ability of TRCA to respond to serious deficiencies in flood infrastructure depends on stable year -to -year funding as large capital remediation projects can take several years to complete depending on design, permits and availability of contractors. Major Dam Deficiencies — Future Capital Projects The recent Dam Safety Reviews on Stouffville Dam (2014), Claireville Dam (2016) and Milne Dam (2016) has identified several major dam deficiencies that will require major capital funding to repair. These major deficiencies are complicated and will require additional engineering studies to determine the best course of action for implementing solutions. The probability of having these deficiencies lead to catastrophic failure is low as the triggers of the failure modes are extreme floods and seismic events. The results of these recent DSR's are summarized below. Stouffville Dam • The emergency spillway could potentially erode during high flow events and cause the earth embankment to fail. • The concrete spillway has significant structural issues. • Preliminary investigations indicate that the embankment is susceptible to failure during extreme earthquake events due to a weak sand layer under the foundation of the dam. 564 Milne Dam • The dam's spillway capacity is too small for extreme events and could overtop and fail. • Spillway retaining walls do not meet loading requirements. • Stilling basin may not meet stability requirements. Claireville Dam • The dam's spillway capacity is too small for extreme events and could overtop and fail. • Spillway retaining walls do not meet loading requirements. • Energy dissipation in the stilling basin is inadequate and may undermine the foundation of the dam during high flows. • The right downstream wing wall is failing and needs to be stabilized. • The five radial arm gates are due for major maintenance including corrosion protection, motor replacement, fan brake replacement, operator safety upgrades and trunnion bearing maintenance. These are significant deficiencies that fall outside what would be considered normal lifecycle maintenance in that the original design is inadequate to meet current safety guidelines. Major capital improvements will be required to eliminate risk to the public. Over the next two years TRCA will be conducting detailed technical analyses of these deficiencies to determine the most cost effective, practical and efficient means of reducing or eliminating the risk. Once best practice solutions are finalized TRCA will engage funding partners for assistance in implementing these major capital works. Attachment 3 lists all known major deficiencies with TRCA dams and channels. CONCLUSION TRCA has made significant progress in upgrading the condition of its flood infrastructure over the last ten years. Numerous projects have been undertaken to restore flood channels and increase dam safety, redundancy and reliability. Thorough DSR's and engineering studies have helped TRCA understand how the structures rank in terms of risk to the public and how to mitigate this risk. TRCA's Flood Infrastructure staff will continue to receive regular training in dam surveillance and public safety. New dam safety guidelines are available to better manage structures for performance and safety and TRCA is developing an official Dam Safety Management policy to guide the decision making process. This policy should be completed and finalized in the spring of 2017. TRCA's inventory of flood infrastructure is aging and in some cases has exceeded its expected functional life. There are many forces and natural stresses acting upon these structures that reduce their effectiveness in preventing flooding. TRCA is monitoring these structures and performing capital improvements as they become necessary. However, some mitigation projects are very large in scope and will require substantial funding. Many future projects will take multiple years to complete because of the complex engineering, design and approval process required for flood infrastructure repairs. Provincial funding opportunities such as the WECI program will be critical for undertaking these large projects. TRCA will also look to federal programs such as the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) for funds to undertake these repairs. 565 Flooding remains a serious threat to the GTA. Weather is unpredictable and extreme events can happen at anytime. Climate change may increase the likelihood of such events. Extreme events combined with the dense urbanization of TRCA's watersheds increase the stresses placed upon TRCA's flood infrastructure. To respond to this threat, TRCA will ensure that flood infrastructure is performing at the highest level of protection. Rigorous monitoring, well designed repairs and stable funding will ensure that TRCA's flood infrastructure will continue to provide protection from future extreme storm events. Report prepared by: Craig Mitchell, 647 212 -2410 Emails: cmitchell(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Craig Mitchell, 647 212 -2410 Emails: cmitchell(@trca.on.ca Date: October 31, 2016 Attachments: 3 566 Attachment 1 Hazard Categories Hazard Potential Life Safety Property Losses Environmental Losses Cultural Losses Low No Potential Loss of Life Minimal damage to property with Minimal loss of fish and /or Reversible damage to estimated losses not to exceed wildlife habitat with high municipally designated $300,000. capability of natural cultural heritage sites under restoration resulting in a very the Ontario Heritage Act. low likelihood of negatively affecting the status of the population. Moderate No Potential Loss of Life Moderate damage with estimated Moderate loss or deterioration Irreversible damage to losses not to exceed $3 million, to of fish and /or wildlife habitat municipal designated agricultural, forestry, mineral with moderate capability of cultural heritage sites under aggregate and mining, and natural restoration resulting in the Ontario Heritage Act. petroleum resource operations, a low likelihood of negatively Reversible damage to other dams or structures not for affecting the status of the provincially designated human habitation, infrastructure and population. cultural heritage sites under services including local roads and the Ontario Heritage Act or railway lines. nationally recognized The inundation zone is typically heritage sites. undeveloped or predominantly rural or agricultural, or it is managed so that the land usage is for transient activities such as with day -use facilities. Minimal damage to residential, commercial, and industrial areas, or land identified as designated growth areas as shown in official plans. High Potential Loss of Life of Appreciable damage with estimated Appreciable loss of fish and/ Irreversible damage to 1 -10 persons losses not to exceed $30 million, to or wildlife habitat or provincially designated agricultural, forestry, mineral significant deterioration of cultural heritage sites under aggregate and mining, and critical fish and/ or wildlife the Ontario Heritage Act or petroleum resource operations, habitat with reasonable damage to nationally other dams or residential, likelihood of being able to recognized heritage sites. commercial, industrial areas, apply natural or assisted infrastructure and services, or land recovery activities to promote identified as designated growth species recovery to viable areas as shown in official plans. population levels. Infrastructure and services includes Loss of a portion of the 567 Hazard Categories Hazard Potential Life Safety Property Losses Environmental Losses Cultural Losses regional roads, railway lines, or population of a species municipal water and wastewater classified under the Ontario treatment facilities and publicly- Endangered Species Act as owned utilities. Extirpated, Threatened or Endangered, or reversible damage to the habitat of that species. Very High Potential Loss of Life of Extensive damage, estimated Extensive loss of fish and/ or 11 or more persons losses in excess of $30 million, to wildlife habitat or significant buildings, agricultural, forestry, deterioration of critical fish mineral aggregate and mining, and and/ or wildlife habitat with petroleum resource operations, very little or no feasibility of infrastructure and services. being able to apply natural or Typically includes destruction of, or assisted recovery activities to extensive damage to, large promote species recovery to residential, institutional, viable population levels. concentrated commercial and Loss of a viable portion of the industrial areas and major population of a species infrastructure and services, or land classified under the Ontario identified as designated growth Endangered Species Act as areas as shown in official plans. Extirpated, Threatened or Infrastructure and services includes Endangered or irreversible highways, railway lines or municipal damage to the habitat of that water and wastewater treatment species. facilities and publicly-owned utilities. Notes: Incremental losses are those losses resulting from dam failure above those which would occur under the same conditions (flood, earthquake or other event) with the dam in place but without failure of the dam. 2. Life safety. Refer to Technical Guide — River and Streams Systems: Flooding Hazard Limits, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2002, for definition of 2 x 2 rule. The 2 x 2 rule defines that people would be at risk if the product of the velocity and the depth exceeded 0.37 square metres per second or if velocity exceeds 1.7 metres per second or if depth of water exceeds 0.8 metres. For dam failures under flood conditions the potential for loss of life is assessed based on permanent dwellings (including habitable buildings and trailer parks) only. For dam failures under normal (sunny day) conditions the potential for loss of life is assessed based on both permanent dwellings (including habitable dwellings, trailer parks and seasonal campgrounds) and transient persons. 3. Property losses refer to all direct losses to third parties; they do not include losses to the owner, such as loss of the dam, or revenue. The dollar losses, where identified, are indexed to Statistics Canada values Year 2000. 4. An HPC must be developed under both flood and normal (sunny day) conditions. 5. Evaluation of the hazard potential is based on both present land use and on anticipated development as outlined in the pertinent official planning documents (e.g. Official Plan). In the absence of an approved Official Plan the HPC should be based on expected development within the foreseeable future. Under the Provincial Policy Statement, 'designated growth areas' means lands within settlement areas designated in an official plan for growth over the long -term planning horizon (specifies normal time horizon of up to 20 years), but which have not yet been fully developed. Designated growth areas include lands which are designated and available for residential growth in accordance with the policy, as well as lands required for employment and other uses (Italicized terms as defined in the PPS, 2005). 6. Where several dams are situated along the same watercourse, consideration must be given to the cascade effect of failures when classifying the structures, such that if failure of an upstream dam could contribute to failure of a downstream dam, then the HPC of the upstream dam must be the same as or greater than that of the downstream structure. 7. The HPC is determined by the highest potential consequences, whether life safety, property losses, environmental losses, or cultural -built heritage losses. •• Attachment 2 TRCA Dam Hazard Potential Classifications DAM Region /Municipality HPC G. Ross Lord Dam City of Toronto. VERY HIGH Claireville Dam City of Toronto/ Peel Region VERY HIGH Milne Dam York Region HIGH Stouffville Dam York Region. VERY HIGH Albion Hills Dam Peel Region LOW Palgrave Dam Peel Region LOW* Osler Dam Durham Region LOW* Black Creek Dam City of Toronto VERY HIGH* Glen Haffy Dam West Peel Region LOW* Glen Haffy Dam East Peel Region LOW* Secord Dam Durham Region LOW * Assumed. Hazard Potential Classification analysis required to confirm. 570 Attachment 3 TRCA Flood Infrastructure Current Conditions and Deficiencies STRUCTURE NAME CURRENT IMPACT OF PROBABILITY MAJOR STRUCTURAL /DESIGN CONDITION' FAILURE' OF FAILURE' DEFICIENCIES REGION OF PEEL Albion Hills Dam POOR MODERATE HIGH Outflow pipes failing. Inadequate foundation design. Internal erosion occurring. Claireville Dam FAIR SIGNIFICANT LOW The dam's spillway capacity is too small for extreme events and could overtop and fail. Spillway retaining walls do not meet loading requirements. Spillway inadequately sized for large events. Control room and HVAC upgrades required. Major gate maintenance required. Downstream wing wall is failing and needs to be replaced. Emergency Response and Preparedness upgrades required. Palgrave Dam SATISFACTORY MODERATE LOW Requires Dam Safety Review. Brampton Channel SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT MODERATE None Tyndall Flood Wall SATISFACTORY MODERATE LOW None Glen Haffy Dam West SATISFACTORY MINOR LOW None Glen Haffy Dam East SATISFACTORY MINOR LOW None Woodbridge Channel SATISFACTORY MODERATE LOW None Bolton Channel and FAIR SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM Flood capacity of channel and berm requires Dyke analysis. Geotechnical investigation required to confirm stability. Etobicoke Levee SATISFACTORY MODERATE LOW None Mimico /Malton CONDITIONALLY MODERATE HIGH Extensive sediment and vegetation is Channel POOR restricting flow. Repair expected 2016. 571 YORK REGION Stouffville Dam FAIR SIGNIFICANT MODERATE Concrete control structure requires extensive concrete repairs. Dam foundation is weak and could liquefy during large seismic events. Emergency spillway requires extensive erosion protection to withstand high flow events. Emergency Response and Preparedness upgrades required. Stouffville Channel SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT LOW None Milne Dam SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT LOW The dam's spillway capacity is too small for extreme events and could overtop and fail. Spillway retaining walls do not meet loading requirements. Stilling basin does not meet stability requirements. Emergency Response and Preparedness upgrades required. CITY OF TORONTO G. Ross Lord Dam SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM Piezometer network requires automation. Emergency Response and Preparedness upgrades required. Black Creek Dam FAIR MODERATE LOW Sediment has accumulated in front of control pipe. Sediment may impact flood storage. Requires dam safety review. Yonge -Yorks Mills FAIR SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM Sediment and vegetation in channel. Channel Sheppard Channel CONDITIONALLY MODERATE MEDIUM Displaced concrete channel panels. Heavy POOR sedimentation and vegetation. Scarlett Channel SATISFACTORY MODERATE MEDIUM Structure is stable. Various flood studies underway Black Creek Channel SATISFACTORY MODERATE MEDIUM None Malvern Channel UNSATISFACTORY MINOR LOW Large erosion scars throughout. Failed gabion walls. Flood protection analysis required. Lower Don Flood SATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT LOW None Protection L DURHAM REGION Secord Dam POOR MODERATE HIGH Earth embankment does not meet current dam safety uidelines. Osler Dam UNSATISFACTORY MODERATE HIGH Stop log control structure failing. Embankment failing. Pickering Dyke FAIR SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM Flood protection analysis and stability assessment re uired. Ajax Dyke FAIR SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM Flood protection analysis and stability assessment required. 572 Description for Ranking Structures: RANKING DESCRIPTION Satisfactory No existing or potential deficiencies are recognized Safe performance anticipated under all prescribed loading conditions Fair No existing or potential deficiencies are recognized under normal loading conditions Infrequent extreme events might result in a safety or performance deficiency Conditionally Poor Potential safety deficiency is recognized for unusual loading conditions Used when there is uncertainty associated with analytical parameters that identify a potential safety or performance deficiency Further investigations and studies are necessary Poor Potential safety or performance deficiency is clearly recognized for normal loading conditions Immediate action to resolve deficiency is recommended Unsatisfactory A safety or performance deficiency exists for normal conditions Immediate remedial action is required 2. Impact of Failure - refers to the expected damage to life and property should the structure fail. 3. Probability of Failure — this ranks the risk of failure based on the condition of the structure. 573 RES. #A188 /16 - 2017 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PROGRAMMING Approval of the 2017 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming. Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the 2017 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be amended as set out in Attachment 1, and become effective January 1, 2017. AMENDMENT RES. #A189 /16 Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti THAT the main motion be amended to read as follows: THAT the 2017 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be amended as set out in Attachment 1, and finalized as outlined in Attachment 2, and become effective January 1, 2017. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the 2017 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be amended as set out in Attachment 1, and finalized as outlined in Attachment 2, and become effective January 1, 2017. BACKGROUND Each year staff conducts a review of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Fee Schedule for Public Use Facilities and Programming in order to determine if any changes are required. The review of fees is based on the value of TRCA programs and facilities provided to customers and current market conditions such as comparable industry program fees. Considerations are given to TRCA's ecological and social practices in providing inclusive recreation and education experiences to diverse communities while protecting natural and cultural assets. RATIONALE The following outlines the proposed fee increases and restructuring of the 2017 fee schedule, which are detailed in Attachment 1. A copy of the full proposed 2017 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming is provided as Attachment 2. Increase camping fees at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line campgrounds to reflect the cost of program delivery, such as increasing rates for hydro and water services. The fee structure for student programs at Black Creek Pioneer Village to change from a per student rate to a per group rate. This will ease the online booking process for customers. It will also relieve staff and customer time associated with confirming participant numbers and billing reconciliation. 574 • The fee structure for Bruce's Mill guided Maple Syrup tours to change from a per person rate to a group rate. This change will allow for consistency with guided tours at Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Kortright Centre. It will also ease the online booking process for customers and relieve staff and customer time regarding participant number confirmation and billing reconciliation. Report prepared by: Jamie -Lee Warner, extension 6425 Emails: jwarner(a�trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwardsC&trca.on.ca Date: November 3, 2016 Attachments: 2 6wi Attachment 1 Item Description 2016 Base 2016 Gross (Including Taxes) 2017 Base 2017 Gross (Including Taxes 6.0 For a permit to occupy an un- serviced campsite, inclusive of general admission; 6.1 at Albion Hills, per night. 29.00 32.77 31.00 35.03 6.2 at Albion Hills, per week. 174.00 196.62 186.00 210.18 6.3 at Albion Hills, per month (28 days). 580.00 655.40 620.00 700.60 6.4 at Indian Line, per night. 30.50 34.47 32.50 36.73 6.5 at Indian Line, per week. 183.00 206.79 195.00 220.35 6.6 at Indian Line, per month (28 days). 610.00 689.30 650.00 734.50 6.7 at Glen Rouge, per night. 29.00 32.77 31.00 35.03 6.8 at Glen Rouge, per week 174.00 196.62 186.00 210.18 6.9 at Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). 580.00 655.40 620.00 700.60 6.10 on a holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 6.1,6.4 or 6.7 3.00 3.39 3.00 3.39 7.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 15130 amp hydro hook -ups, inclusive of genera l admission; 7.1 at Albion Hills, per night. 34.50 38.99 36.50 41.25 7.2 at Albion Hills, per week. 207.00 233.91 219.00 247.47 7.3 at Albion Hills, per month (28 days). 690.00 779.70 730.00 824.90 7.4 at Albion Hills, per season. 2,380.00 2,689.40 2,555.00 2,887.15 7.5 at Indian Line, per night. 36.00 40.68 38.00 42.94 7.6 at Indian Line, per week. 216.00 244.08 228.00 257.64 7.7 at Indian Line, per month (28 days). 720.00 813.60 760.00 858.80 7.8 at Indian Line, per season. 2,880.00 3,254.40 3,040.00 3,435.20 7.9 at Glen Rouge, per night. 36.50 41.25 38.50 43.51 7.10 at Glen Rouge, per week. 219.00 247.47 231.00 261.03 7.11 at Glen Rouge, per month (28 days) 730.00 824.90 770.00 870.10 7.12 on a holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 7.1, 7.5 or 7.9 3.00 3.39 3.00 3.39 8.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 50 amp hydro hook -ups, inclusive of genera l admission; Indian Line, per night. 41.00 46.33 43.00 48.59 Indian Line, per week. 246.00 277.98 258.00 291.54 Indian Line, per month (28 days). 820.00 926.60 860.00 971.80 Glen Rouge, per night 39.50 44.64 41.50 46.90 Glen Rouge, per week. 237.00 267.81 249.00 281.37 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). 790.00 892.70 830.00 937.90 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 8.1 or 8.4. 3.00 3.39 3.00 3.39 9.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite with water, hydro, and sewage hook -up inclusive of genera l admission; 9.1 at Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per night. 41.00 46.33 43.00 48.59 9.2 at Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per week. 246.00 277.98 258.00 291.54 576 577 2016 2016 2017 Base 2017 Item Description Base Gross Gross (Including (Including Taxes ) Taxes 9.3 at Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per month 820.00 926.60 860.00 971.80 28da s. 9.4 at Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per night. 46.00 51.98 48.00 54.24 9.5 at Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per week. 276.00 311.88 288.00 325.44 9.6 at Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per month 920.00 1,039.60 960.00 1,084.80 28 da s . 9.7 on a holiday or other designated date, in addition to 3.00 3.39 3.00 3.39 the basic permit feespecified in item 9.1 and 9.4. 16.0 For a guided tour at Bruce's Mill during the maple 6.50 7.35 255.00 288.15 syrup program, as part of a tour group up to a maximum of twenty five participants. 18.0 For general admission to the Black Creek Pioneer age, per day; 18.6 half day student program to a maximum number of 11.00- 11.00- 220.00- 220.00- twenty five participants. 14.00 14.00 280.00 280.00 Per person Per person Per group Per group 18.7 full day student program to a maximum number of 16.00- 16.00- 320.00- 320.00- twenty five participants. 19.00 19.00 380.00 380.00 Per person Per person Per group Per group 18.8 for the Dickson's Hill school program to a maximum 11.00 11.00 220.00 220.00 number of twenty five participants. Per person Per person 577 Attachment 2 TRCA 2017 Fee Schedule Public Facilities and Programming Discounts ............................................................... ............................. #7 Definition of Terms, items D1 to D3 Conservation Areas ..................................................................................... ............................... items 1 to 16 Black Creek Pioneer Village ...................................................................... ............................... items 17 to 19 Kortright Centre for Conservation ............................................................. ............................... items 20 to 22 Memberships........................................................................................................ ............................... item 24 All fees listed in this Schedule take effect January 1, 2017. • Camping Fees at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line Campgrounds increased • Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) student program fee structure changed to a group rate from a per student rate • Bruce's Mill guided Maple Syrup group tours fee structure changed to a group rate from a per student rate. Updated material may be distributed from time to time to include supplementary fees which are related to specific program activities, or to reflect changes to the schedule. 578 TRCA 2017 Fee Schedule - Definition of Terms 1 Age categories Four general age groups are used throughout the fee schedule as follows: Senior - any person sixty years of age or over. Adult - any person from fifteen to fifty -nine years of age. Child - any person from five to fourteen years of age. Child (pre - schoolers) - any person four years of age or under. Some exceptions to this general age categorization apply to specific fee schedule items and are detailed under those items. 2 Conservation Area The term Conservation Area applies to Albion Hills, Bruce's Mill, Boyd, Glen Haffy, Heart Lake and Petticoat Creek. Also included in this definition are the campgrounds at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line. For the purposes of this fee schedule, the definition does not include the Kortright Centre for Conservation or Black Creek Pioneer Village. 3 General admission General admission allows for basic access to a specified TRCA venue(s) during a designated operating period(s). Other fees may be charged in addition to, or in lieu of, general admission fees for certain facilities, programs or operating periods, as identified in this fee schedule or under various operating policies. 4 Group Camper Applies to members of an organized group staying overnight at a Conservation Area by permit. 5 Day Camper Applies to members of daycares, day camps, schools or the like, who are visiting a Conservation Area, Black Creek Pioneer Village or Kortright Centre during the regular operating day. 6 Operating policies This fee schedule is provided as a general summary of fees applied by TRCA at its public use facilities and venues. It does not provide, nor is it intended to provide, complete information as to the various regulations and operating policies in effect at these facilities and venues which may relate to individual fee schedule items. Daily, seasonal and program operating schedules, and minimum group size requirements are among these policies. 7 Discounts, premiums and promotions Any fee may be subject to a discount, premium or promotion at the discretion of the respective Manager. Standard discounts include but are not limited to: DA At Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre, fifteen percent (15 %) off regular per person admission fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons, exclusive of guided tours. D.2 Fifty percent (50 %) off general admission fees for special needs persons and their attendants to a maximum ratio of 1:1. D.3 Free general admission for Active Transportation users to TRCA Conservation Areas and the Kortright Centre as per TRCA Admittance Policy 579 8 Supplementary fees Not all fees are considered to be part of TRCA's fee schedule as approved by the Authority. Some are set independently of that schedule. The sale of retail merchandise or the provision of incidental services represents the most common examples of such fees. 9 Student Programs Student programs are designed for children aged 14 years and under. 10 Conservation Membership — all of TRCA public use facilities and venues, including all TRCA Conservation Areas, Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright, as well as Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Conservation Areas. 11 Camping Permit This permit states that camping fees include camping for six individuals or a family, per campsite. i I TRCA 2017 Fee Schedule - Contents active transportation users ......................... Conservation Areas..................... aquatic facilities -daily admission Petticoat Creek, Heart Lake, Albion Hills anglingfee ............................... ...........................Glen Haffy............................... boat rentals .................. ............................... Conservation Areas........................ camping - day campers .............................. Conservation Areas........................ camping - group .............. .........................Albion Hills, Indian Line..................... camping - public camping .............Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, Indian Line.......... camping - supplementary fees...... Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, Indian Line.......... cross - country skiing - equipment rentals .......... Albion Hills ............................... cross - country skiing - group rate ....................... Albion Hills ............................... cross - country skiing - trail fees ........................ Albion Hills ............................... day campers ................ ............................... Conservation Areas........................ Dickson Hill School ................ ............................... BCPV.... ............................... educational tours - BCPV tour program ................ BCPV.... ............................... educational tours - ........................................ Kortright.. ............................... fishing - Fly Fishers Club Membership ...............Glen Haffy............................... fishing - public ponds .............. ...........................Glen Haffy............................... fishing - pond rentals ..................... Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds........... general admission - BCPV ..... ............................... BCPV.... ............................... general admission ....... ............................... Conservation Areas........................ general admission ................................................ Kortright................................. guidedtour ............................. ............................... BCPV.... ............................... maple syrup tours .............. ............................... Bruce's Mill .............................. memberships - site specific .... ............................... BCPV.... ............................... memberships ............. ....................Conservation Areas, BCPV, Kortright.......... memberships - site specific .................................. Kortright................................. parking.................................... ............................... BCPV ... ............................... arkin Kortri ht ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ............... 6.01 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Pg .................................. ............................... g .......................... ............................... picnics - group picnic sites ................. Conservation Areas /Kortright ........ ............................... special needs persons ..................Conservation Areas, BCPV, Kortright... ............................... swimming - daily admission ....... Petticoat Creek, Heart Lake, Albion Hills ............................... 581 ..............D.3 ............13.0 .............. 2.0 .............. 4.0 .............. 5.0 ............ 11.0 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 ............ 10.0 ............ 15.0 ..15.3, 15.4 ............ 14.0 ............. 5.0 ............18.8 18.6, 18.7 ...21.7 -21.9 .............. 3.3 .............. 3.0 .............. 3.0 ............18.0 .............. 1.0 ....21.1 -21.3 ............19.0 ........... 16.0 ........... 23.0 ............ 24.0 .......... 22.0 ........... 17.0 ............20.0 ............ 12.0 ..............D.2 ............ 13.0 Item Description 2017 Base (Plus Taxes) 2017 Gross (Including Taxes 1.0 For general admission at Conservation Areas, per day; 1.1 adult 5.75 6.50 1.2 senior 4.87 5.50 2.0 For fishing at Glen Haffy per day, exclusive of general admission; 2.1 adult or senior 5.09 5.75 2.2 child 2.52 2.85 2.3 child (pre - schooler) 0.00 0.00 2.4 adult or senior, in a group with a reservation, inclusive of angling fee and general admission, subject to a minimum group size of 20 participants. 7.50 8.48 2.5 child in a group with a reservation, including angling fee and general admission, subject to a minimum group size of 20 participants. 3.25 3.67 2.6 for the use of a fishing pond and picnic shelter for up to 75 participants inclusive of general admission and angling fee. 795.00 898.35 3.0 For a permit for the use of a fishing pond at the Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds, including general admission and the use of row boats; 3.1 up to 75 persons per day 895.00 1011.35 3.2 each additional participant per day 10.00 11.30 3.3 for a membership to Headwaters Fly Fisher's Club. 525.00 593.25 4.0 For the rental of a canoe, pedal boat or rowboat per hour. 12.39 14.00 5.0 For each day camper, per day, at a Conservation Area. 3.50 3.50 6.0 For a permit to occupy an un- serviced campsite, inclusive of general admission; 6.1 Albion Hills, per night. 31.00 35.03 6.2 Albion Hills, per week. 186.00 210.18 6.3 Albion Hills, per month (28 days). 620.00 700.60 6.4 Indian Line, per night. 32.50 303 6.5 Indian Line, per week. 195.00 220.35 6.6 Indian Line, per month (28 days). 650.00 734.50 6.7 Glen Rouge, per night 31.00 35.03 6.8 Glen Rouge, per week 186.00 210.18 6.9 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). 620.00 700.60 6.10 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 6.1,6.4 or 6.7 3.00 3.39 582 Item Description 2017 Base (Plus Taxes ) 2017 Gross (Including Taxes 7.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 15/30 amp hydro hook -ups, inclusive of general admission; 7.1 Albion Hills, per night. 36.50 41.25 7.2 Albion Hills, per week. 219.00 247.47 7.3 Albion Hills, per month 28 days). 730.00 824.90 7.4 Albion Hills, er season. 2;555.00 2,887.15 7.5 Indian Line, per night. 38.00 42.94 7.6 Indian Line, per week. 228.00 257.64 7.7 Indian Line, per month 28 days). 760.00 858.80 7.8 Indian Line, per season. 3,040.00 3,435.20 7.9 Glen Rouge, per night. 38.50 43.51 7.10 Glen Rou e, per week. 231.00 261.03 7.11 Glen Rouge, per month 28 days) 770.00 870.10 7.12 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit feespecified in item 7.1, 7.5 or 7.9. 3.00 3.39 8.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 50 amp hydro hook -ups, inclusive of general admission; 8.1 Indian Line, per night. 43.00 48.59 8.2 Indian Line, per week 258.00 291.54 8.3 Indian Line, per month 28 days). 860.00 971.80 8.4 Glen Rouge, per night. 41.50 46.90 8.5 Glen Rouge, per week. 249.00 281.37 8.6 Glen Rou e, per month 28 days). 830.00 937.90 8.7 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit feespecified in item 8.1 or 8.4. 3.00 3.39 9.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite with water, hydro, and sewage hook -up inclusive of general admission; 9.1 Indian Line with 30 am hydro service, per night. 43.00 1 48.59 9.2 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per week. 258.00 291.54 9.3 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per month 28 days). 860.00 971.80 9.4 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per night. 48.00 54.24 9.5 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per week. 288.00 325.44 9.6 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per month 28 days). 960.00 1,084.80 9.7 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit feespecified in item 9.1 and 9.4. 3.00 3.39 10.0 In addition to basic camping fees as specified in items 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0; 10.1 for a permit to park an additional vehicle, per night. 10.00 11.30 10.2 fora ermit to park an additional vehicle, per season. 75.00 84.75 10.3 each additional person occupying a campsite over and above the campground's specified site limit, per night. 5.00 5.65 583 Item Description 2017 Base (Plus Taxes ) 2017 Gross (Including Taxes 11.0 For a permit to occupy a group campsite at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, or Indian Line; 11.1 for a permit to occupy a group campsite, exclusive of general admission; 200.00- 500.00 226.00- 565.00 12.0 For a permit for the use of a group picnic site, exclusive of general admission; 155.00- 500.00 175.15- 565.00 13.0 For admission to aquatic facilities exclusive of general admission, per day; 13.1 Albion Hills, for each person two years of age or over. 3.32 3.75 13.2 Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake, for each person two years of age or over. 4.20 4.75 14.0 For the use of cross - country ski trails at Albion Hills, inclusive of general admission; 14.1 adult. 14.60 16.50 14.2 child. 8.19 9.25 14.3 child (pre-schooler). 0.00 0.00 14.4 senior. 11.95 13.50 14.5 family living in the same household, with no more than two adults, and their children. 35.40 40.00 15.0 For the rental of a cross - country ski equipment package consisting of skis, boots and poles; 15.1 adult 17.25 19.50 15.2 child 12.00 13.56 15.3 adult, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. 25.00 28.25 15.4 child, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees; subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. 12.00 13.56 16.0 For a guided tour at Bruce's Mill during the maple syrup program, as part of a tour group up to a maximum of twenty five participants. 255.00 288.15 17.0 For parking at Black Creek Pioneer Village, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. 6.19 7.00 18.0 For general admission to Black Creek Pioneer Village, per day; 18.1 adult 15.00 16.95 18.2 child 11.00 12.43 18.3 child re- schooler accompanying their family. 0.00 0.00 18.4 senior 12.00 13.56 18.5 student fifteen years of age or over, with student identification. 12.00 13.56 18.6 half day student program to a maximum number of twenty partici ants. 220.00- 1 280.00 220.00- 280.00 . A Item Description 2017 Base (Plus Taxes ) 2017 Gross (Including Taxes 18.7 full day student program to a maximum number of twenty partici ants. 320.00- 380.00 320.00- 380.00 18.8 for the Dickson's Hill School program to a maximum number of twenty participants, 220.00 220.00 19.0 For a Guided Tour at Black Creek Pioneer Village, as part of a tour group with a reservation to a maximum of twenty participants, including general admission; 220.00- 380.00 248.60- 429.30 20.0 For parking at the Kortright Centre for Conservation during the Maple Syrup program, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. 3.54 4.00 21.0 For general admission at the Kortright Centre for Conservation; 21.1 child 0.00 0.00 21.2 adult 5.75 6.50 21.3 senior 4.87 5.50 21.4 child participating in a weekend or evening public program. 6.00 6.78 21.5 adult parti ci atin in a weekend or evening public program. 12.00 13.56 21.6 senior pa rtici atin in a weekend or evening public program. 6.00 6.78 21.7 half day student program to a maximum number of thirty partici ants 200.00- 220.00 200.00- 220.00 21.8 full day student program to a maximum of thirty participants. 375.00- 400.00 375.00- 400.00 21.9 booked programmed groups using grounds for self - guided activities during non - programming time on same day as booking. Subject to a maximum group of thirty persons. 50.00 50.00 22.0 Kortright Centre Membership valid for admission, inclusive of parking fees, to the Kortright Centre for Conservation; 22.1 individual membership. 50.00 56.50 22.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to four individuals 85.00 96.05 23.0 Black Creek Pioneer Village Membership valid for general admission, inclusive of parking fees, to Black Creek Pioneer Village; 23.1 individual membership. 60.00 67.80 23.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to four individuals. 95.00 107.35 24.0 Conservation Membership valid for general admission to all TRCA and CVC conservation areas, Kortright Centre for Conservation, and Black Creek Pioneer Village; 24.1 individual membership. 75.00 84.75 24.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to six individuals. 135.00 152.55 • , COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A190 /16 Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.1 — Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 -2020, 83 Fishleigh Drive, Toronto. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES. #A191 /16 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED CONFIDENTIAL — As it pertains to on -going property negotiations RES. #A192 /16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Lake Ontario Waterfront 83 Fishleigh Drive, City of Toronto, CFN 28291. Acquisition of 83 Fishleigh Drive, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Lake Ontario Waterfront. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT confidential item 7.3 — Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 -2020, 83 Fishleigh Drive, Toronto, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. AMENDMENT RES. #A193 /16 Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the in camera amendment be approved and inserted after the fourth paragraph of the main motion; THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS i • CARRIED CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT confidential item 7.3 — Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 -2020 in regard to 83 Fishleigh Drive, City of Toronto, be approved; THAT the in camera amendment be approved and inserted after the fourth paragraph of the main motion; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. 587 RES. #A194/16 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Acquisition for the Whitburn Crescent Erosion Control Project, Humber River Watershed 137 and 139 Whitburn Crescent, City of Toronto, CFN 56776 and CFN 56777. Acquisition of property located at 137 and 139 Whitburn Crescent, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020 ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #8107116) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT a parcel of land containing 0.014 hectares (0.034 acres) being Part of Lot 49, Registered Plan 4503, designated as Part 3 on Plan 66R -28648 and a permanent easement of 0.026 hectares (0.065 acres) being Part of Lot 49, Registered Plan 4503, designated as Part 2 on Plan 66R- 28648, at the rear of 137 Whitburn Crescent, City of Toronto, be purchased by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) from Brian and Lucrezia Houston; THAT a parcel of land containing 0.002 hectares (0.007 acres) being part of Lot 50, Registered Plan 4503, designated as Part 6 on Plan 66R -28648 and a permanent easement of 0.011 hectares (0.028 acres) being part of Lot 50, Registered Plan 4503, designated as Part 5 on Plan 66R- 28648, at the rear of 139 Whitburn Crescent, City of Toronto, be purchased by TRCA from Mario and Luciana Facca; THAT the purchase price for each of the parcels of land and permanent easements at 137 and 139 Whitburn Crescent be $2.00 in addition to each vendor's reasonable legal costs, and survey if required; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the lands at 137 and 139 Whitburn Crescent free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transactions at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED pfeeFoe RES. #A195116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Longyard Properties Inc., CFN 56778. Acquisition of property located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Bathurst Street, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #B108116) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Di Blase THAT 7.79 hectares (19.25 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Bathurst Street, said land being Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 2, designated as Blocks 414 on Plan 65M -4425 and Blocks 286 and 287 on Plan 65M -4491 and, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Longyard Properties Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A196116 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Conveyance of Land for the Future Widening of Regional Road 9 (King Street East — Bolton), west of the Caledon -King Townline, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 56711. Receipt of a requirement from Regional Municipality of Peel as part of the Site Plan Approval process for the development of TRCA's Bolton Camp property for conveyance of TRCA lands required for the future widening of Regional Road 9 (King Street East — Bolton), west of the Caledon -King Townline, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #8109/16) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase i s WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a requirement from the Regional Municipality of Peel as part of the Site Plan Approval process for the development of TRCA's Bolton Camp property for conveyance of land for the future widening of Regional Road 9 (King Street East — Bolton), west of the Caledon -King Townline, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA -owned land containing 0.005 hectares (0.013 acres), more or less, required for the future widening of Regional Road 9 (King Street East — Bolton), west of the Caledon -King Townline, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, said land being Part of Lot 8, Concession 8 ALBION and designated as Part 1 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Ivan B. Wallace OLS Ltd., under their Job No. 5- 11707, be conveyed to the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition to all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by TRCA; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the Regional Municipality of Peel prior to commencement of any future construction; THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A197/16 - THE RESIDENCES AT ARGENTO INC. Request for Permanent Easement Required for Underground 200mm Pipe City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 56434. Receipt of a request from The Residences at Argento Inc. to provide a permanent easement for an underground 200mm pipe required for a residential tower located at 18 Graydon Hall Drive, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. (Executive Res. #8110/16) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from The Residences at Argento Inc. to provide a permanent easement for an underground 200mm pipe required for a residential tower located at 18 Graydon Hall Drive, City of Toronto; 590 AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with The Residences at Argento Inc. in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement be granted in favour of The Residences at Argento Inc., said property being described as parcel F -3, section M960 and Part of Blocks F and G, PLAN 66M -960 as closed by by -law 33 -80, designated as Parts 5, 6 & 7 on Plan 66R- 11579, City of Toronto, Don River watershed; THAT consideration be the sum of $661,200, in addition all legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by The Residences at Argento Inc.; THAT The Residences at Argento Inc. shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the The Residences at Argento Inc.; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated /stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained prior to commencement of construction; THAT the transaction be completed on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/16, As Amended RES. #A198/16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Di Biase 591 THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 10.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/16, held on November 4, 2016, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:16 a.m., on Friday, November 18, 2016. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 592 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #10/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 6, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Blase Vice Chair Michael Ford Member Jennifer Innis Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Kevin Ashe Member David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Colleen Jordan Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Ron Moeser Member Gino Rosati Member RES. #A199/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the Minutes of Meeting #9/16, held on November 18, 2016, be approved. CARRIED 593 Section I — Items for Authority Action RES. #A200/16 - APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY City of Toronto. The Secretary- Treasurer advises that nine appointees to TRCA, representing the City of Toronto, have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority until the 2017 annual meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority Meeting for 2017 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 will be confirmed, unless a successor is appointed. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT the following councillors be recognized as City of Toronto members of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for a term of office from January 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of the TRCA afterwards, and as such are duly appointed and entitled to sit as members of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017, or until her successors are appointed: Maria Augimeri Vincent Crisanti Glenn De Baeremaeker Paula Fletcher Michael Ford Jim Karygiannis Giorgio Mammoliti Ron Moeser Anthony Peruzza; AND FURTHER THAT councillors Paul Ainslie, Justin Di Ciano and Frances Nunziata be thanked for their service to TRCA. CARRIED BACKGROUND In December 2014, the City of Toronto Council approved the nine Council appointees to TRCA for a term of office expiring on December 31, 2016 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards. At Toronto City Council on December 13, 14 and 15, 2016, Council approved the appointment of nine Council appointees to TRCA for a term of office from January 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of the TRCA afterwards. Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary- Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such advisement needs to be provided at the January 6, 2017 meeting, to be effective until Annual Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017, or until their successors are appointed. As a result, the Secretary- Treasurer is advising that the nine Toronto councillors noted above are duly appointed to sit as Members of the Authority, effective January 1, 2017. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca Date: December 15, 2016 594 RES. #A201/16 - HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD 2017 — 2018 Action Plan. Endorsement of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's 2017 — 2018 Action Plan for York Region's Human Services Planning Board. Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been appointed as a Government Advisor /Resource Member of the Human Services Planning Board of York Region for the 2015 — 2018 term of York Region Council; AND WHEREAS member organizations of the Human Services Planning Board of York Region are requested to develop and endorse an action plan in support of the priority areas of the Human Services Planning Board of York Region; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA's 2017 — 2018 Action Plan in support of York Region's Human Services Planning Board be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT York Region Council be so advised. Cal T i1:l7 BACKGROUND The Human Services Planning Board of York Region (HSPB -YR) was established in 2012 by York Region Council to bring together leaders in the human services field from across York Region to identify innovative approaches to improving the health and well -being of communities and residents. The HSPB -YR is comprised of a wide range of social and community service agencies from across York Region including municipalities, school boards, universities, colleges, housing providers, social service providers and others. In 2015 TRCA was invited to participate on the HSPB -YR as a Government Advisor /Resource Member. The HSPB -YR has identified specific challenges and opportunities facing York Region over the coming 25 years, including: • Sustained rapid population growth; • An increasingly diverse population in terms of ethno - cultural, age and socio- economic profile; • Increasing urban intensification; • Continued under - funding by senior levels of government in the areas of health care and social services. With this in mind, the HSPB -YR has developed two core areas of focus that require collective action to ensure that York Region remains an equitable, accessible and inclusive region to reside: • Increasing availability and affordability of housing; • Improving the economic and social well -being of community members. It is around these two core priority areas that member organizations of the HSPB -YR are developing organization- specific action plans that outline the activities that each member organization is undertaking that support the objectives of the HSPB -YR. 595 RATIONALE With the addition of TRCA to the HSPB -YR, new opportunities for innovative partnerships that support TRCA's strategic objectives as outlined in the 2013 -2022 strategic plan Building The Living City have emerged. Early successes include the partnership with 360 °kids for the restoration and adaptation of TRCA's heritage residential property at 17 Mill Street in Markham into a transition house for young people moving out of foster care, and new partnerships with CHATS to provide programming that supports improved access to TRCA facilities and greenspace systems for seniors living in York Region. As part of TRCA's membership on the HSPB -YR, and to provide strategic guidance for the realization of new partnership opportunities through this network, a 2017 — 2018 Action Plan for TRCA's involvement in the HSPB -YR has been established (Attachment 1). FINANCIAL DETAILS Action areas identified in TRCA's HSPB -YR Action Plan are either already currently funded through TRCA operating and capital budgets, or would only proceed with the securement of program or project specific funding. Report prepared by: Darryl Gray, extension (416) 791 -0327 Emails: dgray( trca.on.ca For Information contact: Darryl Gray, extension (416) 791 -0327 Emails: dgray( trca.on.ca Date: December 12, 2016 Attachments: 1 596 Attachment 1 Human Services Planning Board of York Region Toronto and Region Conservation Action Items 2017 — 2018 HOUSING ACTIONS Canada's Innovation Park at Kortright/Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) Designed to advance building practices in support of climate change and sustainability outcomes through technology research, commercialization and knowledge transfer, Canada's Innovation Park/STEP can support improved rental outcomes by providing expertise on best practices related to building construction and retrofits that enhances the affordability, sustainability and durability of the single- and multi -unit rental market. PARTNERS . Region of York • 360 °Kids • Trades Associations • Economic Development/Boards of Trades • Private Developers • Colleges and Universities Support the development of complete, sustainable communities . Province of Ontario The Living City Policies are TRCA's guiding document that . Region of York support the creation of complete communities and reflect . Local municipalities TRCA's goal of building a sustainable city region. A key area . Development Industry of focus within The Living City Policies is improved integration of natural systems and greenspace into the urban environment to maximize community and ecological outcomes, and ensure equitable access to greenspace for all segments of the community. Leverage the value of TRCA's rental housing stock to maximize • 360 °Kids community development outcomes • Region of York TRCA has a rental portfolio of 19 single family homes across . Housing York Inc. the Region of York. The goal of this action is to maximize the . Learning Enrichment value of these rental assets to ensure best value from housing Foundation affordability, financial sustainability, accessibility, and green building perspectives. Options include: • Development of extended youth transitional housing programs within appropriate and suitable TRCA rental units (currently piloting this with 360 °Kids at 17 Mill Street in Markham) • Examine establishing a not - for - profit social housing enterprise to manage TRCA's housing stock, find opportunity for at risk segments of the population for employment, including social enterprises for the maintenance and operation of components of the rental portfolio such as 360 0kids. 597 Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plans (SNAPs) Integrate programs and services into TRCA's Sustainable Neighbourhood programs in the Bayview Glen and Lake Wilcox communities that identify and target opportunities to improve the quality of all communities, including the rental inventory, as well as the integration of alternate rental types into the existing housing stock, including room rentals in homes with older adults, etc. • Region of York . Local Municipalities . Homeowners Associations • Community Groups . Homeowners . Housing York Inc. . Housing Co -O s Age - Friendly Programs and Services • CHATS York Region Canada's population is aging and as the percentage of older • Local Municipalities adults increases, the needs of our communities will continue • Seniors /Retirement to diversify and shift in response. Demographic data shows Housing Providers that the number of persons in York Region over the age of 55 will rise to more than 20% of the population, presenting a unique set of opportunities and challenges to TRCA and the communities we serve. To address this, TRCA has developed an Older Adults and Seniors Work Plan this identifies and acts on new opportunities to support this growing segment of our population. This Work Plan focuses on two specific areas: • Helping older adults and seniors thrive through programs that support improved community and social inclusion and belonging; • Promoting healthy, active aging through natural fitness and wellness activities. Programs and services that support these key areas are delivered in the community and at TRCA community engagement centres and conservation parks, and leverage existing resources, while sourcing new partnerships and funding opportunities to maximize program investment in this area. EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS PARTNERS Bridge training for internationally trained professionals Employers TRCA's Professional Access into Employment (PATE) program • Municipalities supports integration of internationally trained professionals • Consulting Firms into the environmental services sector. • Others Settlement Agencies Employer engagement — strategies for recruitment and retention Employers TRCA is undertaking a research and development program to • Municipalities support employers in the recruitment and retention of highly • Consulting Firms skilled internationally trained professionals. This program • Others includes the development and provisions of tools and Settlement Agencies resources that will better equip employers to respond to changing labour market forces and demands through the employment of new Canadians. Youth Employment and Training TRCA employs approximately 500 summer students and seasonal contract positions. By identifying opportunities to employ at -risk or under - employed segments of the population in key TRCA workforces, TRCA can leverage our experience as a leading employer youth and young adults, while integrating advanced training and mentorship opportunities to improve economic and employment outcomes for vulnerable segments of our population. • Job Connect/Employment Ontario • GTTI – The Training Centre • United Way Social Enterprise Development and Social Impact Procurement • Learning Enrichment • Develop in -house social enterprises that support TRCA's Foundation vision for The Living City and stated goals and outcomes • GTTI – The Training of the Human Services Planning Board of York Region; Centre • Utilize TRCA assets (physical - buildings /land, professional and economic /budgetary) to support the creation of social enterprises within the communities we serve, including community -led program and service enterprises that operate out of TRCA facilities and spaces (ie. fitness, arts or recreation programs, camps; • Support and /or partner with existing social enterprise start- ups that align with TRCA's vision, as above (physical, professional, economic) and provide specific services or workforce needs. Family and Youth - oriented Recreation Programs • Province of Ontario Strong physical literacy skills are foundational to long -term . Treetop Trekking health and wellness. Organized recreation programs play an • Stouffville BMX important role in developing these skills among children and • Local Health and youth to build healthy lifelong habits from a young age. Yet, Wellness Businesses these types of programs can be unaffordable for many . Local Sports and families. With the objective of reducing financial barriers to Recreation participation, TRCA piloted a collaborative program model in Businesses sports and recreation programming at its Bruce's Mill Conservation Area during the 2016 summer season. This program engaged kids from throughout York Region to visit the conservation area with their families and take advantage of a unique variety of fun, affordable activities —from soccer and yoga to BMX biking and treetop adventure games. With excellent feedback from participants, TRCA will be exploring how to enhance this community focused model in 2017 -18 through new partnerships, program options and engagement strategies. 599 RES. #A202 /16 - ACQUISITION OF AN ALUMINUM WORK BOAT Award of Contract #10002273. Award of contract for the acquisition of a 10 metre (32 foot) aluminum work boat. Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Jim Tovey WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has jurisdiction over 72 kilometres of Lake Ontario waterfront; AND WHEREAS TRCA undertakes shoreline erosion control monitoring /assessment and environmental monitoring activities along the Lake Ontario waterfront; AND WHEREAS TRCA works in partnership with other agencies, i.e. municipal, provincial, federal, conservation authorities and academia, to undertake research studies, compliance monitoring, special projects and other related environmental monitoring activities; AND WHEREAS TRCA's current workboat the Aqualab has been in operation for 26 years and has reached its serviceable life limit; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #10002273 for the acquisition of a 10m (32 ft.) aluminum work boat be awarded to Kanter Marine for a total cost not to exceed $561,600.00, plus HST, plus 10% contingency it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications. AMENDMENT RES. #A203 /16 Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the following be added to the main motion: AND WHEREAS TRCA's current work boat is nearing the end of serviceable life and will be in operation for the 2017 operating season up to the delivery of the new vessel; AND WHEREAS routine maintenance aside, major mechanical repairs for the work boat may need to be addressed to ensure TRCA's current work boat is operating at capacity until such time it can be "retired "; THAT the purchase be structured on a milestone payment system where the vendor will receive payment based on pre -set targets outlined in the construction schedule (to be finalised in kick -off meeting), with multiple opportunities throughout the construction schedule to identify and rectify any defects /non- conformities via progress review meetings and project updates at which time corrective actions will be identified and included in work schedules; THAT the delivery schedule which at this time is tentative will be finalised at the kick -off meeting and barring any unforeseen circumstances or current work schedule of fabrication /retrofit for the contractor the new work boat will be delivered during the 2017 operating season; • � � THAT TRCA will use the Canadian Construction Documents Committee Design Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC14) which has provisions in the terms and conditions related to delays, non - conformance etc. to aide in the general project management of the contract to ensure timely delivery /completion, and the CCDC14 along with routine status updates and progress review meetings will allow opportunities to ensure the work boat is fabricated in a timely manner. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has jurisdiction over 72 kilometres of Lake Ontario waterfront; AND WHEREAS TRCA undertakes shoreline erosion control monitoring /assessment and environmental monitoring activities along the Lake Ontario waterfront; AND WHEREAS TRCA works in partnership with other agencies, i.e. municipal, provincial, federal, conservation authorities and academia, to undertake research studies, compliance monitoring, special projects and other related environmental monitoring activities; AND WHEREAS TRCA's current workboat the Aqualab has been in operation for 26 years and has reached its serviceable life limit; AND WHEREAS TRCA's current work boat is nearing the end of serviceable life and will be in operation for the 2017 operating season up to the delivery of the new vessel; AND WHEREAS routine maintenance aside, major mechanical repairs for the work boat may need to be addressed to ensure TRCA's current work boat is operating at capacity until such time it can be "retired "; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #10002273 for the acquisition of a 10m (32 ft.) aluminum work boat be awarded to Kanter Marine for a total cost not to exceed $561,600.00, plus HST, plus 10% contingency it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT the purchase be structured on a milestone payment system where the vendor will receive payment based on pre -set targets outlined in the construction schedule (to be finalised in kick -off meeting), with multiple opportunities throughout the construction schedule to identify and rectify any defects /non- conformities via progress review meetings and project updates at which time corrective actions will be identified and included in work schedules; THAT the delivery schedule which at this time is tentative will be finalised at the kick -off meeting and barring any unforeseen circumstances or current work schedule of fabrication /retrofit for the contractor the new work boat will be delivered during the 2017 operating season; 601 THAT TRCA will use the Canadian Construction Documents Committee Design Build Stipulated Price Contract (CCDC14) which has provisions in the terms and conditions related to delays, non - conformance etc. to aide in the general project management of the contract to ensure timely delivery/completion, and the CCDC14 along with routine status updates and progress review meetings will allow opportunities to ensure the work boat is fabricated in a timely manner. BACKGROUND TRCAs current workboat (Aqualab) has been an invaluable asset to TRCA's restoration and environmental monitoring programs over its 26 year service life. However, the increase in maintenance required for regular operation has placed the reliability of the Aqualab in question Staff is concerned about the potential adverse impact on program operations. Over the past 35 years, TRCA has been extensively committed to maintaining shoreline protection, restoring terrestrial and aquatic habitat as well as managing natural resources within TRCA's jurisdictional waters on Lake Ontario. TRCA has jurisdiction over 72 kilometres of Lake Ontario waterfront spanning from the City of Toronto /City of Mississauga border in the west to the Town of Ajax/Town of Whitby's border in the east. TRCA maintains a commercial marine fleet of various sized vessels to conduct this work along the waterfront; the Aqualab being the fundamental platform for a variety of programs. Throughout its service life the Aqualab has been instrumental and directly related to brokering many Lake Ontario waterfront projects and developing partnerships with other agencies. The Aqualab provides valuable support to TRCAs waterfront environmental monitoring work. Data collected through operation of the Aqualab provides critical understanding of ecological conditions associated within project sites. Many of the waterfront projects would not have been approved and undertaken without the data collected through the operation of the Aqualab. TRCA's corporate commitment to delineating environmental conditions has improved many of the waterfront projects to the net effect that TRCA is considered a leader in ecologically -based shoreline management, habitat restoration and environmental monitoring. These ongoing investigations have contributed to a wealth of knowledge that has been instrumental in supporting the environmental initiatives along the waterfront. The information /data along with the scientific knowledge collected /derived from the monitoring program over the past 35 years has developed and reinforced TRCA's strong reputation of environmental monitoring and professional marine services. This knowledge /data is recognized by federal departments, provincial ministries and academic institutions as a valuable resource in understanding the environmental conditions in the nearshore zone of Western Lake Ontario, and is freely offered to various agencies including: • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF); • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); • Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC); • Partner conservation authorities; • TRCA partner waterfront municipalities; • Academic partners. In 2016 approximately 35 programs and projects were directly dependent on TRCA's Lake Ontario monitoring program, including: • Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Projects: • Port Union Waterfront Park; 602 • Mimico Waterfront Linear Park; • Lower Don naturalization; • The Regional Watershed Monitoring Program; • Scarborough Waterfront Project; • Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring; • Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan implementation; • Durham waterfront monitoring; • DFO fisheries research; • Invasive species surveillance; • Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP); • Lakeview Waterfront Connection. Forecasting into the future there is a growing number of major waterfront projects in development which will be dependent on the Aqualab including: • Lower Don River naturalization; • Scarborough Waterfront Project; • Lakeview Waterfront Connection; • 2018 Lake Ontario Intensive Monitoring; • Toronto RAP delisting 2020; • Gibraltar Point Erosion Project; • Toronto Water Emergency Spill Response. RATIONALE In the summer of 2015 TRCA staff began the process of procuring a replacement vessel that would meet and /or exceed the following main requirements: • Designed to meet and /or exceed Transport Canada Construction and Safety Standards for Small Vessels (TP1332E). • Comparable design characteristics as partner agencies (MNRF, DFO, MOECC and local /regional law enforcement) marine work boats. • 10 metre / 32' length with a beam designed proportionately to length — to provide increased stability and operational safety for crew. • Larger /flush work deck providing greater operational efficiencies. • Ability to operate in shallow water depths. During this process staff met with current industry representatives (ship builders) that have designed and built vessels of similar design characteristics for partner agencies. Staff reviewed design drawings, specifications and industry standard construction facilities in order to better understand the process. Subsequently, with lessons learned, staff crafted a procurement contract and posted it on www.biddingo.com to obtain design build services to fabricate a new vessel. However at the time TRCA was unable to ensure fair market value from the sole submission provided by Metalcraft Marine. Staff concluded that further consultation was required with the industry to assess contract specifications. The tendering process was postponed until 2016 in order to garner further information from the industry, which resulted in minor revisions to the contract primarily regarding current industry standard for ship building in Canada (TP1332E — Construction and Safety Standards for Small Vessels). 603 In June 2016, staff again tendered for design build services on www.biddingo.com to replace the Aqualab; however, TRCA received no submissions upon closing. Due to the fact that the market for ship builders is relatively small and the requirement for vessels of various sizes meeting industry construction and safety standards can be quite high, staff determined that presenting to a larger vendor market would be an ideal scenario. Access to the larger market was obtained through the use of a national procurement portal www.merx.com where the design build contract obtained viewing by ship builders throughout Canada. Although the contract garnered more interest from the industry, upon closing the sole submission from the solicitation was that of Kanter Marine (Ontario). Submissions were opened on October 28`h, 2016 by the Procurement Opening Committee. Kanter Yachts and their commercial line (Kanter Marine) have produced over 280 custom aluminum yachts and commercial vessels since 1977, ranging from 18' to 130' with ABS, Lloyds, CE and Transport Canada certifications. Kanter enlisted Gregory C. Marshall Naval Architect Ltd., Victoria, B.C. to undertake the structural design of the replacement vessel, while the electrical load analysis was conducted by Stand Sure Marine, Markham Ontario. This vessel design is similar to commissions for other agencies. Vessels listed below are of similar design and configuration completed by Kanter Marine Inc. in recent years. • 11.6m workboat w /jets for Fisheries and Oceans Canada; • 11.6m Patrol vessel for OPP Orillia "Chris D. Lewis "; • 10m Guardian for Parks Canada "Investigator'. The cost submitted by Kanter Marine of $561,600.00, is comparable to costs for vessels similar in nature /design and recently constructed for: 2015 • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry - $535,531.00 • Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services - $590,481.19 2014 • Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change - $470,240.00 TRCA staff reviewed the proposal from Kanter Marine Inc. and was satisfied with the overall vessel design. As a result of the sole submission, staff contracted Bristol Marine (certified marine mechanics and service provider to TRCA) to review component compatibility. Bristol has a unique understanding of the typical work scenarios that the Aqualab endures and any issues associated with its operation. Through its review Bristol Marine concurred with the TRCA staff assessment of the Kanter proposal. Overall staff is satisfied that the design of the proposed vessel will accommodate current and future program requirements and is of sufficient quality to ensure reliable operation. Therefore, staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Kanter Marine. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is available through the TRCA vehicle and equipment acquisition fund. (701 -11) •1A The new vessel will utilize a daily chargeback rate through the operating season of April to December in order to recover operational and capital costs throughout the projected service life of 25 years. Report prepared by: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr(a)trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760, Rick Portiss, extension 5302, Gord MacPherson, extension 5246, Scott Jarvie, 289.268.3941 Emails: aorr(a)trca.on.ca, rportiss(dj) rca.on.ca, gmacpherson(a)trca.on.ca, siarvie(a)trca.on.ca Date: December 9, 2016 • l � RES. #A204/16 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN Supporting the Vision for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village. Approval of a formal request to The Living City Foundation to move forward with a fundraising campaign for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village vision. Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie WHEREAS Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) requires $30 million over the next five years to implement its vision for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village; AND WHEREAS BCPV has worked closely with The Living City Foundation to develop a fundraising strategy to support the implementation of the vision for the New BCPV; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT The Living City Foundation be requested to move ahead with a two- phased $30 million fundraising campaign for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village that aims to secure $10 million in philanthropic commitments, grants, partnerships and corporate sponsorships during Phase 1 (2017 -18), and $20 million during Phase 2 (2019 -21). CARRIED BACKGROUND For the past five years, Black Creek Pioneer Village has been preparing for transformation from a traditional living history museum to a dynamic, experiential heritage hub. Following extensive research at top -tier museums, audience studies, community consultations and a fundraising feasibility study that demonstrated the philanthropic community's willingness to support BCPV's transformation, the museum's senior leadership team finalized its vision for a new kind of museum experience and unveiled this vision to the Authority for approval. At Authority Meeting #9/15, held on October 30, 2015, Resolution #A201/15 was approved as follows: WHEREAS the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) Vision and the BCPV North Lands Master Plan have been completed; AND WHEREAS select deliverables of the BCPV North Lands Master Plan have been included in an Environmental Assessment completed by the City of Vaughan; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the BCPV North Lands Master Plan be approved in principle; THAT the BCPV Vision be approved in principle; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with the municipalities and community to foster support. TRCA's endorsement of the vision for the New BCPV permitted the museum to carry out foundational activities. These included drafting a vision plan, interpretive plan, implementing new, interactive programs, carving out a donor engagement strategy, and drafting an essential guiding document – a business plan detailing the museum's holistic and tactical approach for successful transformation. Over the past year, the museum has also critically evaluated its long -term financial needs and has worked closely with The Living City Foundation to develop a fundraising strategy. These activities and others have prepared the museum and The Living City Foundation for the essential next step —the launch of a multi -year, multi - million dollar fundraising campaign to support BCPV's transformation. • We RATIONALE A major fundraising campaign is essential to moving the vision of the New BCPV forward because it will allow the museum to address the following: (1) Maintenance Backlog The current maintenance backlog includes much - needed restoration work to BCPV's heritage structures, as well as the replacement of inefficient, out -of -date systems, such as the Visitors' Centre's HVAC and the museum's defunct hydro system. Such capital work is critical; its completion will bring the museum to a state -of -good- repair to provide a strong foundation for transformation and future growth. (2) Historic Village Enhancements Once required capital work is well underway, BCPV will be able to implement its new model of animating cultural heritage. This model will transform passive historic spaces into `interactive history hubs' to inspire more people to visit BCPV and actively participate in heritage. Building on BCPV's most successful hands -on programs and combining these with innovative practices from top -tier museums in Canada and the United States, the hubs will offer family- centered cultural heritage experiences to engage and excite Ontarians of all ages. In addition to designing, producing and installing the hubs, and developing all related content, activities and programs, BCPV must complete a series of village enhancements to ensure that the spaces selected for transformation are ready to receive the hubs and are equipped to handle greater volumes of visitors. These enhancements will address safety, accessibility and energy efficiency, as well as exhibit - specific infrastructure needs, such as exhibit lighting and interpretive panels. The Living City Foundation's fundraising campaign will be formative to resolving the maintenance back -log and transforming BCPV into a dynamic, experiential museum. Without a major fundraising campaign, the vision for the New BCPV cannot be realized. FINANCIAL DETAILS The implementation of the New BCPV vision will require an investment of $30 million over the next five years. This figure includes $12.5 million in capital work to resolve the maintenance backlog, and $15 million to transform approximately 30 historic spaces into interactive history hubs. Additional costs that will be incurred include $2.5 million in planning, design, permit fees, and administration. In order to fund the implementation of the New BCPV vision, The Living City Foundation will carry out a major, two- phased fundraising campaign to raise $30 million dollars. Phase 1 (2017 -2018) of the campaign will secure $10 million in philanthropic commitments, grants, provincial and municipal support, partnerships and corporate sponsorships and Phase 2 (2019 -2021) will secure the remaining $20 million dollars. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The transformation of Black Creek Pioneer Village is entirely contingent upon The Living City Foundation moving forward and being successful with the proposed fundraising campaign. 607 With approval, Black Creek Pioneer Village and The Living City Foundation will work together to: • Gather advice and guidance from community and municipal leaders and formally ask TRCA's municipal partners for their financial and in -kind support. • Launch Phase 1 (2017 -18) of the fundraising campaign, which will include recruiting a volunteer leadership team; • Finalize the business plan for the New BCPV to illustrate a holistic and tactical approach to meeting long -term funding needs; and • Report to the Authority on fundraising progress after the completion of Phase 1. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424 Emails: sdemetriou(&trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards(cDtrca.on.ca Date: December 19, 2016 • We RES. #A205116 - CONSOLIDATED LEGAL SERVICES Award of Contract #10001854 for the Vendors of Records for Supply of Consolidated Legal Services. Award of Vendors of Record Contract #10001854 for the supply of consolidated legal services for a three year period. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Maria Kelleher WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of projects that require legal services; AND WHEREAS TRCA pre - qualified three legal firms through a publicly advertised process based on experience and qualifications related to a variety of legal disciplines; AND WHEREAS the successful pre - qualified legal firms were invited to submit hourly rates and disbursement expenses; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with three legal firms for the supply of legal services for the period of from January 31, 2017 to January 31, 2020; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA requires legal services to various TRCA divisions and programs. By establishing a Vendors of Record (VOR) list for legal services, vendors are authorized to provide these services for a defined period of time and with fixed pricing. Staff may contact any vendor on the list with the expertise and experience required for their project or program requirements. Vendors will be required to provide all resources required to service the divisional or program needs in accordance with applicable laws, codes, standards, terms and conditions of the Vendors of Record agreement. The VOR list will be subject to annual review in order to confirm that the firms are providing an adequate level of service and to update any applicable policies. Historically, TRCA has procured subject matter experts in the areas of property acquisition and disposal, planning and development review or objections, environmental contamination, property expropriation proceedings and human resource issues with various firms including Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP, Gardiner Roberts LLP, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Chappell Partners LLP and WierFoulds LLP. Annual expenditures for legal services and advisory for the past five years have been: Year Amount 2012 $684,806.69 2013 $688,622.98 2014 $609,998.09 2015 $546,069.66 2016 $743,234.71 • We *This is the amount spent to date for legal services. There are still outstanding invoices for 2016 that will be included in the final total. RATIONALE Request for Pre - Qualification (RFPQ) for legal firms for Contract #10001854 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Ontario Tenders Portal (www.ontariotendersportal .bravosolution.com) on April 4, 2016. Legal firms interested in being pre - qualified were advised that they would be evaluated on the following criteria in order to participate in the Request for Quotation (RFQ) process: • Demonstrated caliber and commitment of key personnel; • Firm credentials; and • References. The pre - qualification submissions were reviewed by TRCA staff, whose evaluation was based on the previously defined criteria. Request for Quotation documents required the pre - qualified legal firms to submit hourly rates and unit prices for permitted expenses. RFQ documents were made available to the following three legal firms: • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP; • Gardiner Roberts LLP; • Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the quotations on September 22, 2016. Members of the selection committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Jae Truesdell, Mike Fenning, Michael Tolenksy, Rocco Sgambelluri and Lisa Moore) reviewed the quotations and evaluated them based on experience and aggregate hourly rates. The results of the evaluation are as follows: Vendor Experience /Qualifications out of 100 Cost out of 80 Total Gardiner Roberts LLP 80 71 151 Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 96 41 137 Gowling WLG 78 56 134 Through the evaluation process it was determined that Gardiner Roberts LLP was the highest ranked provider overall. However, staff may contact any of the vendors on the list based on their experience /qualifications, cost, or a combination of the two. Therefore, staff recommends the award of Contract #10001854 to Gardiner Roberts LLP, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, and Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, they being the three legal firms that best meet TRCA's stated requirements. For legal services relating to expropriation of property rights, staff will bring forward a recommendation to engage a firm experienced in expropriation at the time the expropriation proceedings are initiated. 610 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract over the three years is estimated to be up to $2.0 million based on a review of previous legal work completed for the period 2012 -2016. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All of the legal firms on the Vendors of Record list understand the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The services will be provided on an "as required" basis with no minimum hours guaranteed. Firms may increase hourly rates annually, to a maximum of the preceding year's Ontario's Consumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada. Funds required for the contract are identified in TRCA's 2017 — 2020 capital and operating budgets. Report prepared by: Lisa Moore, extension 5846, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: Imoore(a)trca.on.ca, jruesdell @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lisa Moore, extension 5846, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: Imoore(a)trca.on.ca, jtruesdeliptrca.on.ca Date: December 14, 2016 611 RES. #A206 116 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Kleindor Developments Inc., CFN 56118. Acquisition of property located north of Major Mackenzie Drive West and west of Regional Road 27, in the City of Vaughan, in the Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res. #8115/16) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT 4.69 hectares (11.6 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Regional Road 27, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of East Half of Lot 21, Concession 9, designated as Blocks 186, 188, 189, & 190, on a draft plan of subdivision prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennet Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors under job number 11- 323 -07D, dated July 15, 2016, be purchased from Kleindor Developments Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A207 /16 - EVERGREEN BRICK WORKS Operating Line of Credit. Consent to an operating line of credit for Evergreen to manage seasonal fluctuations in cash flow and operating payments for the operation of the Don Valley Brick Works. (Executive Res. #8116/16) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) consent to Evergreen establishing a $1.0 million operating line of credit with its lender, which line of credit is to be guaranteed by a third party, subject to the following: a) The line of credit and guarantee not be guaranteed by TRCA and be subordinate to, and without recourse to the existing capital loan guaranteed by the City and TRCA; b) TRCA staff and solicitor being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the line of credit and the third party guarantee; and 612 c) City of Toronto consenting to the line of credit; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any and all actions necessary to implement the consent to an operating line of credit, including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RES. #A208 /16 - BOYD CENTRE PROJECT Basement Interior Renovations. Award of Contract #10003285 for interior basement renovations at the Boyd Centre, in the City of Vaughan, Regior of York. (Executive Res. #8117/16) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Contract #10003285 for interior renovations at the Boyd Centre (9755 Canada Company Avenue) be awarded to Verna Corp. at a total cost not to exceed $350,000.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT staff be authorized to direct Verna Corp. to proceed immediately, upon approval by the Executive Committee, with the labour, material and equipment to perform asbestos abatement and removals as part of the contract cost of $66,500.00, plus HST, during the December office closure to mitigate staff disruptions and health and safety concerns; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II — Items for Authority Information RES. #A209 /16 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Linda Pabst 613 THAT Section II items 10.2.1 — 10.2.6, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/16, held on December 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 10.2.1 — 10.2.6. Inclusive YONGE —YORK MILLS FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL — REACH 3 MAINTENANCE 2016 PROJECT (Executive Res. #8118/16) WILKET CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT (Executive Res. #8119/16) PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA (Executive Res. #8120116) DON RIVER WATERSHED HYDROLOGY UPDATE (Executive Res. #8121116) TRCA PARTICIPATION IN GREEN ROOF PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (Executive Res. #8122116) LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TREATMENT TRAIN (Executive Res. #8123116) 614 Section III — Items for Information of the Board RES. #A210 /16 - DRAFT WETLAND CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR ONTARIO Receipt of TRCA's comments to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on their Environmental Bill of Rights Registry posting "Draft: A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 - 2030 ". Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) invited the public to provide comments on their document entitled, "Draft: A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016- 2030" through an Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) posting #012 -7675; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has roles and responsibilities affecting the conservation of wetlands as advisor in the planning and environmental assessment processes, a regulator in the Conservation Authorities Act permitting process, and in ecological restoration as landowners and a resource management agency; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA's formal response to the Province of Ontario through the Environmental Registry on November 16, 2016 as outlined in Attachment 1 be received; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's municipal partners, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, by the CEO's office. AMENDMENT RES. #A211 /16 Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Maria Kelleher the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the and Conservation Ontario be so advised THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff report back on what is being done to protect urban and near urban wetlands; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) invited the public to provide comments on their document entitled, "Draft: A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 - 2030" through an Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) posting #012 -7675; 615 AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has roles and responsibilities affecting the conservation of wetlands as advisor in the planning and environmental assessment processes, a regulator in the Conservation Authorities Act permitting process, and in ecological restoration as landowners and a resource management agency; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA's formal response to the Province of Ontario through the Environmental Registry on November 16, 2016 as outlined in Attachment 1 be received; THAT staff report back on what is being done to protect urban and near urban wetlands; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's municipal partners, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and Conservation Ontario be so advised by the CEO's office. BACKGROUND In 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) initiated a review of the wetland conservation framework in Ontario. MNRF posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry a discussion paper entitled, "Wetland Conservation in Ontario" (EBR #012 - 4464), to identify opportunities to strengthen policies and stop the net loss of wetlands. TRCA provided comments supporting the need to develop a provincial strategy for wetland conservation and identifying some important challenges and opportunities to be considered. These comments were received by TRCA's Executive Committee as an information item at its December 4, 2015 meeting by Resolution #B136/15. The input received on the discussion paper has been used by the Province to develop a wetland strategy entitled "Draft: A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016- 2030" (the Strategy), which was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) August 8, 2016 for public comment. http: / /nr- escribe.esolutionsgroup.ca /filestream.ashx ?Documentid =4173 On November 2, 2016, TRCA staff attended an engagement session for Conservation Ontario and conservation authority staff hosted by MNRF. At the session, MNRF staff presented a summary of feedback on the Wetland Discussion Paper as well as an overview of the content of the Strategy and associated rationale. The presenters indicated that that the next phase of their process would be implementation of the Strategy through a series of separate public consultations. Overview of the Strategy The Strategy is premised on two overarching targets: 1. By 2025, Ontario's significant wetlands are identified and conserved to sustain essential ecosystem services. 2. By 2030, the net loss of wetlands is halted in areas where wetland loss has been the greatest. It represents a 15 -year blueprint to improve the conservation of wetlands across the Province and provides a series of action items within a conceptual framework to conserve Ontario's wetlands. The Strategy is intended to serve as a launching point for new, innovative conservation commitments and actions that can push Ontario's conservation efforts to a new level. 616 The Strategy is underpinned by seven core principles that establish important concepts, values and approaches; including wetlands being integral components of watersheds with ecological functions that provide benefits that are vital to the health and well -being of Ontarians. The principles also recognize the need to take a "precautionary approach" using the best available science and a requirement for strong partnerships among all stakeholders to conserve wetlands. The Strategy builds upon the four strategic directions that were first suggested in the Discussion Paper. They are: 1. Awareness 2. Knowledge 3. Partnership 4. Policy Each strategic direction has a goal, a desired outcome as well as a number of actions that have been identified. In its movement towards implementation the Strategy identified three actions that have been prioritized: 1. Improving Ontario's Inventory and mapping 2. Developing policy approaches and tools to prevent the net loss of wetlands in Ontario (including potentially a wetland off - setting policy) 3. Improving guidance for evaluating the significance of wetlands TRCA's Response On November 16, 2016 TRCA submitted a formal response through the EBR, which can be found in Attachment 1. A summary of TRCA's response is provided below. TRCA also contributed, along with other conservation authorities (CAs), to comments provided by Conservation Ontario (CO) to the Province, in order for CO to provide a congruous message from CAs. Conservation Ontario's comments are provided in Attachment 2. Overview TRCA staff supports this important provincial initiative to implement this strategic plan aimed at halting the net loss of wetlands across the Province. A key component to managing water and biodiversity within an urban watershed is protecting and expanding the natural heritage system, including wetlands. TRCA has demonstrated through its watershed -based research and monitoring that the cumulative impact of urban growth and intensification in TRCA's jurisdiction is causing changes to watershed biodiversity, hydrology and overall watershed resiliency; these impacts of urbanization are compounded by the potential conditions of climate change. TRCA staff's response conveys the message that the Strategy could do more to advance the general directions that were described in the Province's earlier discussion paper on wetland conservation. Staff recognize that the time frame to develop the Strategy was compressed, but feel that after nearly 30 years of experience in wetland protection and conservation, the actions could have been more developed and the prioritization and sequencing more direct on when and how the Strategy could be implemented. The focus of the Strategy's targets should be on net gain of wetlands in areas where the loss has been greatest. It is our recommendation that the timeline for the target of halting the net loss of wetlands should be accelerated. Indeed, in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, planning decisions being made now, to deliver growth by 2030, means that the fate of many wetlands is being sealed long before the Strategy's target timeframe will be realized. 617 Key Comments • Conservation authorities should be specifically acknowledged in the strategic directions as they play an important role in wetland protection, restoration, regulation and enforcement. CAs are a key partner because of their expertise in monitoring and restoration and because they fill the gap for activities affecting wetlands that are not captured under a Planning or Environmental Assessment process. CAs also play important roles in improving wetland science and awareness, through research, education and stewardship activities. • In keeping with the "precautionary approach" espoused in the Strategy, all wetlands should be considered significant until they have been evaluated. • In urban and urbanizing areas, where losses are greatest and the need for the ecosystem services provided by wetlands is greatest, there should be stronger provincial support for the protection of non - provincially significant wetlands. • TRCA staff believe that wetland off - setting or compensation could be an important tool to help stop the net loss of wetlands in Ontario and, in fact, could move Ontario towards a net gain in areas where wetland losses have been the greatest. TRCA has been developing an ecosystem compensation protocol designed to ensure that when compensation or off - setting is considered, that the lost ecosystem services are being adequately replaced. The creation of new wetlands should take into consideration the function of the wetland within the surrounding landscape both hydrologically and as habitat for species. NEXT STEPS The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry will review the feedback received in response to the EBR posting. Upon review, the Ministry will analyze how the constructive comments collected will inform and refine the development of the Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario. It is expected that the Province will release the final version of "A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 - 2030" in 2017. TRCA staff awaits the release of the final document and is looking forward to assisting the Province and our partner municipalities in their implementation of this important wetland conservation strategy. Report prepared by: Aidan Pereira, extension 5723, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: apereira(d-)trca.on.ca, mburns(d- )trca.on.ca For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: dlewis(aDtrca.on.ca Date: January 6, 2017 Attachments: 2 Attachment 1 November 16, 2016 By Email OniV Terese McIntosh — terese.mcintosh @ontario.ca Biodiversity and Wetlands Program and Policy Advisor Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 8M5 Dear Ms. McIntosh: Re: TRCA Comments on a Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 -2030 (EBR 012 -7675) Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the EBR posting for, A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 -2030. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has a vested interest in the development of a wetland conservation strategy for Ontario. TRCA, as you know, is a local watershed management agency with a variety of responsibilities related to natural heritage protection, management and restoration including responsibility for regulating wetlands under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act). TRCA protects and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and works as a key partner to assist its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. In 2015, TRCA provided comments on the paper titled, Wetland Conservation Ontario: A Discussion Paper, which helped to identify challenges and opportunities associated with wetland conservation in Ontario. We are pleased that many of our comments have been espoused within this strategy. Conservation Ontario has coordinated comments from Conservation Authorities (CAs) to ensure a common message on this important initiative. TRCA supports these comments, but wishes to highlight some areas that are particularly important from our jurisdictional perspective, as outlined below: General Comments The conservation of wetland hydrology is so important that it should form part of the guiding principles. There should be a guiding principle that acknowledges that wetlands are complex systems that rely on inputs outside their defined vegetation footprints and that the protection of these inputs is critical to their retention on the landscape. In urban and urbanizing areas, where losses are greatest and the need for the ecosystem services provided by wetlands is greatest, there should be stronger Provincial support for the protection of non - Provincially significant wetlands. Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info @trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON N13N 154 www.trca.on.ca 619 Attachment 1 In keeping with the "precautionary approach" espoused in the Strategy, all wetlands should be considered significant until they have been evaluated. The Targets While the strategy is Provincial in scope, it is clear from the information provided that the types of wetlands, the amount and distribution of wetlands, as well as the threats and vulnerabilities, are very different between Northern and Southern Ontario. The targets and actions (including timing of actions) should be different for the two regions. For example, the imperative influence in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is growth planning. Planning decisions that are to deliver growth by 2030 are being made now and could seal the fate of many wetlands before the Strategy can be implemented based on the timing noted for the two Targets. Target 1 appears to be an exercise to identify significant wetlands by 2025. A definition of "significant wetland" should be provided. Is this the same as "provincially significant'? Or is it something else? Criteria for the determination of "significant' wetlands and methodologies should be developed much sooner than 2025. It might be more cost effective and timely to require proponents of change to undertake the mapping and evaluation following Provincial standards. Target 2: A definition of where wetland loss has been greatest needs to be provided. If a geographic area is not provided, criteria to evaluate or determine where wetland loss has been greatest should be developed. The focus should be on net gain of wetlands in areas where the loss has been greatest. It is our recommendation that the timeline for Target 2 should be accelerated. By setting this target for 2030, there could be potentially 14 more years of losses. The Strategic Directions and Actions TRCA supports the strategic directions that are contained within the Strategy (Awareness, Knowledge, Partnerships, and Policy). We generally support the goals and outcomes that are described, although it is unclear why the goal under policy speaks to "enhancing wetland quality" when the outcome is to stop the net loss of wetlands. The goal should speak to both quality and quantity of wetlands. The Strategic direction for policy is good. We strongly support the following actions and feel they should be made a priority in the next 2 years not 15; • Support the development of policy tools to improve the conservation of ALL wetlands; • Develop policy approaches and tools to prevent the net loss of wetlands in Ontario, focusing on areas where wetland loss has been greatest. • The long list of actions for each of the strategic directions could benefit from some additional analyses to first make sure they are more focused and clear, and secondly, prioritized and assigned, specific timeframes to begin implementation and, where appropriate, completion. That is, the Strategy should include a step by step approach to sequencing of actions. 620 Attachment 1 The Role of Conservation Authorities (CAs) In the section on Ontario's current Wetland Policies, the description of the Conservation Authorities Act Regulations does not capture the full purview of the regulations for wetlands. CAs regulate development in and around wetlands for effects on the control of natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion), pollution and the conservation of land, as well as, any development that may interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland. Conservation Authorities should be specifically acknowledged in the strategic directions as they play an important role in wetland protection, restoration, regulation and enforcement. CAs are a key partner because of their expertise in monitoring and restoration and because they fill the gap for activities affecting wetlands that are not captured under a Planning or Environmental Assessment process. CAs also play important roles in improving wetland awareness, and stewardship activities. Wetland Off - setting We believe that wetland off - setting or compensation could be an important tool to help stop the net loss of wetlands in Ontario and, in fact, could move us towards a net gain in areas where wetland losses have been the greatest. The second paragraph describes offsetting as "a policy in which the negative impacts of development..." A key consideration is to define development, i.e., will it include infrastructure and site alteration; will it capture infrastructure that falls under an environmental assessment process? Will offsetting be allowed for PSWs and non -PSWs? As you know TRCA has been developing an ecosystem compensation protocol, which we presented to staff from MNRF in December 2015. This work was initiated because natural heritage features (including wetlands) and their ecosystem services were being lost through both the planning and environmental assessment processes and these losses were not being adequately compensated for. Our draft protocol focuses on how to ensure that the lost ecosystem services are replaced in a timely fashion. It is important to note that the TRCA draft protocol does NOT address the issue of when and where it is appropriate to remove a feature with compensation. Currently these decisions are generally made site by site through negotiations between the proponent and the Municipality and CA. Therefore, we strongly urge the Province to identify wetland types and functions that are not eligible for off - setting based on significance, functional importance and vulnerability criteria. Wetland offsetting should not occur on already protected lands that are already providing important ecological services (i.e., converting one type of ecosystem to another). Within this Strategy it would be advantageous to outline that the creation of new wetlands will not only focus on the re- creation of wetlands but rather take into consideration the function the wetland has on the surrounding landscape (hydrologically) and its use by species. We feel that wetland offsets must be secured in perpetuity. It often requires decades of monitoring to adequately state that a recreated wetland is functioning appropriately and all the ecosystem services optimized. Adaptive management techniques are often required to tweak or change a wetland design based on incoming data analyses. Determining the duration of wetland offsets based on the duration of negative impacts is not in keeping with the "precautionary approach" on which the Strategy is predicated. 621 Attachment 1 Definitions Defined terms should be identified in the text of the Strategy (e.g., through the use of italics) In addition, definitions should be included for the following terms used in the Strategy: Development Infrastructure Site alteration Wetland The definition of "no net loss" is no decrease in total wetland area. In a framework of compensation, care will be required to avoid having many small wetlands in the landscape replaced with one larger one. Doing this does not always ensure that all the habitat functions of the various wetlands and other ecosystem services are maintained and appropriately distributed on the landscape. TRCA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the 15 -year blueprint that will guide and enhance the conservation of wetlands across the Province. It has been demonstrated through TRCA's watershed -based research and monitoring that the cumulative impact of urban growth and intensification in our jurisdiction is causing changes to watershed biodiversity, hydrology and overall watershed resiliency; these impacts of urbanization are compounded by the potential conditions of climate change. Protecting and expanding the natural heritage system (including wetlands) is a key component to managing water and biodiversity in urban watersheds. TRCA believes the Province has taken positive steps in the protection of wetlands and supports the provincial initiative to implement this Strategic Plan aimed at halting the net loss of wetlands across the Province. TRCA looks forward to assisting the Province and our partner municipalities in their implementation of this wetland conservation strategy. Should you have any questions regarding the comments, please contact Dena Lewis, Senior Manager Planning Ecology at ext. 5225. Yours truly, Carolyn Woodland, GALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority cc: Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer, TRCA 622 Attachment 2 Conservation ONTARIO Natural Champions November 16, 2016 Terese McIntosh Biodiversity and Wetlands Program and Policy Advisor Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division, Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch Natural Heritage Section 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K91 8M5 Dear Ms. McIntosh: Re: Conservation Ontario's comments on "A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 - 2030" (EBR #012 -7675) Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on "A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016- 2030" (EBR #012 - 7675). These comments are provided to you on behalf of the Province's 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs) who have significant expertise in wetland conservation, as regulatory bodies under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act; as the Province's second largest landowners, through MOUs with their municipalities to provide plan input and review, through their stewardship and outreach activities, and through being facilitators of integrated watershed management. These comments are not intended to limit consideration of comments shared individually by CAs through the Wetland Strategy review process. Conservation Ontario appreciates the efforts the Province has made to include CAs in the dialogue about this Strategy, including hosting a consultation session on November 2nd. We look forward to future opportunities to discuss proposed improvements to this Strategy and to providing input to any future work plans for implementation of this Strategy. This letter is arranged by identifying three priority areas for improvement in this Strategy; each priority has a recommendation followed by a Discussion of Conservation Ontario's perspective and, in one case, a Rationale which provides further context. Additional specific comments for improvements to the Strategy are provided in the attachment. Priority #1: Have One Clear Target to Meet the Mandate of "No Net Loss" Recommendation: The Strategy should incorporate a NEW target - By 2025, the net loss of all wetlands is halted in Ontario. Discussion: In 2015 Conservation Ontario (CO) provided comments to the province on "Wetland Conservation In Ontario: A Discussion Paper" (EBR# 012- 4464). In those comments, CO outlined a number of concerns relative to the "no net loss" approach, rather than an effort for overall "net gain" in southern Ontario where P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info[7o conservationontario.ca www. conseMnontario. ca the majority of wetlands have already been lost. Furthermore, it was recommended that the legal authority for "no net loss" and the compensation framework should be established in legislation that would harmonize with all corresponding statutes that seek to regulate /influence wetland conservation. In terms of implementation for the new target, the Strategy will have to differentiate southern Ontario and the near north, from the far north. At the outset of the document, it is acknowledged that "wetlands are among the most productive and diverse habitats on Earth" and that 72% of the wetlands in southern Ontario have been lost. In addition to land conversion, new threats to wetlands are emerging, including invasive species and climate change. Given the historic loss and the new threats, it is strongly felt that this strategy should promote a 'net gain' approach, for wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, where historically wetland loss has been greatest. A'no net loss' policy is simply not feasible in areas where wetland loss has been greatest (i.e. southern and near northern Ontario). A differentiated approach is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and recognizes the differing land pressures in the southern portion of the Province. Conservation Ontario Council, in our submission on the proposed Provincial Policy Statement endorsed that the government consider protecting all wetlands in Ecoregions SE, 6E and 7E as significant. This approach in the Strategy may assist the Province in ensuring 'no net loss' while awaiting evaluation of all wetlands in southern and near northern Ontario. Rationale: Conservation Authority reviewers expressed a number of concerns with the proposed targets, including questioning if the Strategy as drafted will meet its expressed objectives and whether the proposed targets were sufficiently robust. The proposed Wetland Strategy proposes to measure its success through two overarching targets: 1. By 2025, Ontario's significant wetlands are identified and conserved to sustain essential ecosystem services. 2. By 2030, the net loss of wetlands is halted in areas where wetland loss has been greatest. Overall the inter - relationship between target 1 and target 2 is not clear. The first target seems to be focused on a wetland's level of significance, rather than indicating that all wetlands are identified. The second target seems focused more so on southern Ontario (i.e. where wetland loss has been greatest), whereas this is supposed to be a Provincial Strategy. It is unclear how target 1 supports the achievement of target 2. Conservation Ontario is supportive of the Province's efforts to identify and conserve Ontario's significant wetlands in principle. In order to identify these wetlands, an evaluation of most wetlands in Ontario will be required. If the mandate of the Ministry is to stop the net loss of wetlands, it would be more appropriate to allocate resources to the second target (as expressed in the draft strategy) rather than the first. Differentiating between significant and non - significant wetlands automatically creates a hierarchy of protection, which is contrary to the second target. Concern is also expressed about whether there are sufficient human resources at the Province to achieve this first target and it would not be acceptable to fail at the second target because the first could not be achieved. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, an update to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) to expedite the identification of significant wetlands is appreciated. As alluded to, over the years MNRF has reduced their role in conducting wetland evaluations and shifted the responsibility to proponents. Some CAs have taken on the task of proactively updating wetland evaluations for their municipalities, however there are resource constraints for some of these CAs for continuing, and other CAs for taking on, such evaluation programs. There is currently a gap in wetland conservation because not all wetlands have been evaluated and there is no policy requirement to do so. Any additional training required for Conservation Authority staff in regard to OWES or an equivalent protocol should become a provincially funded priority as CAs are key agencies P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca 2 www. conseS24nontario. ca in the implementation of wetland evaluation, mapping and regulatory protection. Conservation Halton played a significant role in the field testing of the first edition of OWES in the early 1980s. Conservation Authorities are prepared to assist the Ministry in their implementation of this review. Overall, it is felt that target 1 actually represents an action item for the support of an off - setting program, rather than an overall target for this Strategy. As the identification of Ontario's significant wetlands would require potentially that all wetlands be mapped and evaluated in Ontario details about how this identification would be undertaken (or prioritized) should be provided. CA reviewers equally expressed concern about the Province's target that there will be 'no net loss' by 2030. With no new policy tools to address wetland loss proposed through this strategy, this target essentially creates 14 years in which wetland loss can continue. The proposed timelines are too far off and it also appears that further wetland loss is to be tolerated outside those areas of the Province where wetland loss has been the greatest (i.e. southern Ontario). It is also noted that "no net loss" is defined as "balancing wetland loss with mitigation and restoration efforts, so that the total area of wetlands does not decrease, but remains constant or increases ". Wetland area is only one consideration in overall wetland health. While the strategy may aim to prevent a decrease in wetland area by 2030 in certain parts of the province, this does not equate to maintaining wetland function. In a framework of wetland compensation, replacing wetlands at a 1:1 or even a 1:2 does not take into account the lag time to gain wetland function back, resulting in an overall decrease in biodiversity and ecosystem function. Care will be required to avoid having many small wetlands in the landscape replaced with one larger one, as this consolidation does not always ensure that all of the habitat functions and other ecosystem services are maintained and appropriately distributed on the landscape and in watersheds. For example, a coastal wetland's function of protecting the shoreline from erosion or improving water quality cannot be compensated by creation of a headwater wetland. Equally, while it is acknowledged that "wetland losses in the south should not be compensated for by gains in the north" care must be given to ensure that overall wetland cover within a region is not shifted, with areas of greatest growth pressure having the least amount of wetland cover and those areas where growth pressures are weaker, being the recipient of numerous wetland compensation projects. With this in mind, more robust parameters beyond 'total wetland area' must be used to monitor the success of this Strategy and ideally compensation assessments should be done on a watershed basis ensuring ecosystem functions and services are maintained. Priority fi2: Recognize Conservation Authorities as Important Partners in the Implementation of this Strategy; including the Regulatory Role Recommendations: Incorporate more references to Conservation Authorities' roles throughout the document Revise Table 3A description of Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) Regulations (p.30) and delete the Note found within "Wetlands Defined in Ontario's Municipal Land Use Planning Policy" (p.33) Identify legislative /policy /guideline support and clarification for the CAA as a priority action under "Towards Implementation" and provide enforcement provisions (e.g. stop work orders) under the CAA to enable efficient and effective protection of wetlands Discussion: Conservation Authorities (CAs) are integral to the realization of Ontario's wetland agenda. While CAs receive some note within this document, there is scarce reference to the important work that they are currently undertaking to conserve wetlands, regardless of their provincial status. The Strategy should further highlight the role CAs play in the implementation of the strategic directions, (awareness, knowledge, P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: infona conservationontario.ca www. conseMontario. ca partnership and policy). As well, the term "towards implementation" is misleading; as many of the actions are currently being implemented locally by CAs. While it is acknowledged that this is a province -wide strategy and Conservation Authorities have been established in a limited geographic area, it is important to recognize that the watersheds where CAs exist coincide with 90% of the population of Ontario. Equally, it can be argued that the watersheds where CAs have been established are also the areas where greatest wetland loss has occurred historically. It is therefore considered necessary to acknowledge CAs as important partners in the implementation of this Strategy. As described in our September, 2015 submission, CO supports the need to strengthen policy as it relates to wetland conservation. Section 28 Regulations are a complementary tool to support the implementation of wetland planning policies and can fill the gap for those activities that can cause wetland destruction and may not be subject to Planning Act applications, (e.g. site alteration and fill placement). The gaps in Ontario's current wetland policy framework have created loop holes for wetland destruction. As the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) is currently under review, it is strongly recommended that Province support a harmonization of definitions of wetlands to address current legislative and policy inconsistencies and gaps. The CAA should be acknowledged in the Wetland Strategy as an action under the goal of developing policy approaches and improving policy tools to conserve, restore and enhance the quality of Ontario's wetlands. The CAA should be reviewed with a lens to determine how it can support the Ministry's mandate for'no net loss' of wetlands and it should be identified as an immediate priority in the Province's Wetland Strategy for future public policy debate. Further to the above paragraph, the definition of wetland should be updated to reflect the more frequently used definition in the Provincial Policy Statement. The province is encouraged to ensure the term is consistently defined in all provincial legislation, regulation, and guidance documents; and that, there is clarity amongst all Ontarians as to what should be, or should not be, considered a wetland. Moreover, there are outstanding questions related to the definition and interpretations of the terms 'conservation of land' and 'interference in any way' as they relate to Section 28 of the CAA. MNRF should work with CO and CAs, in consultation with others, to provide a clear interpretation of 'conservation of land' and 'interference in any way' through a Section 40 "Definitions" Regulation under the CAA. Further to the above paragraph, the 'Note' on page 33 of the draft Strategy should be removed. While it has been explained that this note was placed into the Strategy to address concerns related to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, it could be construed to be referring to the Conservation Authorities Act and it is therefore not supported. The note contradicts our support for a consistent wetland definition and basically supports a narrowing of the definition of wetland for specific regulatory purposes (i.e. "it is not intended to be a comprehensive definition of a wetland "). With few regulatory tools at the Province's disposal to achieve 'no net loss' of wetlands these tools should be reviewed in the context of the mandate for'no net loss' and there should be a public policy discussion in this regard. Conservation Ontario encourages a review and discussion of the additional wording that is included in the regulatory definition of wetland under the CAA and whether it serves the mandate of 'no net loss'. Similarly, the Strategy should reflect the current and full regulatory scope for wetlands under the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA). Specifically, Table 1A references Section 28's Link to Wetland Conservation and Management as being "Regulates development in and around wetlands for effects on the control of natural hazards (e.g. flooding), as well as activities that may interfere with a wetland ". As per Section 28 of the CAA and Ontario Regulation 97/04, Conservation Authorities regulate development in or around wetlands where, in the opinion of the Authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or conservation of land may be affected. Conservation Authorities also regulate interference in any way with a wetland. It is preferred that this Table be revised to reflect the full regulatory scope of the CAA. P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseRviontario. ca Notwithstanding Conservation Ontario's strong support for education on the value of wetlands and stewardship initiatives, an important piece of wetland protection in Ontario is compliance with regulations. This document does not adequately address the compliance role associated with protecting wetlands. Although administering a Provincial regulation, the costs to go through the court system and prosecute violations are borne by the individual CAs. This system is cost prohibitive for CAs and as a result not all infractions can be appropriately addressed. We know if wetland protection is not adequately enforced, then people will continue to fill in, destroy and adversely impact wetlands. If the Province is committed to wetland protection, the enforcement gaps identified by CO through the review of the CAA must be addressed. These include modernizing the compliance provisions of the CAA to provide CAs with current enforcement tools - e.g. ability to issue stop work orders, set and increased fines, stronger penalties, and, mandatory remediation requirements (or, if not possible, compensation requirements). Priority #3: Be More Specific About the Purpose and Goals of this Strategy Recommendation: Revise the Draft Strategy to Include Clear Priorities, Timelines, and Definitions Discussion: Overall, the success of this strategy is mired by a lack of specificity. For example, the Strategy should more explicitly identify which actions will be undertaken by the Province and which will be led by others. Identifying each stakeholders' role and responsibility will help to facilitate future monitoring and reporting, and ensure accountability. In the Executive Summary the Strategy indicates that "The intent of the Strategy is to establish a common focus and path forward, so that greater success can be achieved in a more efficient and effective manner'. There are several high -level statements like this made throughout the document, but no critical analysis is undertaken to provide detail about what that means. Given that the statement implies that the efforts over the past 30 years have not been successful, efficient or effective, further effort should have been given to identifying current policy gaps (i.e. the Conservation Authorities Act), addressing those gaps, and basing this present Strategy on a variety of different actions beyond a continuation of the previous efforts. For the actions that are identified, and including the addition of the Conservation Authorities Act as a priority (see discussion under Priority #2 in this letter), a clear sequencing of events and priorities should be provided. Timelines, responsibilities and benchmarks should be attached to the actions to ensure that we are on track. The Strategy identifies that "progress will be monitored and assessed on a five -year time frame" but it does not identify what the Strategy will be assessed on, particularly since there are no goals until 2025. There is some discussion in this Strategy about 'significant' wetlands and the use of this term should be consistent with the PPS 2014 definition of 'significant' wetlands and then different terminology used where something different is intended. It is recognized that the evaluation system (OWES) that helps to determine significance of a wetland is proposed to be under review as part of the Strategy and it will be an evolving term. The lack of clarity in the interpretation of the two targets as described in the draft Strategy has been discussed under Priority #1 in this letter. Overall, additional clarifying language is required for "where wetland loss has been the greatest" and as described, it is recommended that the Province use the delineation in the Provincial Policy Statement as a starting point. Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on "A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016- 2030" (EBR #012 -7675) and for hosting an engagement session with CAs. Conservation Ontario looks forward to continued dialogue with the Province on this initiative and would be pleased to provide input to future work plans for implementation. Conservation Ontario notes that the Strategy requires adequate funding and P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseS27nontario. ca resources for MNRF to successfully lead and champion implementation; there are a couple of suggestions in the Attachment. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Leslie Rich (Policy and Planning Officer) at ext 226 or myself at extension 223. Sincerely, Bonnie Fox Manager, Policy and Planning c.c.: CAOs, All Conservation Authorities Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 1 i Leslie Rich Policy and Planning Officer P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario DY 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseMnontario. ca Attachment 1 Specific Comments Introduction This section identifies a 2015 -2030 timeline to improve wetland conservation and to address 'no net loss'. Further to the point above about specificity, it should be clarified at what point in this timeline that changes (i.e. building strong and effective wetland policies) will be made to ensure the achievement of these goals. Also, what are the mechanisms (e.g. municipal policies) that will be used to accomplish this Strategy? Ontario's Wetlands Due to the focus on wetland function within the Strategy, the hydrological influences and requirements of wetlands should be included in the descriptions of the various types of wetlands found on page 3. For example, o Swamps have variable water tables that fluctuate 1 -2m from the surface throughout the year and the water table typically falls below the surface, which allows for the growth of woody vegetation. o Marshes often have shallow water levels that fluctuate. o Bog water levels are relatively stable and are mainly dependent on precipitation for water. o Fens have both surface and groundwater movement through them. The role of wetlands in sequestering carbon is acknowledged. Similarly, the threat of climate change to wetlands should also be acknowledged. For example, while "high water levels in peatlands limit oxidation, thereby minimizing the release of carbon dioxide' it should also be noted that methane releases increase if the water table is above the surface. Increasing temperature also raises the rate of chemical redox reactions resulting in an increased rate of decomposition, especially within peatlands. Figure 1 It is recommended that this figure be expanded to full -page size to allow for finer detail to be seen. A separate or revised map which more clearly illustrates which land classes are wetlands would be helpful. The Critical Functions of Ontario's Wetlands The reference to ecosystem valuation is supported. It may also be appropriate to include a statement that connects the cost /benefits of restoration and re- construction of wetlands that can provide these ecosystem services. As wetland creation and restoration are important components of the Strategy, the connection between the financial costs of wetland ecosystem services is important. Adopting a provincial standard in valuation of wetlands as green infrastructure would be useful. Many practitioners currently employ a suite of tools to do this work, however it would be useful to have some guidance on what is acceptable practice. Current Status and Threats This section acknowledges that land conversion is the primary cause of wetland loss in Ontario however all of the additional threats can also be linked to land conversion. Changes in wetland hydrology are an enormous threat /stressor, which should be acknowledged. Even if a wetland is protected in the landscape, other activities on the landscape can change the hydroperiod of a wetland, causing it to degrade or disappear. This Strategy is a good place to start the public education and awareness process about impacts to the hydroperiod. Land conversion can take many forms, including agriculture. With prices of land being high and supply limited, and it no longer being cost - prohibitive to clear and drain wetlands, there is pressure to develop or convert lands to generate revenues. This document should more clearly explain how the agricultural sector can P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseMnontario. ca conserve wetlands and the Strategy should focus more on options to work with the agricultural community to, in balance, conserve wetlands while supporting normal farming practices. Conservation Ontario appreciates the reference to and description of cumulative effects. The very nature of wetlands makes them particularly susceptible to additional stresses and the cumulative effects of development can result in significant loss of wetland habitat and function. Development located both within 'adjacent lands', and beyond, can alter wetland hydrology by impacting the surface and /or ground water catchments of wetlands. There is insufficient monitoring information on long -term development impacts and success of various mitigation techniques Given that this strategy is supposed to be moving towards 'no net loss', the description of cumulative effects (here and in the glossary) should be modified to include both positive and negative. Positive effects could include upstream improvements for a downstream wetland, restoration of wetlands over one area to enhance the amount of wetland cover, and a better technical understanding of Ontario's wetlands leading to improved conservation efforts. It is also recommended that Provincial guidance be developed to assess the cumulative effects on wetlands within a watershed. This will be particularly important should the Province decide to move forward on an offsetting policy. Invasive Species and Wetlands Conservation Ontario is equally concerned about the impact of invasive species on our wetlands. As such, it is recommended that one of the actions to combat invasive species will be the development of better methods to manage invasive species in wet habitats. In Conservation Ontario's comments on the proposed Regulation of invasive species under the Ontario Invasive Species Act, 2015 it was noted that until such time as there is a safe and effective (and financially affordable) mechanism recommended for the control of Phragmites, any orders by an inspector to force the control, removal or eradication of the species should not be issued. Caution was noted about the use of Glyphosate in drinking water vulnerable areas. While invasive species are a cause of wetland degradation, this proposed Strategy focuses more so on policies for wetland protection. Wetlands full of Phragmites still offer many ecosystem services, and therefore should not be considered "lost" and /or with little function. This attitude may open the door for removal of the wetland through decisions made in the land use planning process. A better tactic would be to minimize disturbance to wetlands through long -term protection of structure and functions, as invasive species thrive in degraded ecosystems. Table IA: Policy instruments that guide wetland conservation and management in Ontario Conservation Ontario provided amendments to this table in the cover letter. In addition to correcting information about CAs' regulatory role, the role CAs play as environment planners and promoters of Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) should be outlined. Both the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014 sections should reference that wetlands can also be part of the natural heritage systems that are required to be identified. The identification of these systems are an opportunity as they will facilitate wetland conservation within these systems, and identify key areas for wetlands to be created and restored as a means of linking natural heritage features together. Table IB: Policy instruments that guide wetland conservation and management in Ontario For the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) the table notes a requirement to "... compensate where avoidance is not possible ", however this language is not used in the Act. CAs indicate that they have had difficulty getting compensation or offsetting for loss of features outside of what is covered by the federal Fisheries Act. The direct loss of significant wetlands happens most often with linear infrastructure that is subject to the EA Act. The linear nature of these projects means avoidance is often not possible. It is further P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseft4$zontario. ca noted that, as the definition of development in the PPS does not include infrastructure that falls under an EA process, the PPS and corresponding Official Plan policies are not available as tools for wetland protection either. International Cooperation for Wetland Conservation The text should highlight that the North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a U.S. federal piece of legislation. This section could focus on examples of regional U.S.- Canada partnerships that identify priority areas for restoration and rehabilitation of natural habitats, for example, Western Lake Erie Watersheds Priority Natural Area (in conjunction with Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge). This U.S. example provides funding to protect, restore and manage wetlands. Funding comes from fines, penalties and fuel excise tax. It is suggested that Ontario look at similar opportunities to establish a fund to deliver this Wetland Strategy. Partners in Wetland Conservation Conservation Ontario appreciates the acknowledgement of CAs' commitment to conducting stewardship projects both on public and private lands. Overall, this section falls quite short with regard to the full -range of activities that CAs and other partners are undertaking on behalf of the Province to conserve wetlands. As described in the cover letter, the Province should examine a new partnership model with the Conservation Authorities regarding wetland conservation. A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario- Purpose As described in the cover letter, Conservation Ontario would prefer a stronger target which stops the net loss of wetlands as articulated in the Mandate Letters. The Province is reminded that the mandate letter also included "a review of Ontario's broad wetland conservation framework and identification of opportunities to strengthen policies ". More focus could be directed to these two endeavours. The same loose language utilized in the Executive Summary appears in this section as well, including reference to achieving "greater success in wetland conservation... in a more efficient and effective manner ". The purpose indicates that this Strategy provides a conceptual framework while simultaneously indicating that the Strategy is operating in the existing legislative, policy and strategic framework which is confusing to the reader. The current policy framework is fragmented, complex and not effective enough in conserving Ontario's wetlands. There are legislative and policy gaps resulting in development within wetlands. Terms, definitions, implementation instruments and technical guidelines need to be further harmonized or coordinated between policy and legislation. Conservation Ontario urges the Province to address those gaps, as the current policy framework has obviously not met its targets in wetland conservation. Guiding Principles Overall, it is felt that this Strategy should promote a 'net gain' approach, rather than a 'no net loss' in areas where wetland loss has been greatest. As previously noted, this Strategy makes a division between provincially significant wetlands and all other wetlands; this is not encouraged. Utilizing this hierarchical approach, particularly in southern Ontario, will work against the purpose of the Strategy i.e. 'no net loss' of wetlands. As the conservation of wetland hydrology is so important, it should form part of the guiding principles for this Strategy. The guiding principle should acknowledge that wetlands are complex systems that rely on inputs outside their defined vegetation footprints and that the protection of these inputs is critical to the retention of wetlands throughout the landscape. #3. Given that MNRF intends to develop an offsetting policy, the strategy should prioritize research and the development of guidelines around the identification of essential wetland inputs as well as restoration strategies for different types of wetlands as one of the key action items. An offsetting policy needs to recognize that wetland restoration science is still very rudimentary. Therefore, the development of this science through pilot projects, research grants and the crafting of guidelines needs to be a priority to enable the P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca www. conseS51nontario. ca success of the offsetting policy. #4. CAs would support the use of the 'precautionary principle' rather than a 'precautionary approach' as the former is typically considered stronger than the latter. #5. Conservation Authority staff have concern with the use of the word "encouraged" as it has been their experience through the PPS that encouragement for planning authorities to go beyond the minimum is rarely successful. The cost to defend policies that go beyond Provincial minimums are preventing those policies from being adopted. It is suggested that the principle be amended to state that the "Protection of provincially significant wetlands is a priority as well as facilitating the conservation of all wetlands ". While this amendment would be an improvement, it is questionable whether this principle will lead to successfully achieving'no net loss' of wetlands (see further explanation in the cover letter). Figure 3: A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2016 -2030 Framework Conservation Ontario is supportive of the Province revising the timelines for the achievement of the targets as described in the cover letter. It is suggested that measurable (quantitative) outcomes and goals are needed as part of the Strategy, including restoration targets. This would include a five year analysis on whether or not the Strategy'starget(s) have been met. Landscape Level Planning for Wetlands The watershed context in landscape level planning for wetlands should be a key consideration in determining the appropriate areas for offsetting projects; watershed -based planning should be explicitly included. Strategic Direction Awareness — Goals and Outcomes Conservation Ontario is supportive of a goal which includes raising awareness and appreciation for Ontario's wetlands. The goal of this strategic direction should reference protecting wetlands and the outcome should be action oriented through referencing its relationship to the target. Overall the actions appear to be outlining existing programs. There is an opportunity to present unique initiatives being developed and delivered by a variety of organizations that are meeting the identified goal and outcome for Awareness. The variety of organizaations and the unique initiatives include other non - government, internationally supported, CA or municipally -led programs on watershed management, restoration techniques and strategic directions on funding and restoration priorities. It is recommended that the province support investigations of the role wetlands play in climate change mitigation and adaptation and to communicate and enhance awareness about the benefits. This investigation should include the potential for wetlands to be included as offset projects under the province's cap and trade program. Any evidence based information to support this could positively influence the conservation and restoration of wetlands by private landowners. Strategic Direction — Knowledge In moving forward on the goal of increasing knowledge, the Province is encouraged to work closely with CAs to harness their local knowledge and experience where it comes to wetland conservation. CAs are also prepared to assist in the development of new tools to evaluate and monitor wetland function, identify ecosystem services, supporting research in the role that wetlands play in improving water quality and quantity and establishing a framework for determining province -wide priority areas for conservation and restoration. Of note, there is no specific action to identify wetlands in areas where loss has been the greatest. Inclusion of this action would help to fulfill the first overarching target provided in the draft Strategy should it be retained against our recommendation in the cover letter. P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca MIJ www. conseMnontario. ca In order to support an offsetting program, the Province should also commit to supporting research in this area, including determining appropriate ratios for offsetting impacts of wetland function and diversity. Wetland technical guidelines for plan review and offsetting are still an outstanding piece of information which must be tackled as part of a comprehensive wetland strategy. The creation of these guidelines should form part of the actions. Strategic Direction — Partnership This strategic direction presents an opportunity to highlight the role CAs play in wetland protection. This section should encourage the Province to partner with CAs in their compliance roles and to share resources in enforcement matters where appropriate. CAs are supportive of the first action, which is to "clarify roles and responsibilities of various agencies involved in wetland conservation" and are eager to participate in those important discussions. Strategic Direction — Policy Conservation Ontario is very supportive of the action to "integrate a clear and consistent definition of wetlands across policy ". Through their submission on the Conservation Authorities Act review, detailed information has been provided outlining the merits of a consistent definition of wetlands in all Provincial policies. Conservation Ontario is also supportive of strengthening the "provincial level guidance for integrating wetland values in Environmental Impact Statements ". As outlined in Priority #2 of this response, CO requests that the Province also identify the review of the Conservation Authorities Act as an action under this strategic direction. The Strategy refers to applying a 'no net loss' policy for areas where wetland loss has been greatest. Recognizing the inconsistency of inventories, mapping and assessment of wetlands across Ontario, it may be difficult to accurately identify where wetland loss has been the greatest — beyond those areas under increasing pressures from land conversion in southern Ontario. One area of policy that is not addressed specifically in this section is how and what provincially endorsed wetland evaluation and wetland ecosystem inventory techniques and methodologies are 'endorsed' by the province for a variety of purposes or, as in the case of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) manual, for the explicit purpose of evaluating wetlands for provincial significance for Planning Act applications. The use of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) is also identified as a requirement for certain Planning Act applications using the Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) as a framework. The Conservation Authority permit review process uses a different suite of terms and steps to confirm whether a 'development' application can be approved subject to the application meeting the 5 tests. The province should establish clear technical methodologies for assessing wetlands across different pieces of legislation and policies so there is transparency and clarity in processes. A consistent wetland definition across policy is extremely important as well. As part of this policy review, the province should recognize through a policy approach wetlands that have been evaluated through provincially endorsed and approved processes and apply those wetland designations to other provincial processes. For example, a wetland that has been identified as provincially significant through a Renewable Energy Approvals process does not automatically receive the same level of provincial protection through the provincial Environmental Assessment Act or the Planning Act. A municipal planning authority that is updating its Official Plan will not have the information available to them about the significance of the wetland in these two other provincial processes. The province should require the updating of 'provincially endorsed' wetlands into a centralized database to be used by all provincial endeavors and processes (i.e., LIO). Under the current provincial policy regime, it would be useful to have a provincially approved template for Wetland Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) that would guide implementation under the PPS, CAA, and the P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca 11 www. conseMnontario. ca Environmental Assessment Act. It is acknowledged that the scoping of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) requirements will need to take into account the current limitations of science with respect to determining small scale hydrologic /hydrogeologic changes and it is further noted that research in methodologies to address hydrologic /hydrogeologic impacts to wetlands is needed. A valuable resource for development of a provincially approved template for Wetland Environmental Impact Studies is "Recommendations for Conducting Wetland Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) for Section 28 Regulations Permissions" (Beacon Environmental, Dec 2010). Comments Related to All Goals, Outcomes and Actions As identified in Priority #3, this document should include a performance measurement process (including timelines) for each of the goals and actions to determine over time if they are actually achieving desired outcomes. The five year review period should be utilized to see how successful these goals and actions have been at actually protecting wetlands. Landscape -level studies should be conducted at regular intervals to understand how wetlands are functioning, quantify the net loss /gain and to prioritize the protection of wetlands in areas that have been most seriously impacted. This information could then be shared with other partners, including CAs, to prioritize protection (securement, restoration, stewardship) strategies and to identify areas where off - setting may /may not occur. Wetlands Defined in Ontario's Municipal Land Use Planning Policy As previously identified, there are several mapping tools available and in use for wetland delineation. It is recommended that whenever OWES is mentioned in the document, that it is clear that OWES is both a mapping and evaluation tool. Some municipalities have been providing protection to 'locally significant wetlands' through their Official Plan policies. This approach may be one option for the Province to consider when defining 'significant'. Conservation Authority staff have a lot of experience when it comes to on- the - ground implementation of OWES and are eager to provide feedback to the Province on an update to OWES or an equivalent. As described in the cover letter (Priority #2), Conservation Ontario is not supportive of the Note at the end of this section and requests that this note be removed from the Strategy. Restoring Wetlands Using the Drainage Act It is beneficial that this document is highlighting the good practices that can be undertaken to restore wetlands using the Drainage Act. The Province should also consider highlighting the work undertaken in partnership with the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority on the Scott and Garvey Glen Drains. Unfortunately, drainage and wetlands do not always happily co- exist. The Province is reminded that work through the Drainage Act and Regulations Team (DART) has been stalled as a result of a lack of public policy work on terms defined and undefined in the Conservation Authorities Act (see details under Priority #2 in the cover letter). In the interim, CAs are tasked with balancing their regulatory responsibilities in the face of new petitions for municipal drains which may have a negative impact on wetland functions. Further policy work on the intersection between the Drainage Act and the Conservation Authorities Act should be an action under the 'Strategic Direction — Policy' section. Finally, many of the negative impacts to wetland hydrology from drainage occur outside of the Drainage Act including work undertaken through tile drainage. The Province should consider how future tile drainage will be addressed in the context of the Province's Wetland Strategy. Monitoring Success As indicated in the cover letter, Conservation Ontario is not supportive of the two targets as identified. The two targets appear to be discrete and the proposed timelines are too far off; tolerating continuing wetland loss. The Strategy proposes to report on its success every five years, however none of the proposed actions have timelines associated with them making this difficult to report on. This section mentions reporting on the P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca 12 www. conseMnontario. ca "total area and condition of wetlands in the province", but does not provide any detail about how the "condition" of wetlands would be determined; guidance would be required. The Province also commits "to developing a comprehensive performance measurement framework ". It is our expectation that the development of this framework will be undertaken through consultation with stakeholders, including Conservation Authorities. The Province is encouraged to consider the use of Watershed Report Cards, as a means to determine wetland changes and at least a partial assessment of the effectiveness of this Strategy where 90% of Ontario's population resides. Towards Implementation 1) Improving Ontario's Wetland Inventory and Mapping Conservation Ontario is supportive of this action, particularly in the context of helping "focus conservation, restoration and wetland monitoring programs" to achieve a 'net gain' of wetlands in areas of the Province where wetland loss has been greatest. An important step in updating Ontario's wetland inventory and mapping would be formalizing the partnership between CAs and MNRF as many CAs have undertaken wetland mapping exercises which could be incorporated into Provincial data sets. Currently this is being done on an ad hoc basis. One important step in this process, not clearly identified, is an update to OWES or an equivalent system to facilitate future wetland identification exercises. The formation of a multi - stakeholder advisory committee is suggested to ensure that the updates to the wetland inventory takes advantage of the technical expertise and knowledge that is housed in organizations outside of the Provincial government, including CAs. 2) Developing policy approaches and tools to prevent the net loss of wetlands in Ontario Conservation Ontario is appreciative of the commitment of the Province to work with CAs and other stakeholders to develop policy approaches and tools to prevent the net loss of its wetlands. CO also appreciates the recognition that offsetting should look at both qualitative and quantitative impacts. CAs believe that Ontario needs to reestablish and enhance wetlands, especially in southern and near northern Ontario where the majority of wetlands have already been lost. By adopting a goal of 'net gain' where compensation is being applied it is more likely that in effect "no net loss" will be achieved. Ontario should strive for 'net gain' of wetlands as there are always losses of biodiversity, ecosystem complexity, maturity, and function when you replace a naturally formed wetland with a created wetland. A "net gain" policy should only be considered for the replacement of small, non - significant wetlands and generally should not undermine the strong protections in place for provincially significant wetlands. CAs support a mitigation hierarchy, as long as the hierarchy emphasizes avoidance and reserves the option of compensation for unique situations that are in the public interest. It is paramount that the focus continues to be on the protection of existing wetlands as opposed to compensation for lost features and /or functions to accommodate development. Compensation should be a last resort and it should be required for any residual impacts, without a requirement to demonstrate that they are "significant ". To account for uncertainties in dealing with complex ecosystems like wetlands, the province should require a minimum compensation ratio of 2:1 to ensure 'no net loss' and preferably higher to achieve a 'net gain'. CO is also supportive that the draft Strategy recognizes that there are some types of wetlands and functions that cannot be compensated for (e.g. bogs, fens, and the Great Lakes coastal marshes). These types of wetlands must be clearly identified as off - limits to any consideration of compensation, particularly in southern and near northern Ontario where these features are exceedingly rare to begin with. Even the replacement of swamps is questionable because of the length of time (decades to centuries) needed to reestablish the biodiversity which was previously present and to restore comparable ecological function. P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario L3Y 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca 13 www.conse ft� zontario.ca Should the Province proceed with an offsetting approach, clear and consistent policies and guidelines are needed to support implementation. In order to develop these, a long term funded program for monitoring of wetlands created as part of a compensation strategy is required. A review timeframe will be required (e.g. 5 -10 years) and, if it is discovered that compensation efforts fall short or fail to achieve a "no net loss" of wetland area, function or quality, there needs to be a clear process that holds the proponent responsible to address residual impacts. Additionally, if it generally appears that compensation efforts are failing, it should trigger a reassessment of the policy direction that led to the negative outcomes. Moreover, managing compliance and financial securities required to implement this policy are a challenge to even well- funded and prepared regulatory agencies. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada often had trouble achieving a like- for -like replacement of fish habitat, and even at a 2:1 ratio this habitat replacement was rarely truly effective. Funding and training of CA staff would be required in this regard. Outside of Planning Act approvals, offsetting is a regulatory challenge for CAs as typical permissions are issued for 2 years or 5 years when, in the opinion of the Authority Board, the work cannot reasonably be completed within 24 months. Should a wetland compensation project fail after the expiration of a CA permit, the CA would have no legal recourse. The Province is cautioned about seeing this as a panacea as many proponents would be alarmed at the costs and timelines required to build new wetlands and demonstrate their viability over the long -term. Notwithstanding the above noted constraints, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority currently has biodiversity and ecosystem services compensation projects underway and generally Conservation Authorities are eager to participate with the Province in the development of an offsetting policy. 3) Improving guidance for evaluating significance of wetlands Conservation Authorities are supportive of an update to OWES (or equivalent). Page 41 of the Strategy notes that the current system is used to "regulate wetlands under the Conservation Authorities Act" and this should be clarified; both in this Strategy and in any updates to the OWES manual. While some CAs' regulations do differentiate between provincially significant wetlands (PSW) and other wetlands, it should be noted that a wetland does not need to be a PSW to be regulated. Evaluation of wetlands generally should have an increased focus on their hydrologic function. Additionally, CA staff trained in OWES could be allowed to update the Provincial designations through a provincial partnership agreement. As previously described, CA staff should form part of a committee dedicated to the update of OWES. CA staff would appreciate an update including an evaluation of wetland function, particularly if this is the tool that Province will use as part of their offsetting program. Glossary CA staff recommend including the following definitions: Ecological Land Classification (ELC), development, infrastructure, site alteration, significant, wetland, and hydroperiod. As previously described, CA reviewers have concerns with the proposed definition of 'no net loss' and its narrow, area - focused scope. It is felt that the definition of the "precautionary approach" is incomplete as it does not describe how the decision is reached (or modified) in those circumstances where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage; as noted earlier, 'precautionary principle' is preferred. The definition of Great Lakes Coastal Wetland appears to be a minor modification from the PPS' 'coastal wetland" definition. CA staff require clarification on this definition as it indicates that any wetland on a connecting channel to the Great Lakes within two 2 kilometres as the crow files would be considered a Great Lakes Coastal Wetland. Should it be the Province's intention that the PPS definition should also be applied "as the crow flies" it is important that this information be distributed to municipalities and Conservation Authorities. Having two different definitions, one in the PPS and one in the Wetland Strategy is not supported. P.O. Box 11, 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket Ontario DY 4W3 Tel: (905) 895 -0716 Fax: (905) 895 -0751 Email: info(@conservationontario.ca wil www. consegtQ*tontario. ca RES. #A212/16 - PUBLIC RECORD Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 -2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Lake Ontario Waterfront 83 Fishleigh Drive, City of Toronto, CFN 28291. Resolution recommending acquisition of 83 Fishleigh Drive, in the City of Toronto, under the " Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016 - 2020 ", becomes a public record. Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the following Resolution #A192/16 and amending Resolution #A193/16 approved at Authority Meeting #9/16, held on November 18, 2016, be received and become part of the public record: THAT 0.116 hectares (0.289 acres), more or less, of land improved with a single story dwelling, said land being Part of Lot 2, Plan 4072 Scarborough, municipally known as 83 Fishleigh Drive, in the City of Toronto, be purchased from Agnes Bristow; THAT the purchase price be $1,732,500; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) reimburse the owner's reasonable costs up to $50,000, THAT the owner be permitted to remain in possession of the dwelling for up to one year from the closing date, subject to the owner paying for all expenses associated with the use of the property; THAT when the current owners vacate the property, that the home be demolished and the property be managed as part of the adjacent TRCA property; THAT when the current owners vacate the property, they be allowed to remove, at their own expense and no fee be charged to them by TRCA, any improvements they made to the property including the kitchen, bathroom and fireplace fixtures that they had installed /improved; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. 637 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/16, held on November 18, 2016, Resolution #A192/16 and amending Resolution #A193/16, was approved in camera as it pertains to on -going property negotiations. Confidential minutes were retained as a record of this item at the meeting. As a matter of policy, TRCA reports back on in camera items when they can become public so a record of the resolution appears in public minutes. RATIONALE At the time the report was prepared, the transaction had not been completed. The transaction was finalized December 13, 2016. Report prepared by: Brandon Hester, extension 5767, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: bhester(a)trca.on.ca, ]truesdell(cDtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Brandon Hester, extension 5767, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: bhester(a)trca.on.ca, jtruesdell(cDtrca.on.ca Date: December 19, 2016 Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A213 /16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/16, held on December 9, 2016, be received. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS RES. #A214 116 - RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker WHEREAS Global News published confidential closed session documents of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and of the City of Vaughan in the following article: http: / /global news.ca/ news / 3117212 / how - developers- are - trying- to -bui Id -on- ontarios -prote cted -green belt - land /; AND WHEREAS Authority Members and staff of TRCA have a fiduciary responsibility to TRCA to maintain confidentiality; AND WHEREAS the release of confidential documents above could have significant consequences for TRCA and any other parties; • i AND WHEREAS such a breach of confidentiality and responsibility must not happen; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Chief Executive Officer, TRCA be directed to undertake an investigation into whom and how such confidential documents were given to the media in this specific circumstance and report back at the next Authority meeting as to the findings as well as any recommended actions on the breach, and measures to mitigate such further breaches of confidentiality in the future; THAT staff look into the practice of no longer emailing confidential items to Authority Members and placing the name of Authority Members on confidential documents; THAT staff consult with municipal clerks for practices for handling of confidential documents. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:20 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 639 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Authority Meeting #11/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 27, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT David Barrow Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member John Sprovieri Member RES. #A215/16 - MINUTES Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, be approved. CARRIED • l DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by John Zipay, Agent, in regard to item 7.2 - Ontario Municipal Board Participation. 4.2 A delegation by Glenn Lucas, Planner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By -Law Amendment. 4.3 A delegation by Anne Sabourin, Associate, Donnelly Law, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By -Law Amendment. RES. #A216 /16 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above -noted delegations 4.2 and 4.3 be added to the agenda. RES. #A217 /16 - Moved by: Seconded by: DELEGATIONS Ronald Chopowick Mike Mattos THAT above -noted delegation 4.1 be received. RES. #A218 /16 - Moved by: Seconded by: DELEGATIONS Ronald Chopowick Michael Ford THAT above -noted delegations 4.2 and 4.3 be received. CARRIED CARRIED CARRIED 5.1 A presentation by John Tracogna, Chief Executive Officer and Robin Hale, Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Zoo, in regard to item 7.8 - Toronto Zoo. RES. #A219 /16 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT above -noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED 641 CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 A letter dated January 25, 2017 from David Bronskill, solicitor, Goodmans LLP, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By -Law Amendment. Attachment 6.2 A letter dated January 26, 2017 from David R. Donnelly, solicitor, Donnelly Law, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By -Law Amendment. RESXA220 /16 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT above -noted correspondence 6.1 and 6.2 be received. CARRIED 642 Correspondence 6.1 Goodmans January 25, 2017 Our File No.: 150954 Via Email: kstronks @trca.on.ca Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 Attention: Kathy Stronks Dear Sirs /Mesdames: Re: Item 7.3 — 230 Grand Trunk Avenue Barristers & Solicitors Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S7 Telephone: 416.979.2211 Facsimile: 416.979.1234 goodmans.ca Direct Line: 416.597.4299 dbronski ll @goodmans.ca OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By -law Amendment We are solicitors for Dufferin Vistas Ltd., the owner of the lands known municipally as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (the "Property "). We are writing in respect of the above -noted matter to clarify the phased nature of the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board ( "OMB ") proceedings regarding the Property. Please find attached the public notice of the 3 -day Ontario Municipal Board hearing event scheduled to commence on March 22, 2017. As indicated in the notice, the first two days will be for a hearing to address "Phase 1" of the proposed development of the Property. Phase 1 is only in respect of the development of that portion of the Property west of the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue (and including the extension itself). The third scheduled day will be for a pre - hearing conference in respect of Phase 2, which relates to the proposed development of the lands east of the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue. Please also find attached the OMB Decision that approved the site - specific official plan amendment for the Property. This site - specific official plan amendment was drafted in consultation with City and TRCA staff and supported before the OMB by the City and the TRCA. As noted in the site - specific official plan amendment, the Phase 1 lands are clearly designated as "Low Rise Residential ". The proposed zoning by -law amendment and draft plan of subdivision would implement this approved land use designation in full conformity with the City's Official Plan. Further, as noted in the highlighted report attached hereto, TRCA staff have already confirmed that the TRCA does not have jurisdiction in respect of the Phase 1 lands. While our client's position is that the TRCA does not have jurisdiction in respect of the Phase 2 lands, our client is still pleased that consensus has been reached in respect of the Phase 1 lands. 643 Goodmans LIT Page 2 In reviewing Item 7.3 on the January 27 agenda, we note that staff did not outline the phased nature of the upcoming OMB proceedings. In particular, the staff recommendations are broadly worded to include the Property in its entirety. We would respectfully suggest that the recommendation should clarify that the TRCA's interest is only in respect of Phase 2. Significant time and resources have already been expended by the TRCA, the City and our client to implement the agreed upon site - specific official plan amendment and the Minutes of Settlement. Our suggestion would be that additional wording be included as part of the staff recommendation to clarify the position of the TRCA: "The above recommendations only pertain to the Phase 2 portion of 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, as outlined in the Notice of the Board, and that staff report back to the Authority after the Pre - Hearing for Phase 2 to seek further instructions." Our client remains committed to working with TRCA staff to address any concerns in respect of Phase 2 as part of the upcoming OMB process. Yours truly, Goodmans LLP David Bronskill DJB/ cc: Client 6655508 Me] Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Ontario Municipal Board 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G IE5 Telephone: (416) 212.6349 Toll Free: 1.866- 448 -2248 Fax: (416) 3265370 Websile: WWW.efto.gov.on.ca Tribunaux de 1'environnement et de I'amenagement du terrltoire Ontario Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontarlo 655 rue Bay, wile 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 T61Apltone: (416) 212.6349 Sans Frals: 1- 866 - 446.2246 TNdoopieur: (416) 326 -5370 Site Web: viww.ello.gov.onoa PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Dufferin Vistas Ltd. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By -law No. 1-88, as amended — Neglect of application by the City of Vaughan Existing Zoning: "A Agricultural Zone" and "OS5 Open Space Environmental Protection Zone" Proposed Zoning: "RT1 Residential Townhouse Zone" and "OS5 Open Space Environmental Protection Zone" Purpose: To permit the development of 32 single detached residential lots and the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue on the western portion of the subject property as the Va phase and 42 townhouse units on the eastern portion of the subject property Property Address /Description: as the 2nd phase, and to create 2 open space blocks adjacent Municipality: to the existing forest blocks located to the north and south of Municipality File No.: the subject property as well as vegetated corridors along the OMB Case No.: west and south property lines Property Address /Description: 230 Grand Trunk Avenue/ Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 Municipality, City of Vaughan Municipality File No.: Z.16.016 OMB Case No.: PL160978 OMB File No.: PL160978 OMB Case Name: Dufferin Vistas Ltd. v, Vaughan (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51 (34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Dufferin Vistas Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Vaughan to make a decision Purpose: To permit the development of 32 single detached residential lots and the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue on the western portion of the subject property as the 1" phase and 42 townhouse units on the eastern portion of the subject property as the 2nd phase, and to create 2 open space blocks adjacent to the existing forest blocks located to the north and south of the subject property as well as vegetated corridors along the west and south property lines Property Address /Description: 230 Grand Trunk Avenue/ Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 Municipality: City of Vaughan Municipality File No.: 19T- 16V001 OMB Case No.: PL160978 OMB File No.: PL160980 Aasessrrrent Review Board -Board of Negotiation - conservation Review Board - Envimnmenlai Review Tdbunal • Ontario Municipal Board Niagara Escarpment Readng Once • Olffce of Consoldated Hearings 645 APPOINTMENT FOR HEARING The Ontario Municipal Board hereby appoints: at: 10:00 AM on: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at: City of Vaughan Municipal Building Committee Room 242 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, Ontario for the commencement of the hearing of this appeal. The Board has set aside three (3) days for this hearing. All parties and participants should attend at the start of the hearing at the time and date indicated, Irrespective of the number of days scheduled. Hearing dates are firm - adjournments will not be granted except in the most serious circumstances, and only in accordance with the Board's Rules on Adjournments. If you do not attend and are not represented at this hearing, the Board may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any further notice of the proceedings. In the event the decision is reserved, persons taking part in the hearing and wishing a copy of the decision may request a copy from the presiding Board member or, in writing, from the Board. Such decision will be mailed to you when available. Pour recevoir des services en frangals, veuiliez communiquer avec fa Division des audiences au (416) 212 -6349, au mains 20 jours civils avant la date flx6e pour I'audience. We are committed to providing accessible services as set out in the Accessibility for Onterians with Disabilities Act, 2005. If you have any accessibility needs, please contact our Accessibility Coordinator as soon as possible. If you require documents in formats other than conventional print, or if you have specific accommodation needs, please let us know so we can make arrangements in advance. Please also identify any assistance you may require in the event of an emergency evacuation. DATED at Toronto, this 20j6 day of December, 2016. Mary Ann Hunwicks Secretary • • ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD RULES ON ADJOURNMENTS 61. Hearing Dates Fixed Hearing events will take place on the date set unless the Board agrees to an adjournment. 62. Requests for Adiournment if All Parties Consent If all of the parties agree, they may make a written request to adjourn a hearing event. The request must include the reasons, a suggested new date, and the signed consents of all parties. However, the Board may require that the parties attend in person or convene an electronic hearing to request an adjournment, even if all of the parties consent. 63. Requests for Adiournment Without Consent If a party objects to an adjournment request, the party requesting the adjournment must bring a motion at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing event. If the reason for an adjournment arises less than 10 days before the date set for the hearing event, the party must give notice of the request to the Board and to the other parties and serve their motion materials as soon as possible. If the Board refuses to consider a late request, any motion for adjournment must be made in person, at the beginning of the hearing event. 64. Emergencies Only The Board will grant last minute adjournments only for unavoidable emergencies, such as illnesses, so close to the hearing date that another representative or witnesses cannot be obtained. The Board must be informed of these emergencies as soon as possible. 65. Powers of the Board upon Adiournment Request The Board may, (a) grant the request; (b) grant the request and fix a new date or, where appropriate, the Board wlli schedule a prehearing conference on the status of the matter; (c) grant a shorter adjournment than requested; (d) deny the request, even if all parties have consented; (e) direct that the hearing proceed as scheduled but with a different witness, or evidence on another issue; (f) grant an Indefinite adjournment, if the request is made by the applicant or proponent and is accepted by the Board as reasonable and the Board finds no substantial prejudice to the other parties or to the Board's schedule. In this case the applicant or proponent must make a request that the hearing be rescheduled; (g) convert the scheduled date to a mediation or prehearing conference; or (h) make any other appropriate order. August 11, 2008 647 EXPLANATORY NOTE Proposed Amendments to City of Vaughan Zoning By -law No. 1 -88 and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, City of Vaughan Applicant: Dufferin Vistas Ltd. City of Vaughan File Nos. Z.16.016 and 19T- 16V001 OMB Case No. PL160978 OMB File Nos. PLI60978 and PL160980 Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (the "Applicant ") has applied to amend City of Vaughan By -law No. 1 -88 (the "Rezoning Application ") with respect to the lands known municipally as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (the "Property"). The Applicant has also applied for approval of a draft plan of subdivision for the Property (together with the Rezoning Application, the "Applications'l. The Property is shown on a key map below. The Applications propose to develop the Property in two phases. The western portion of the Property is proposed to be developed as Phase 1 (the "Phase 1 Lands "), with the eastern portion of the Property proposed to be developed as Phase 2 at a future date (the "Phase 2 Lands "). The Phase 1 Lands and the Phase 2 Lands are shown on the key map below. The Council of the City of Vaughan has not made a decision with respect to the Applications within the time frame prescribed in the Planning Act. In order to facilitate a final decision on the Applications, the Applicant has appealed the to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "OMB ") under subsections 34(l 1) and 51(34) of the Planning Act. As indicated in the enclosed Appointment for Hearing from the OMB, a three day hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2017. The fast two days of the hearing are intended to address the merits of the Applications as they relate to the Phase I Lands. In contrast, the third day of the hearing is intended to serve as a pre- hearing conference to address procedural matters regarding a future hearing in respect of the Phase 2 Lands. Description of the Pro The Property is located north of Rutherford Road, south of Maurier Boulevard and west of Dufferin Street. The Property is approximately 4.46 hectares in size and is currently vacant. The Phase 1 Lands are approximately 2.25 hectares and the Phase 2 Lands are approximately 2.21 hectares in size. Purpose and Effect of the Zoning By -law Amendments and Proposed Plan of Subdivision — Phase 1 Lands The Phase 1 Lands are designated Low -Rise Residential in the City of Vaughan Official Plan. This designation permits residential uses less than three storeys in height, including detached houses and townhouses. Under City of Vaughan Zoning By-law No. 1 -88, the western portion of the Phase 1 Lands is currently zoned Agricultural (A). In addition to agricultural uses, single- family residential uses are permitted in the Agricultural zone, as well as certain recreational and commercial uses. The eastern portion of the Phase 1 Lauds is currently zoned Open Space Environmental Protection (OS5). This zoning permits certain environmental management and conservation uses, as well as transportation and infrastructure uses. The Applicant's proposed zoning by -law amendments are required to implement the low -rise residential vision for the Phase 1 Lands reflected in the Official Plan through the development of 32 single- detached dwelling lots. Each lot would have a minimum frontage of 12 metres. The dwelling on each lot would have a minimum fiont yard setback of 4.5 metres, a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres and a maximum height of 11 metres. The proposed plan of subdivision orients the 32 single- detached dwelling lots along a new east - west public street shown as Street A, and provides for the southerly extension of Grand Trunk Avenue. The proposed plan of subdivision also provides for two open space blocks located on the northern and southern edges of the Property, adjacent to existing open space blocks that abut the Property. In addition, the proposed plan of subdivision provides for a 10 metre wide vegetated corridor easement along the west property line and a 6.5 metre wide vegetated corridor easement along the south property line. Purpose and Effect of the Zoning By -law Amendments and Proposed Plan of Subdivision — Phase 2 Lands The majority of the Phase 2 Lands are designated Low -Rise Residential Special Study Area in the City of Vaughan Official Plan, while the eastern portion is designated Natural Area. Under City of Vaughan Zoning By -law No. 1 -88, the majority of the Phase 2 Lands are currently zoned Agricultural (A). A narrow strip of land on the southern portion of the Phase 2 Lands is currently zoned Open Space Environmental Protection (OS5). The uses permitted in these zones are described above. The Applicant's proposed zoning by -law amendments are required to facilitate the redevelopment of the residentially- designated portion of the Phase 2 Lands with 42 freehold townhouses. Each townhouse would have 6 metres of frontage. The proposed plan of subdivision contemplates orienting the townhouses around a new east -west street, shown as Street B, which extends eastward off of the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue. The proposed plan of subdivision also provides for an open space block on the eastern portion of the Phase 2 Lands of approximately 0.8 hectares in size. M• KEY MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY 6648823 650 230 Grand Trunk Avenue OMB Case No. PL160978 Subdivision Applications The draft plan of subdivision applications for the Property are enclosed. Attachment 1 — Phase 1 Lands Attachment 1 contains the draft plan of subdivision application for the Phase 1 Lands, which comprise the lands west of Grand Trunk Avenue. Attachment 2 — Phase 2 Lands Attachment 2 contains the draft plan of subdivision application as originally submitted for the Property. This draft plan describes the current proposal for the lands east of Grand Trunk Avenue, now known as the Phase 2 Lands. The portion of this draft plan for the lands west of Grand Trunk Avenue, now known as the Phase I Lands, is no longer accurate. The revised proposal for the Phase 1 Lands is enclosed as Attachment 1. 651 230 Grand Trunk Avenue OMB Case No. PL 160978 ATTACHMENT 1 PHASE 1 LANDS 652 jI VAUGHAN ee•�oPnun WoniNnp OepeW�+t z,,, etgn, esa.w. once VnupMn, Omrb Cnndp LeA 1T, TelaphFM (ON) l32-SM Fac (eQ5)a32•n'. APPLICATION FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDMSION (Revised July 20, 2016) nffinw I lea nnly nN umber AppllntleoFw' i RecsWNwnhw, OnteRw aNM Niaa..a �' Igln F14. PAC Numhw ACe.,. Fhnn,rinAdnndniia At PAC Mwanp PAC.' This application for approval under Section 61 of the Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 544/06 must be fully completed to the satisfaction of the qty of Vaughan, before the formal processing of the application w@ begin, The following Information Is required by the City with an accompanying fee payable to the TREASURER, CITY OF VAUGHAN, prior to the processing of ties application (please see the attached 'Tariff of Fees for Vaughan Planning Applications'). The Information and material requested In this application must be filled out In Its entirely to constitute a complete application. If the application form is deemed to be Incomplete, this could result In the delay of the processing of the application. Three (3) copies of the application form must be submitted. Nofe. Rolf eduponswlHnotbeaccepted- aNdrewhVe are lobs lofded to 8.5nx 14"wkh the aVa bfock fecing out. 1. APPLICANT / REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY r. 20F:- J _ AI P. Q0 il!ti P . ' P-, Email Address: Date the Subject Lands were acquired (optlonal : 2. AGENT - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Relationship to the Applicant Prospective Owner ❑ Lessee 0 Agent or Solicitor ❑ Other. ❑ Name: / -444kS aI.i.QS !L4 a � Address: FaW�,xd. Telephone No.: Fax Number. EmallAddress: 4 v kjG tr03 ff-ts -4EaM Uni�sa olh noaned all correspondence will be forwarded to the agent. 3. LOCATION OF PROPERTY/ SUBJECT LANDS 31 Is this a resubrnWaion of an earlier application? Yes IM No 9ff Do Not Know ❑ 3.2 Are there any easements or restrictive covenants affecting this stte? If so, provide descriptions? r.w,n aseaA. �furmwo net 653 4. LAND USE STATUS 4.1 The land use designation In the approved Region OMctal Plan Is: 4.2 If a Reglonal Official Plan Amendment Is required, has an application been submitted? Yes O File Number or OPA Number NORI 4.3 The land use designation of the subject lands In the approved Vaughan Official Plan Is: f.t ag 11 - an;raiCaff!tM .l i 4.4 If a Vaughan OMclal Plan Amendment is required, has an application been submitted? Yes O File Number or OPA Number NoX Any application that Is not In conformity with the Official Plan may be rstumad or held uncirculated until an application Is submltted to the appropriate authority to redesignate the subject lands. 4.5 Current Zoning Status (Zone Category, By -law Number and Exception Number) ,� .�xtclx.j �tZe,c t3S5 t�ps�. -� ��nrlt�wr,A�ir. 4.8 Indicate the Land Uses on the adjacent properties: �t�V North: South: East ''rot— Vacafit West !Rif +ate S. PROPOSED LAND USE All lands shown within the draft plat most be IdenNiiad as to proposed use. If additional space is necessary to accommodate the required information, attach a separate page In the same moan as Table W. Use the following definitions for residential buildings: Dwelling Unit a mom or group of moms accommodating a single household. Detached: a building containing 1 dwelling unit. Semi- detached: a building containing 2 dwelling units. Muldpfe- aaached:. a building containing 3 or more dwelling units, all with Individual access at ground level. [Lease specify exact building type, e.g, townhouse.] Apartment a building containing 3 or more dwelling toils, all with access through a S ml.dateehad Residential common space. Proposed [aM aces . NUMbOr Units .._ .', Number of C Part Lots Adfer Blocks Ana (ha) .: (unttathe) - Number dq Prilna>t}; Detached Residential 32 1.57 1 20.38 WA::- -., S ml.dateehad Residential WA Multlpla-attachad Residential Apartment RnSidentlal - two than 2 badrdooj ? .2bedroaalaoimare . Otiter Raeide dal (spectly) ..e commensal .. Indastrim ,... Park WA'` •' NIA - ,NfA'L -,? Open spar+ WA, �-(- 2 InsdtWOrol(spedry) ,Road.... � WA ' - -WA :.,WA,..,. twwrppewly) 0.3 m Reserve 1 0.01 TOTALS' ... t dy 32 3 2.25 raa. z an a aaw,wn;�w.sa eons 654 0. STATUS OF OTHER PLANNING APPLICATIONS Has the subject land ever been the subject of a previous applipdon(s) under the Planning Act for an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning BydawAmendment, a Minater's Zoning OrderAmendment, e Plen of Subdivision, a Minor Valiance, Consent ore Site Plan? YesJM No ll'Yes', please Indicate the type of application, file numbers, purpose of the application, the status of the application, end Its effect on the proposed amendment. Zoning File: IN Site Development Approval: ❑ Plan of Subdivision: ❑ Plan of Condominium: D MlnorVeriance: ❑ Consent (Severance): ❑ Minister's Zoning Order. ❑ 7. SERVICING File Number(s) Purpose Z.16.016 (Revised) Permit single detached development 7.1 Indicate the proposed servicing type for the subject lend. 7.1.a WaterSupdy 91 publicly owned and operated O privately owned and O privately owned and piped water system operated Individual well operated communal well If the plan would permit development of more than five lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal wells, include with this application: 7.1,0 a servicing options report; and 7.1.a.11 a hydrological report. 7.1.b Sewage Disposal Jf publicly owned and O privately owned operated sanitary and opersled sewage system Individual septic tank and leaoblng field system M prWatety O Pdvy O other owned and sw iv operated communal system 7.1.c If the plan would permit development of five or more lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems. Include with this application: 7.1.0 a servicing options report: and 7.1.c,fl a hydrological report. T.1.d if the plan would permit development of fewer then five lots or units an privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems, and more than 45DO Illres of effluent would be produced per day as a result of the development being completed, Include with this application: 7.1.0 a servicing options report and 7.1.d.11 a hydrological report 7.1.e If the plan would permit development of fewer than fore lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems, and 4500 Mires of effluent or less would be produced per day as a result of the development being completed, Include with this appllrallow 7.1.9.1 a hydrological report h:,aMa 9u06N4an IhbaWan,a'M) 655 7.2 Road Access : Please specify whether access to the subject land will be by ❑ Provincial Highway jig Municipar Road that Is maintained all year or seasonally • Regional Road • Private Road • another public road are dght -of- vay Name of Road 7.3 Storm Drainage Indicate the proposed Storm Drainage System: k savors a swales ❑ ditches O other means spedM S. SITE APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION a) Topography The draft plan must kulude a statement that elevations shown thereon relate to Canadian Geodetic Datum. Outline the general topography and any special characteristics (such as escarpments, rook outcrops, etc.) "1� -tom. �S Vii"`. �ALd'S ���" �R4 ?►-� ly�?ikJ__ - b) Vegetation What" of vegetation (such as grass, shrubs, woodbis, or orchards) exist on the subject lands? e) Drainage Patterns Describe the drainage of the subject lands, and on -site or nearby water bodies (e.g. creeks, ponds, takes). d) Unique Land Features What consideration has been given to preserving the natural amenities lag. strong topographical features, views, mature trees). MR e) Integration Into Surrounding Area What conskiamtlon has been given to Integrating with the existing characterof the surrounding area, and to preservation of the amenities of the adjoining area (pleasant views, sunlight, air.). ig&�j CA44 Q Uselstructure Describe anysignificantpravious use and the present use of the property and anybuildings, historical crotherwise, and any man -made features on the subject lands, and [heir proposed use (to be retained, modified, relocated, and demolished). )401'Je pw'pnCa9bAa'r� *J 656 9. Archaeological Potential Does the subject land contain any areas of archaeologi ®I potential, or will the plan permit development of land that contains known resources or areas of atchaeologlcel potential? Yes ❑ No ❑ if yes, an Ancnaeofogical Assessment prepared by a person who holds a licence thatis effective with respect to the subject land. Issued under Part VI (Conservation of Resources of Archaeological Value) of the Ontario Heritage Actod a conservation plan forany archaeological resources identified In the assessment. 441 A$Se -0M0 JT— f`.S %h10&1X V~. 10. PROVINCIAL POLICY AND PLANS 10.1 Is this plan consistent with policy statement issues under subsection 3(1) of the Planning A07 Yes 19 No ❑ 10.2 Are the subject lards within an area designated under a provincial policy or plan? Yes ❑ No El. Attach a JustHlcation report which explains how the requested application conforms to or does not conflictwith the applicable Provincial Plan(s) and how the requested applleatIon is consIstentwith the Comprehensive Provincial Policy Statement. 11. SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIRED WITH APPLICATION 11.1 Pursuant to Bill changes to the Planning Act, the City of Vaughan has Implemented OPA #705 and By-law 278 -2009, which implements the City-wide procedures for Pre- AppNeaOon Consullation (PAC) meetings as a means for the City to Identify the materiat(s) and Information required for the submission of a complete Development Planning Application, excluding Part- Lot Control and Standard Plan of Condominium. The required supporting material required with this application Is summarized In the executed "PAC Understanding ". For more Information, please refer to the 'Development Planning Department Pre,Applicallon Consultation (PAC) and Complete Application Package (CAP)' available on the Cltyswebalts, w ww vaughon.ca. 11.2 All Information and reports submitted In support of this application may be disclosed to any Individual. 12, NOTICE SIGNS– PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS The applicant Is required to Install a Notice Sign(s) In accordance with the "Notice Signs – Procedures B Protocols' available an the City's websile, www.vaunhan.ca. 13. REGION OF YORK Please contact the Region of York Community Planning Department for the amount being charged for their review of your application. Contact the Regional Munlelpallty of York at (905) 895-1231 for the fee amount or visit Owir website et WWW.vork.ca. You are required to submit the fee payment dkectiy to the Regional Munlcipallty ofYork– Community Planning Department. A cheque payable tc the 'Region of York! in that amount should be submitted directly to the Region of York. ran. s a, a •yam f1ipC.ae cool 657 DECLARATION The processing of this application shall not commence until the following declaration is completed and cOmmISSloned. 1, G L 15Nx! Lc.C- 5 of the GI'f Y Of *a4'Ri21F— In the Gtr jr. 1� Of `JlMG=?E , solemnly declare that: All above statements contained in all of the exhibits transmitted herewith, are true, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as If made underoath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act. DECLARED before me at the G I 'M of �Q_P_J/=' in the ty �2 +^✓i �' this Of - ;W He day of JA-,J 26(h r J031re Made Cos, a commissioner, alc., county of $:mooe, for john G. Alcusis, ppys615, 2x56. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT dTION OF COMMfSSIONER 1O TH'S STAMP OR SIGNATURE Personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act R•S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 (as amended) and Regulations thereto. This Infonnallon will be used to process this application, questions about this collection of Information should be directed to the O(0ce Coordinator, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, Ontario LOA 1T1 (905) 832 -9585. CERTIFICATE (To be signed by Owner, if Agent has been appointed.) As of the date of this application, ) am the Registered Owner of the lands described in this application, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application Is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I authorize the submission of this application on my behalf of: whom I have appointed as my Agent. C Lr—n I L—�-A.�5 (Please print name of Agent) f_JI�A M 1 LJWnt I (Please print name) Affix corporate Seal of registered owner of property. Processing will not commence until this Is provided. np.. r.,ae�.c,,.�andlx•+.aonof • e 230 Grand Trunk Avenue OMB Case No. PL160978 ATTACHMENT 2 PHASE 2 LANDS Tel OVVQ%PM4W1 flalal"naoap= ,t VAUGHAN "� Tate o `"" ' I TaMphF..( eszasas FeK(We a32-0eR0 evm.Mw�a�m APPLICATION FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION nfnea r te& nnly Itla .umaar _ -_ FN Raealq number 19T Dale RwNM' tLphWey. R&A Filr PA NUmWr MOOD _ ►Mn1arMAtanGriu al P�CRWtlea. t;''� PAC. This application for approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act and Ontario Reliulaibn 544/06 must be fully completed to the satisfaction of the City of Vaughan, before the formal processing of the application will begin. The following Information Is required by the City with en accompanying fee payable to the TREASURER, CITY OF VAUGHAN, pdor lo the processing of the application (please see liar attached Tariff of Fees for Vaughan Planning Applications *), The Information and material requested In 1MS application must be filled out In Its entirely to constitute a complete application. If the application form is deemed lo be incomplete, this could result In the delay of the pracessing of the application. Three (3) copies of the application form must be submitted. Mote: Rolled up plans wiNnot be ecoepted— aHdrawMgs are to be folded to 8.50x 140w8h the title block facing out 1. APPLICANT I REGISTERED OWNER OF PROPERTY Name: TMr .cr" °aNj VltT S L.= . a Address: Pena Code Telephone No.: tW61.40 — ?=jE2 _ Fax Number, f") Email Address: Dale the Subjeol Lands were acquired (optional): 2. AGENT — APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE Relationship to the Applicant Prospective Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Agent or Solicitor ❑ Other. Q Name: r(,Fr./r/ / r ✓we �� eACnSC -- AA-0E% Address: 2d Jam. GG�SGEN r` - �N -=M PmW Coda Telephone No. (1D -J777 8335 Fax Number. ( 2 Emaill Address: R t LaL n� � V b4rJ' .Ge�in —�. '� Ncdr. Unlna � noaaed ail wrrvspondarrce will be (awarded to the aeerd. 3, LOCATION OF PROPERTY/ SUBJECT LANDS 3.1 Is the a resubmission of an earlier application? yes ❑ No 95 Do Not Know ❑ 3.2 Are there any easements or resbicOve covenants affecting this site? If so, provide descdpfions? aw,rnnaaw .P~erne) 661 4. LAND USE STATUS 4.1 The land use designation In the approved Region Official Plan Is: c1R~ 4.2 If a Regional Official Plan Amendment is required, has an application been submitted? Yes 13 Fite Number or CPA Number No,41 4.3 The land use designation of the subject lands In the approved Vaughan Official Ran Is: %L>'W RI ts NQQ"6_.0 gg& 4.4 If a Vaughan Official Plan Amendment is required, has an application been submitted? Yes O FIIa Number or OPA Number No" Any application that Is not in conformity with the Official Plan may be returned or held uncirculated unill an application Is submitted to the appropriate authority to redesignate the subject lands. 4.4 Current Zoning Status (Zone Category, By-law Number and Exception Number) CXS5cx7t ±4 ZRAivn F.MVgzcnf•�L�nrpa.L 4.6 Indicate the Land Uses on the adjacent properties: 4r�J North: South: r a.� 5. PROPOSED LAND USE AN lands shown within the draft plan must be Identgied as to proposed use. It additional space Is necessary to accommociale the required information, attach a separate page In the same form as Table'A'. Use the following de6nitions for residential buildings: Dwelling Unit a room or group ormoms accommodating a single household. Detached: a building containing 1 dwelling unit. Semidetached: a building containing 2 dwelling wits. Multiple-attached: a building containing 3 or more dwelling units, all with individual access at ground level. [Please specify exact building type, e.g. townhouse.] Apartment: a building containing 3 or more dwelling units, all with access through a common space. Propooed Land usm Humber of untie -. -Number of eirPEA Loft .. Ana (he) �'- Density) (aniama Numberaor umbe a k Park beeadmd Residential WA ' Samt -detached Residential WA:X, Mule- emachad Residential ,_ ( } �� Z 12 Apartment sidentlal - lees dean bedrooms i •2 bedrooms or more Other Resideneal tspeclry) commerelat Industrial Park .. WA.; ;' NIA WA Space . WA. " t% NIA ...A mallhmlonat(spadry) ..: Roads - - WA .� O.9 WA .; WA other'($Pee" mar ra. aaw«,a,tyw.eownw 662 g. STATUS OF OTHER PLANNING APPLICATIONS Has the subject lamd ever been the subject of a previous application(s) under the Planning Act for an OHiclal Plan Amendment, a Zoning By- IawAtnuMmen4 a Minster's Zoning OrderAmendment, a Plan of Subdivision, a Minor Vadanee, Consent or a Site Plan? Yes $j No ❑ If 'Yes', please Indicate the type of application, file numbers, purpose of the application, the status of the application, and Its effect on the proposed amendment. Pilo Number(s) Zoning File: d Site Development Approval: ❑ Plan of Subdivtstn: ❑ Plan of Condominium: ❑ Minor Variance: D Consent (Severance): ❑ Ministers Zoning Order. 0 7. SERVICING 7.1 Indicate the proposed servicing type for the subject land. Purpose 7.1a Water Supply 11 publicly wined and operated 17 privately owned and O privately owned and piped water system operated Individual wed operated communal well If the plan would permit development of mote than five lots orunits on privately owned and operated Individual or communal wells, include with this application: 7.1.x.1 a servicing options report: and 7.1.01 a hydrological report. 7.1.b Sewage Disposal X publicly owned end 13 privately owned operated eanitary and operated sewage system Individual septic tank and leaching field system O privately Cl privy D other owned and sp�rv. operated communal system 7.1.c If the plan would permit development of five or more lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems, include with this application: 7.1.0.1 a servicing options report; and 7.11.01 a hydrological report. 7.1.d If the plan would permit development of fewer than five lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems, and more then 4500 Idres of effluent would be produced per day as a result of the development being completed, Include with this application: 7.14.1 a servicing option report; and 7.1.01 a hydrological repart. 7.1.e If the plan would permit development of fewer than five lots or units on privately owned and operated Individual or communal septic systems, and 4500 Iltres of el0uent or less would be produced per day as a result of the development being completed, include with this application: 7.11.e.i a hydrological report rip3e deuO ~(ar+eap 10) 663 7.2 Road Access: Please specify whether senses to the subject land will be by ❑ Provincial Highway A Municipal Road that is maintained all year or seasonally E3 Regional Road R Private Road Q another public road or a rightof way Name of Road 7.3 Storm Drainage Indicate the proposed Storm Drainage System: (t sewers ❑ Swaiss ❑ ditches ❑ other means sae7- a. SITE APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION a) Topography The draft plan must include a statement that elevations shown thereon relate to Canadian Geodetic Dalian. Outline the general topogmptry and any special characteristics (such as escarpments, rock ouicxops, etc.) -rte 5car..rjY1 r= p!s" - b) Vegetation What" of vegetation (Such as grass, shrubs, wocdlots, or orchards) exist on the subject lands? M&VLW' :rya fGlGisj : V�a=&am C) Drainage Patterns Describe the drainage of the subject lams, aril on -site or nearby wafer bodies (e.g. creeks, ponds, takes). d) Unique Land Features What consideration has been given to preserving the natural smantbes (eg. strong topographical features, views, mature trees). 1L�f�E I' EAe ru r� Fes xis �j rte, e) Integration Into Surrounding Area What consideration has been given to integrating with the existing charactsrof the surrounding area, and to presentation of the amenities of the adjoining area (pleasant views, sunlight, etc.). lEr-- .1JVLI.N Q Use/Structure Describe any significant previous use" the present use of ire properly and any buildings, historical or otherwise, and any man-made features on the subject lands, and Roirproposed use (to be retained, modified, relocated, and demolished). 14oh4f. hp-PmdlAa+W,".o Q 5M 9. Archaeological Potential Does the subject land contain any areas of archaeological potential, or will the plan permit development ofland that contains known resources orareas or archaeological potential? Yes 0 No ❑ It yes, an Archaeological Assasament prepared by a person who folds a licence that Is effective with respect to the subject land, Issued wrier Part VI (Conservation of Resources of Archaeological Value) of the Ontario Hadtage Aatod a conservation plan for arryarchaeologkal resources Identified In the assessment. A.11 A5SI5'S5WJ&%Jf fa t>%) SAM %&^Y• 10. PROVINCIAL POLICY AND PLANS 10.1 Is this plan consistenlwith policy statement issues under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act? Yes J9 No ❑ 102 Are the subject lands within an area designated under a provincial policyor plan? Yes ❑ No a Attach a justification report which explains how the requested appllcatlon conforms to or does not conflict with the applicable Provincial Pan(s)and how the requested application iscwheistem with the Comprehensive Provincial Policy Stalement 11, SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIRED WITH APPLICATION 11.1 Pursuant toSillchanges totheEWBakJ2= the City of Vaughan has Implemented OPA#705 and SHow, 278 -2009, which Implements the City-wide procedures for Pre- Appliratlon Consullatlon (PAC) meetngs as a means for the City to ldentfythe matedel(s)and information required for the submission of a complete Development Planning Application, excluding Part - Lot Control and Standwd Plan of Condominium. The required suppmnlrg material required with this application is summarized in the executed 'PAC Understanding ". For more Information, please refer to Ore "Development Planning Department Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) and Complete Application Package (CAPI" available on the City's webele. www.vaunhanca 112 All Information and reports submitted in support of this application may be disclosed to any Individual. 12. NOTICE SIGNS — PROCEDURES AND PRDTOCOLS The applicant Is required to install a Notice SIgn(s) In accordance with the "Notice Signs— Procedures & Protocols" available on the City's websits, www.vauohen.ra. 13. REGION OF YORK Please contact the Region of York Community Planning Department for the amount being charged for their review of your application. Contact the Regional Municipality of York at (905) 895.1231 for the fee amount or visit their wellsits at www.york.ca. You are required to submit Me fee payment directly o the Regional Municipality of York — Community Planning Department. Achequepayable to the "Region of York' In that amount should be submitted directly to the Region of York. Pq. ran d 9ofAb,(U WW 9) 665 DECLARATION The processing of this application shall not commence until the following declaration is completed and commissioned. 11 //...lie � of the C4'1Y Of �a^.I� In the Of �JIhtGL7E _ solemnly declare that: All above statements contained in all of the exhibits transmitted herewith, are true, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing It to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as If made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act. DECLARED before me at the 4 '17 1 of -F54,2.2J>; In the of 5'lMGCa� this i' day of JA-.I 20t(, rdsanve Mane Cox, a camrnisslon:f, etc., gonnry Of and So e. Ier.lann G. Alousrs, Banister asd So:•citor, arises 15, 2016. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT JjWTION OF CO SSIONER O TH'S STAMP OR SIGNATURE Personal Information on this roam Is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1090, Chapter P.13 (as amended) and Regulations thereto. This information will be used to process this appllcatlon. Questions about this collection of information should be directed to the Office Coordinator, 2141 Mellor Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, Ontario LOA ITt (908) 832 -8585. CERTIFICATE (To be signed by Owner, If Agent has been appointed.) As of the date of this application, I am Ov Registered Owner of the lands described in this application, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the Information submitted with the application Is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and 1 authorize the submission of this application an my behalf of: whom I have appointed as my Agent. lit I-J L.UCAI -_ (Please print name of Agent) C�AIIA M 1 LAN I (Please print name) Affix Corporate Seat or reatotered owner of property. Processing will not commence until this is provided. soa r a Yea v � nbraYa an m e 6 P CERTIFICATE (To be signed by Dwnerfand H applicable purchaser andlar bases) INe /�A MILI441 the ownerandbsfamhaaer andfor .lessee- Ideiets Inappropriate words) of the above -noted lands Hamby acknowledge that H Is mylour responalbghy to ensure that UWe are In compliance with all applicable legislative enactments, guidelines and other government directives pertaining to contaminated sites Including, but not limited to, the Ministry of erWronmanPs UuidellneJor Use M Contaminated Sites in Ontwfo, June 1996, as amended, We further acknowledge that the City of Vaughan andfor the Regional Municipality of York am not responsible for the Identification andfor remedistion of contaminated sites and In any action or proceeding for losses or damages related to environmental contamination orelean�up of contamination will not sue orcialm over against the City of Vaughan andlor the Regional Munidpality of York. Affix Corporate Seal of registered owner of property. Processing will not commence until this Is provided. Dated at %L& &' this -a+h dayof JiAHLAEr 201L 8fgnatum of R 4: ~ M I Place Print Name (APFD( Corporate Seal, if applicabfe) Dated at this day of 2 Signature of PURCHASER Please Print Nome (AFFIX Corporate Seal, if applicable) Dated at We day or 2 Signature of LESSEE Please Print Items ( AFFlX Corporate Seal, If applicable) 667 "y..,✓asa.,w,W �awle 1jj 'VAUGHAN File Number. File Name: Planner and Edansion: SfTE SCREENING QUESTN)NNAIRJ 1. Is Ihere reason to believe that the lands maybe contaminated based o o hisloricat land use? Yea O i A. DEVELOMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Nom NOTE Possible offending uses may include: disposal of collate materials, taw material storage, tMearlain O residues left in contolners, malmenanoe activNes and spills. Same commercial properties such as gas stations, automotive repair garages, and dry cleanig plants have slmlarpolaMlal. TholDnilera .Yus O No O property Is under Industrial or slmllor use, 0m greater the potential far sle contamination. Mae. a Yes 171' No fS serfes of different Industrial or like uses upon a site could potentlaily, I=ease the number of chemicals which are present Yesn NO 2. Has land filling occurred on the property er lands adjacent to fio property? Yes 0 'services, etc.? r r NOR 2. Is a Phalle..! ESA ro'quired to be submitted with Una application? Uncertain O 3. Hasa gas station been located on the subled land or adjacent land at any time? Yes 0 NOD Uncertain O 4. Has petroleum or other fuel been stored on the sublecf lands or adjacent land? YesO Non Uncertain O S. If the property has in the past or Is currently being used for a non•residenfiel use, what In are nature of the use? 6. Is the nearest boundary One of the subject lands within SM m(1,B40 ft) of an operational or noon Yes 13 operational landfill or dump? No IQ Uncertain O 7. Have previous agricultural operations ever included the application of cyardde- based pesticide Yes O products or sewage sludge on the lands? Nen Uncertain O & Are you aware of any underground sfaage tanks, orother burled waste an the property? Yes ❑ NoM Uncertain O 9. If !hare are any existing or previously exls6ng buildings, are there bufk ing materials remaining Yes O which are potentially hazardous to health (asbestos, PCBs)? NOR Uncertain O 10.Is(here a current Environmental Site Assessment forthe site alas one been prepared within the Tea O lass fwa years? If yes, please submit It with your application. Ncjq Uncertain O 11. Has an Environmental Site Assessment been submitted to fine City of Vaughan in the post in Yea O support or a planning application on the subject lands? M'Yes'. Indicate the type of planning No 29 appikellorn(s) and me maber(s): Uncertain O Official Plan Amendment: Zoning By-law, Amendment: Site Development Plan: Plan of Subdivision: Other: TO BEEQOMeh, Q BY CITY OF'VAUGHAN " i A. DEVELOMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT •. 1. Does tine+brrnplelod Site SCrP,sores QuesOOmaire (Wuea(Wes 1- 9)indude any 'Yeeor- Uncenain' YesO•..Nal]- resporsm? 2. Is there a charge jq,use proposeA lo.e more asnsttivause? _ - .Yus O No O -3; Clow the proposal krduda any lands hs be conveyed to the City?. ', Yes 171' No fS B. E913114EERING DEPARTMENT ; 1,13ow the piuposalraqulreanylands to be'conveyad to me Cgorfortha City to ar.•yuire an interest Yesn NO In any lends for such lwrposes, as but not limited to road vrden&tg, "atormwatar management, 'services, etc.? r r 2. Is a Phalle..! ESA ro'quired to be submitted with Una application? Yes O:, No O t r� Y Ik / rama,w, l W hwe eriM r to e Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de ('Ontario F�i ISSUE DATE: March 9, 2016 CASE NO(S). R PL111184 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Appellant: Appellant: Appellant: Subject: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Heard: APPEARANCES: Parties Dufferin Vistas Ltd. City of Vaughan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) 1096818 Ontario Inc. 11333 Dufferin St et al 1191621 Ontario Inc.; and others Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed New Official Plan City of Vaughan PL111184 PL111184 Duca v. Vaughan (City) October 14, 2015 in Vaughan, Ontario Counsel D. Bronskill D.Jubb J. Wigley DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD 670 2 INTRODUCTION PL111184 [1] This is the decision for an appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. ( "Appellant') regarding a proposed new Official Plan for the City of Vaughan ( "City ") known as Vaughan Official Plan (2010). This appeal involves lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue and it has been identified as appeal No. 21 among a number of appeals that were filed regarding Vaughan Official Plan (2010). The various appeals are in the process of being resolved through a number of Board proceedings. [2] At the beginning of the proceeding, David Bronskill informed the Board that there was a settlement among the parties based upon proposed changes to the Official Plan. However, the Board heard that a number of residents of the area wanted to present evidence. [3] Michael Smirnov, Sergei Lifchits, Codruta Papoi, Nick Shlepov and Peter Badali, on behalf of the Eagle Hills Community Association, requested participant status which was granted by the Board on consent. [4] The subject property is approximately 4.5 hectares ( "ha ") in size and is located north of Rutherford Road and west of Dufferin Street. The lands to the north have been developed with low density residential uses. The lands to the south adjacent to the western part of the property are also developed with low rise residential uses. There are woodlands abutting the south eastern part of the property that are part of the Carrville Centre Secondary Plan area. [5] Grand Trunk Avenue, which is a municipal road, currently ends at the north limit of the property. Plans are for the road to extend through the subject property and continue to the south along the western boundary of the Secondary Plan area to connect with Rutherford Road. 671 3 EVIDENCE PL111184 [6] The Board heard evidence in support of the settlement from Paul Lowes, Principal with SGL Planning and Design Inc. Mr. Lowes is a Registered Professional Planner with approximately 30 years of experience. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in land use planning. [7] The Board also heard evidence in support of the settlement from Tom Hilditch, President and CEO with Savanta. Mr. Hilditch has more than 20 years of experience carrying out natural heritage studies. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in ecology. [8] Mr. Badali expressed support for the settlement on behalf of the Eagle Hills Community Association. [9] Mr. Smirnov, Mr. Lifchits, Ms. Papoi and Mr. Shlepov were opposed to the settlement and supported the proposed Official Plan designations for the property. [10] Mr. Lowes testified that the subject property is identified as being within a settlement area in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ( "ORMCP "). He indicated that the ORMCP allows urban development in settlement areas, but it may be restricted by the presence of natural features. Natural heritage studies are required to identify and evaluate natural features and determine any required buffers. [11] According to the evidence, the property is identified as Urban Area in the Regional Structure of the York Region Official Plan and it is not shown as being within the Regional Greenlands System (Exhibit 96). Mr. Lowes indicated a small area of the property is identified as woodland in Map 5, Woodlands, of the York Region Official Plan. [12] A wooded feature is also shown on a portion of the property on Schedule 24 of Official Plan Amendment No. 604 which was intended to incorporate the policies of the 672 rd PL111184 ORMCP into the Official Plan. In this context, Mr. Lowes stated that woodlands larger than 4 ha. are considered significant, but that the woodland on the property now is smaller than 4 ha. [13] In the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) the subject property is identified as Natural Area and Countryside. In Schedule 2, Natural Heritage Network, the site is shown as having Core Features. In Schedule 13, Land Use, the property is designated as Natural Area. Mr. Lowe stated that the designations in Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were appealed by the previous owner of the subject property and are being carried forward by the Appellant. [14] The Board heard that a Natural Heritage Network Study was completed for the City which does not identify a significant woodland on the property or any other significant feature. It does show a stream corridor to the east of the property (Exhibit 99). [15] Mr. Lowes explained that in the late 1990's, there was more of a wooded feature in the eastern portion of the property. Many of the trees were removed by a former owner who was charged and ordered to replant. It is Mr. Lowes' understanding that the Court accepted the replanting. [16] There was also a greater concentration of trees in the western part of the property which were removed in the early 2000's by a previous owner. According to Mr. Lowes no charges were laid in that case. [17] The Board heard that Mr. Hilditch undertook a number of natural heritage studies for the property. He also reviewed previous natural heritage work for the area. Mr. Hilditch's studies included investigations in the disciplines of botany, Ecological Land Classification, and breeding bird studies. Mr. Hilditch indicated that a number of field visits of the property were undertaken in conjunction with his work. In addition, staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA ") visited the site to review its natural heritage characteristics. 673 F7 PL111184 [18] Mr. Hilditch stated that there was evidence that the site had been historically disturbed. He indicated that key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrogeological features, which had been referenced in other documents, do not exist on the western part of the property. However, there are some features in the eastern part of the property which may warrant protection and require further studies. The eastern part of the property contains an intermittent watercourse, an off -line pond and some wetland features. There are four butternut trees in this area, and also green frog and bull frog were found. Mr. Hilditch indicated that these are significant species and they were found in the portion of the property that is intended to remain designated as Natural Area. He also indicated that the eastern wood pewee was heard in the vicinity, but off site. [19] The presence of these features indicates that there may be significant wildlife habitat and significant woodlands on portions of the eastern section of the property and off -site adjacent to this area. [20] As a result of these findings, Mr. Lowes indicated that modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were proposed to deal with the possible presence of significant natural heritage features as included in Exhibit 100. The modifications propose changes to Schedule 13 of the Official Plan redesignating the land use for the subject property from Natural Areas to Low Density Residential and Natural Areas. Schedule 14 of the Official Plan is also proposed to be modified to identify the property as being subject to a site - specific plan. [21] The modifications also propose adding a new section 13.X to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) which specifies a number of detailed studies that must be completed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with TRCA prior to development of the property. [22] Through s. 13.x.4 the land uses for the property are further delineated. For the western part of the property, the modifications assign a Low Rise Residential designation. The central portion of the property is identified as Low Rise Residential 674 11 PL111184 Special Study Area. The eastern part of the property is identified as Natural Area. The modifications require that the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area can only be developed if studies demonstrate that specified natural features and functions will be protected. The intent is that the area identified as Natural Area will be protected and that the boundary between the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area and the Natural Area will be more clearly defined through the studies and field work. [23] Mr. Lowes' expert planning opinion was that the proposed modifications conform to the ORMCP. He also stated that identifying the property as Low Rise Residential conforms to the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe ( "Growth Plan "). [24] Mr. Lowes indicated that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement ( "PPS "). He indicated that through the modifications natural heritage features will be protected as required in the policies of the PPS. [25] Mr. Lowes' opinion was that the modifications protect the known significant features and that they conform to the York Region Official Plan. [26] Mr. Lowes stated that the modifications represent good planning and are in the public interest. [27] Dawne Jubb and Jonathan Wigley indicated support for the settlement on behalf of the City and TRCA. [28] Mr. Badali supported the modifications and the settlement. He indicated that the Eagle Hills Community Association is concerned about traffic issues and he contended that the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue through the property will help alleviate traffic problems. [29] The other participants expressed concern about the settlement and they indicated that the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) designations for the property should not be changed. The removal of trees on the property through the actions of the previous 675 7 PL111184 owner should not be a rationale to remove restrictions on the property. The Board heard that the photomap submitted as Exhibit 93 appeared to be out of date and that the tree cover on the property is more extensive than shown in the figure. Ms. Papoi submitted two previous Board decisions for the property which recognized provisions to protect the wooded areas on the property. They requested the Board to maintain the designations for the property that are identified in Vaughan Official Plan (2010). ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [30] The Board has carefully considered the evidence provided by the parties and participants. The expert opinion evidence supporting the settlement is uncontradicted. The professional planning opinion and the expert evidence regarding ecology and natural heritage support the proposed redesignation of the lands, the identified limits and character of the natural heritage features and the approach for delineating development of the property as described in the modifications. [31] The Board accepts Mr. Hilditch's opinion that the significant natural heritage features are not located in the western part of the property which is proposed for low density residential use. Based upon the evidence, the only potentially significant natural heritage features are within the eastern part of the property, primarily in the area designated as Natural Area in the modifications, and in adjacent areas off -site. The Board accepts and agrees with Mr. Hilditch's opinion that these areas can be protected through the proposed studies and the land uses and policies included in the modifications (Exhibit 100). [32] It is clear from the evidence that the property at one time contained more extensive woodlands, a portion of which were identified as being worthy of protection. However, it is difficult from the evidence to determine the exact extent of significant woodlands that may have existed on the property in the past. [33] The Board shares some of the concerns expressed by participants that portions of the wooded area of the property have been removed which may have affected its 676 0 PL111184 natural heritage significance. The Board in no way condones actions which contribute to the removal of significant natural heritage features that may facilitate development. The Board understands that the Appellant is in no way responsible for these actions and is considering the potential for the property in its current condition. [34] Furthermore, the Board notes that the alignment for the municipal road, Grand Trunk Avenue, has been planned to essentially bisect the property in a north to south direction. Given this alignment, some impact on any environmental features that may have existed previously in the central portion of the property must have been anticipated and considered to be acceptable. [35] The Board has concluded from the evidence that the features of the site as they exist must be the basis for its determinations. Therefore, the Board agrees with the planning opinion provided by Mr. Lowes. The Board finds that the proposed modifications comply with the ORMCP, the Growth Plan and the York Region Official Plan. The Board finds that the modifications are consistent with the PPS. Furthermore, the Board finds that the modifications represent good planning and are in the public interest. [36] Mr. Bronskill indicated that during the hearing, the need for a minor revision to Exhibit 100 was identified through which changes are required to Schedule 1 of the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) to reflect the new designations of the lands. He indicated that a revised Exhibit 100 would be provided to the Board. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board received the revised Exhibit which is attached to this decision. [37] This decision in no way contradicts the previous Board decisions for the property that were submitted in the evidence. The evidence in this appeal and particularly the expert opinion evidence provided by the parties strongly supports the settlement. In the Board's decision Vaughan (City) Zoning By -law No. 489 -2001 (Re) [2003] O.M.B.D. No. 1163, which was submitted by the participants, the significance of expert evidence was emphasized. 677 PL111184 [38] Based upon the above considerations, the Board will allow the appeal in part based upon the modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) contained in the revised Exhibit 100. [39] The appeal of Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is resolved in full by the settlement. However, Mr. Bronskill noted that the provisions of Exhibit 100 do not address Vaughan Official Plan (2010) Schedule 2 which identifies the City's Natural Heritage Network. At the time of the hearing, Schedule 2 had not been approved by the Board and Mr. Bronskill indicated that he may be requesting some changes in the future to address the Appellant's interests and the results of the settlement. ORDER [40] The Board orders that the appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is allowed in part and Vaughan Official Plan (2010) is modified as set out in Attachment 1. "C. Conti" C. CONTI MEMBER If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416 - 212 -6349 Toll Free: 1- 866448 -2248 • i ATTACHMENT 1 MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 679 MODIFICATIONS TO THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 The City of Vaughan Official Plan is hereby modified by: Modifying Schedule "1" — Urban Structure by modifying the categories from "Natural Areas and Countryside" to "Community Areas" and "Natural Areas and Countryside" as shown on Schedule "1 "; 2. Modifying Schedule 13" — Land Use by modifying the designation of the Subject Lands from "Natural Areas" to "Low -Rise Residential' "and "Natural Areas" in the manner shown on Schedule "2 "; 3. Modifying Schedule "14 -C" — Areas Subject to Site Specific Plans to identify the subject lands as an area subject to a site specific plan as identified in Schedule "3 ", attached hereto; 4. Adding a new Section 13.X to Chapter 13 of Volume 2 of the Vaughan Official Plan as follows: 1113.X 230 Grand Trunk Avenue 13.x.1 General 13.x.1.1 The subject lands known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, as shown on Map 13.X.A, have been considered appropriate for Low -Rise Residential development subject to detailed review. The policies in this section outline the studies considered necessary to determine the extent of development and the appropriate type of infrastructure needed to support the development as well as the future extension of Grand Trunk Avenue. 13.x.2 Natural Features /Hazard Lands 13.x.2.1 The natural features, functions and hazards on the site will require detailed review through the development process. Some of these features extend south of the subject property, necessitating reasonable consideration of adjacent lands in terms of natural features and the provision and connection of infrastructure. 13.x.3 Detailed Technical Studies and Plans 13.x.3.1 Prior to consideration of site alteration or development approvals on the property, a comprehensive set of plans and studies be completed to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the TRCA: • A natural heritage evaluation that defines the natural features, functions and linkages within and to a reasonable extent adjacent to the site, defines appropriate buffers and demonstrates that the impacts of development are appropriately mitigated and /or compensated, where appropriate, including the subject lands and to a reasonable extent those abutting to the south; • A geotechnical slope stability analysis, including cross - sections, detailed grading plans; .:1 • A hydrogeological study /analysis; • A water balance; • Landscape restoration plans. • A Functional Servicing Report (FSR) that: o Considers the alignment, design and extent of grading of the proposed extension of Grand Trunk Avenue o Reviews the development opportunities within the context of the Block Plan and MESP o Detailed consideration of the subject lands and to a reasonable extent the lands to the south, respecting stormwater management, slope stability and the alignment of Grand Trunk Avenue. • Planning Report including Oak Ridge Moraine Conformity 13.x.3.2 An appropriate Terms of Reference for the FSR will be developed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the TRCA. 13.x.3.3 The future development patterns and features for preservation /conservation including the ways and means to achieve this will be determined through the above -noted studies and will be recognized through the zoning by -law and future development planning processes. 13.x.4 Land Use Designations Three land use designations are illustrated on Map 13.X.6. 13.x.4.1 Low -Rise Residential The lands identified as Low -Rise Residential designation on Map 13.X.8 shall be developed in accordance with the policies of Section 9.2.2.1. 13.x.4.2 Low -Rise Residential Special Study Area The lands identified as Special Study Area on Map 13.X.8 shall be developed in accordance with the Low -Rise Residential designation and policies outlined in 9.2.2.1, without the requirement for an OPA, provided the studies, prepared in support of a development application or zoning application, are completed to demonstrate that development can be accommodated and the following features and functions, if present on the site, are maintained to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with TRCA: • Draw / Valley; • Hazard Slopes; • Headwater Drainage Feature; • Groundwater seepage areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine; • Wetlands; • Significant Wildlife Habitat; and • Endangered Species. 13.x.4.3 Natural Areas •: The lands identified as Natural Areas on Map 13.X.6 contain the following features and shall be subject to the policies of Section 9.2.2.16: • A Watercourse; • Wetlands; • Endangered Species; and • Natural Vegetation. 13.x.4.4 The specific boundary of the Natural Areas and Low Rise Residential Special Study Areas shall be determined through the studies of 13.x.3 and through staking of the natural features. • FOIK W ul W x u IA •: U �r O N J ui W S u IA ZI.e„ ., � eg Ep g$a Liss 8 N �� lii 1 illllliil Ill�l I I e 1 �8 a� o� as 0 0 a� N N i __tea • I �i m W J M W u IA sit S 'iceZg$}GS■psigg]k� }BssLOgS88# Ink o, X X V W IWSIyV Q n r -•1 wqy ^w� ��- auirvp r , t h ' .4 IF•1 x j4 if _- ;.. ,fir �` ®!%.T ..,•„ � � f if t it ■ i Is a • FOOE o • .6tis�,`clt 0.`ljNU�. MAP 13.X.B RES. #A76 /16 - PUBLIC RECORD - DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road, City of Vaughan, York Region. Reporting of a Decision respecting one appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Information respecting the Official Plan policies supported by the TRCA and landowner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., as approved by the OMB. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the following Resolution #A142/15 approved at Authority Meeting #7115, held on July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record: THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re- affirmed as it relates to the subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), In the City of Vaughan. THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and Provincial Interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other panties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the outstanding OMB appeal and for their Information. AMENDMENT RES. #A76 116 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: I Ri. THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered Species Act and the Provinclal Policy Statement; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the implementation of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the following Resolution #A142115 approved at Authority Meeting #7115, held on July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record: THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re-affirmed as it relates to the subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of DutTerin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), In the City of Vaughan. THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and Provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the outstanding OMB appeal and for their information. THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered Species Act and the Provincial Policy Statement; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the Implementation of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act. • i a RATIONALE The purpose of this report Is to provide a status update for time information of the Authority on the OMB appeal of the "Natural Areas — Core Features" designation of 230 Grand Truck Avenue by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. The report also outlines the policy requirements supported by the OMB, TRCA and Dufferin Vistas. History Details: Since Resolution #A142/15 was approved on July 24, 2015, TRCA staff worked with the appellant to negotiate a settlement which ensures the requirements or The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, ORMCP and PPS will be met as the development foot print is defined (relative to any historical or existing features on site). Given the appellant had not completed any detailed technical review of the site, policies were included that require study of the natural features on the property as part of future development planning proposals (i.e., Draft Plan of Subdivision and /or Zoning By -Law Amendment Applications). The requirements for further technical review and assessment of natural heritage features on the site was requested and Included within the detailed site specific Official Plan Amendment for the subject site. A copy of the OMB Decision (dated March 9, 2016) including the site specific amendment is attached. The following is a summary of the policy requirements that were Included: The property is divided into 3 segments, each subject to different policies based on the features present Eastern: The eastern parcel was recognized as containing natural heritage and hazard features including a watercourse associated with the Don River, along with wetland areas and significant vegetation including endangered species. An approximate extent was agreed to; however the precise limits of this area will be finalized through the future Natural Heritage Evaluation. Middle: The mid - portion of the site was recognized as potentially containing natural heritage and hazard features which would require further assessment and review as part of the future development review process. As such, this portion was designated Low Rise Residential Special Study Area; necessitating further study before development, If any, would be permitted. Technical studies (examining existing features) that are required include: • A Natural Heritage Evaluation; • Geotechnical /Slope Stability Analysis; • Hydrogeological Study /Analysis; • Water Balance; • Landscape Restoration Plan; • Functional Servicing Report (FSR); and • Planning Report, including Oak Ridges Moraine Conformity. The submission of these studies which will determine the extent of the natural features and hazards on the site, if any, will be required prior to the consideration of any site alteration or development approvals on the property. The future development patterns and features for preservation/conservation Including the ways and means to achieve this will be determined through the submitted studies and recognized through the zoning by -law and future development planning processes. The final boundary between the Natural Area and Low -Rise Residential Special Study Areas will be determined through the above -noted studies and through staking of the natural features which has yet to be completed. 190 690 appropriate technical studies and Conformity The City of Vaughan, Region of York and the Province of Ontario did not participate in the protection of the natural features nor in the development of the OP policies approved by the OMB. They did not present any witnesses at the OMB hearing. Residents in the area were involved in the OMB process. Since the Decision was released, TRCA staff have been contacted by residents and media. Several residents advised that their concerns were not reflected in the OMB Decision. Much of the discussion took place in closed session due to the legal nature of the process and therefore Information available is limited. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The appellant has recently submitted a Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (19T- 16V001) to the City of Vaughan. A copy of the application along with some of the technical studies have been circulated for TRCA review. TRCA technical review is continuing at this time and comments will be submitted to the City accordingly. TRCA staff will continue their review and to dialogue with the applicant, City staff and their consultants to ensure the policies approved by the OMB are implemented and respected and that the appropriate protections are put in place for natural features on the site. Report prepared by: Kevin Huang, extension 5307 Emails: khuang@ftrca.on.ca For Information contact: Kevin Huang, extension 5307 and June Little, extension 5756 Emails: khuancAtrca.on.ca; ilittle@lrca.on.ca Date: May 27, 2016 Attachments: 3 191 691 Correspondence 6.2 David R. Donnelly, MES LLB david @donnellylaw.ca January 26, 2017 Via e-mail to jwigley @grllp.com Jonathan Wigley Gardiner Roberts LLP Bay Adelaid Centre - East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3600 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Dear Mr. Wigley, Re: OMB File No. PL160978, Dufferin Vistas Residential Development Appeal TRCA Meeting January 27, 2017 Donnelly Law represents residents concerned with the above - referenced development applications. We are in the process of incorporating the residents as a not - for - profit corporation that will represent their interests and request party status in the above - noted matter. We write in advance of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's ( "TRCA ") meeting tomorrow with several requests for the meeting that will be the subject of our client's deputation. Land Purchase or Exchange At its October 14, 2016 meeting, TRCA passed a unanimous motion to ask the City of Vaughan to consider purchasing 230 Grand Trunk Avenue and /or a land exchange to protect the ecological health of the site. Will there be a report at the meeting on Vaughan's response? Will TRCA direct Staff to work with Vaughan on securing the land purchase or exchange? TRCA Position on Phase 1 and 2 Lands We have reviewed the agenda materials and TRCA's Preliminary Issues List. Do TRCA's issues apply to both the Phase 1 (Low Rise Residential) and Phase 2 (Low Rise Residential - Special Study Area) lands? Further, does TRCA's review of the application consider the impact of Phase 1 development on Phase 2 lands? Location of Proposed Grand Trunk Road Extension TRCA Preliminary Issues 6 and 7 address the proposed alignment of the Grand Trunk extension. What are TRCA's specific concerns with the alignment and are alternative alignments feasible? L 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 - 276 Ca@42 Suite 203 - Toronto - Ontario - MW Al UU In particular, it seems the March 22, 2017 OMB hearing will deal with these issues and so far, no studies of any kind have been provided to our clients. Has TRCA received updated environmental studies? TRCA Site Visit of January 25, 2017 We understand Staff visited the subject lands on January 25, 2017. Can TRCA confirm whether or not key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrological features exist on the Phase 1 lands? Will a report of the site visit be provided at the meeting? We note the Ontario Municipal Board decision in Scianella v. Vaughan (City), [2003] O.M.B.D. No. 1163 found at paragraph 9: Based on mapping provided by the Province, the City passed OPA 604, to bring their Official Plan into conformity with the ORMCP. On Schedule 24 of OPA 604, the woodlot on Mr. lacobelli's property is shown as a significant woodlot. That Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying zoning by- law, the Oak Ridges Moraine By -law No. 242 -2003 which zones the woodlot as OS -5, have been forwarded to the Minister for approval. Our client would like to know TRCA's position: is there a significant woodlot on the subject lands? If not, did TRCA consider restoration instead of development before entering into this agreement? It may be the habit of some municipalities to embrace the "it is easier to obtain forgiveness than it is permission" principle in land use planning: surely this is not the policy of TRCA? Why then is the destroyed regenerating woodland on the subject lands not given the opportunity to be restored as part of the woodland network? We are aware of evidence of blatant and wilful destruction of the replanted forest. What is TRCA doing to ensure this reforestation takes precedence over development? Has TRCA requested a section 47 Minister's Zoning Order to ensure ecological destruction is never a successful strategy for obtaining approval of a land use planning application. TRCA Position on Timing of Hearing Do Staff anticipate being able to complete their review of the Phase 1 lands in time for the March 22, 2017 hearing? Residents advise notice was provided on January 24, 2017. Given that TRCA has identified concerns with the proposed alignment, design and location of Grand Trunk, do Staff consider the hearing on Phase 1 zoning and plan of subdivision to be premature? Archaeoloaical Assessment A request to the developer's counsel for an archaeological assessment of the subject property has not been answered. L 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 - 276 COA24% 3 Suite 203 - Toronto - Ontario - MW Al UU We note that in the new draft of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, it is the position of the Government of Ontario that: The Plan supports the identification, conservation, use and wise management of cultural heritage resources, including archaeological resources, to support the social, economic and cultural well -being of all communities, including First Nations and M6tis communities. Notwithstanding this clear direction regarding the identification of archaeological resources on the Moraine, the City and TRCA are bound to follow Policy 2.6 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, which states: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. All of us, including the City of Vaughan, TRCA and local residents bear a responsibility for protecting archaeological resources and ancient First Nation's sites. This cannot be done when properties are developed without proper study. TRCA recognizes the area's rich heritage and potential: Recognizing the heritage value of the archaeological resources on its lands, the TRCA has prepared an Archaeological Master Plan that documents archaeological sites and makes recommendations for the proper management of these resources. New sites and other cultural heritage landscapes continue to be found every year, and along with that, new educational opportunities offered to enhance local knowledge.' With this letter, we copy the representatives of all First Nations that occupied the Toronto area. Local residents have long been told there is a village site and possible burial located on the subject lands. Did consultation with First Nations regarding the subject property? If so, no doubt the TRCA and City of Vaughan will disclose the consultation record with First Nations (if one exists) before proceeding to the scheduled March 22, 2017 OMB hearing to confirm the Minutes of Settlement, dated June 23, 2015 and brought to light by Global TV. I https: / /trca.ca /conservation /archaeoloay/ L 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 - 276 Cag Suite 203 - Toronto - Ontario - MW Al One note: it is our legal opinion consultation is to occur with First Nations before a settlement is reached. Our client would be obliged to know if that is TRCA's legal counsel's opinion, as he is expected to be in attendance. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 416- 572 -0464, or by e -mail to david@donnellylaw.co , cc'ing anne @donnellylaw.co, should you have any questions or comments concerning this correspondence. Yours truly, David R. Donnelly cc. L. Lesage M. Dokis D. Mowat T. Cowie L 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 - 276 COA24% Suite 203 - Toronto - Ontario - M4M Al Section I — Items for Action Action RES. #A221/16- THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD 2016 UPDATE Progress of The Living City Report Card 2016. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Authority Members provide written comments on the draft of The Living City Report Card 2016 to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff by February 6, 2017; AND FURTHER THAT staff provide the completed The Living City Report Card 2016 to the Authority for endorsement, and officially release the Report Card, at Annual Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2011, TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto, supported by the Boston Consulting Group, produced the inaugural edition of The Living City Report Card to describe the state of the environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Greening Greater Toronto was an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance (now CivicAction) founded in 2008 to bring together a coalition of leaders from the public, business, labour and non - profit sectors — including the TRCA —to advance a vision of making the GTA the greenest city region in North America. The joint publication of The Living City Report Card fulfilled both TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto goals to report on environmental and sustainability progress at the regional scale. For TRCA, The Living City Report Card fulfilled an objective to provide a comprehensive snapshot of sustainability progress in its jurisdiction, as staff had been first directed in Resolution #At 17/04 at Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004. For Greening Greater Toronto (it fulfilled an objective to report on progress towards the elements of the vision the coalition had set out for a greener Greater Toronto. This partnership was approved by the Authority at Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, in Resolution #A121/10 as follows: THAT TRCA staff be authorized to partner with Greening Greater Toronto, an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, to produce the first edition of The Living City Report Card in conjunction with the Greening Greater Toronto Score Card; THAT TRCA staff continue to produce brief report cards on the health of individual watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction on a five year cycle following the production of The Living City Report Card subject to data availability, funding and staff resources; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff make provisions in the 2012 -2021 capital budget forecast for producing report cards. • 6 • The final framework of indicators and measures to be used in The Living City Report Card was approved at Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010 in Resolution #A213/10 and the full The Living City Report Card was presented to the board and received at Authority Meeting #2/11, held on February 25, 2011 (Resolution #A20/11). According to this framework, the report card measures, tracks and reports on six key themes: carbon, air quality, waste, land use, water and biodiversity. The inaugural edition of The Living City Report Card was published in February 2011 ( htto: / /www.thelivingcity.org /lcrc4 /) and had a significant impact on the dialog in the Toronto region about sustainability and environmental issues and the need for sustainability action at the regional scale. All 2,000 copies of the print version have been distributed and there have been over 24,000 website visits since it was launched in February 2011. Several media outlets, including the National Post and the Toronto Sun, produced stories about the issues raised in the report card. The Living City Report Card 2016 Update When The Living City Report Card 2011 was produced, TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto agreed that it would be updated on a five -year cycle. TRCA made provisions in its capital budget forecast to this end, and in 2014 staff initiated activity in support of the 2016 Report Card. However, due to capacity and funding constraints, CivicAction, Greening Greater Toronto and Boston Consulting were not able to provide resources and expertise to support the 2016 Report Card, although they continued to support The Living City Report Card and its regular updates in principle. TRCA staff believed it was still important to produce the 2016 update of The Living City Report Card as it remains an important component of TRCA's efforts to lead and facilitate regional discussion and action on sustainability, per the priorities to "Measure Performance" and "Facilitate a Regional Approach to Sustainability" articulated in the 2013 -2022 TRCA strategic plan. The Living City Report Card is a key element of a regional approach to sustainability, providing a venue for routine measurement that helps assess whether the collective actions of governments, business and society in the GTA are leading to desired environmental outcomes, and to generate important conversations about what we can do better. TRCA staff has focused the majority of their efforts for the 2016 Report Card on indicators where data was available from TRCA's regional monitoring programs or other sources; primarily on indicators related to water, land use and biodiversity. Although the resources and expertise from the previous Greening Greater Toronto partnership were not available to report in detail on the other indicators, staff has established partnerships with local environmental leaders and experts, including Clean Air Partnership, The Atmospheric Fund, Smart Prosperity, The Neptis Foundation and Dr. Virginia Maclaren from the University of Toronto, to provide summary updates on progress in those areas. Further, the World Council for City Data, Evergreen and Jeb Brugmann of The Next Practice have contributed longer documentaries about the ongoing importance of a regional approach to sustainability and sustainability reporting in the Toronto region. TRCA has also contracted the Resilience Design Lab from the Ontario College of Art and Design University to distill the complex topics into infographics to increase the readability of the report, facilitate the visualization of complex information and highlight key messages for the public, stakeholders and decision - makers. 697 The Living City Report Card 2016 will be published in February 2017, with the launch scheduled for the TRCA Annual Authority meeting, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017. It will report on the six themes that formed the framework for the inaugural The Living Report Card 2011. The 2016 Report Card will be positioned as a progress report without specific letter grades assigned to each of the indicators because of the aforementioned inability of the original The Living City Report Card partners to provide resources and expertise to conduct detailed analysis for some indicators. As a result, there is variation in the level of detail and quantification across indicators that is not conducive to a consistent grading system. However, staff is confident that the text provides a clear overview of the current state of progress with respect to each indicator along with important and relevant insights into future courses of action. For each indicator, the 2016 report will include an infographic and a narrative about the current state of, and progress related to, the subject issue (see example in Attachment 1). The infographics highlight three key dimensions of the narrative for that indicator: Why is this important ?, What's happening ?, and What can we do? along with graphics to help convey key messages. The text provides a more detailed discussion about current conditions, progress toward short and long -term goals established in the 2011 Report Card, the activities needing to help achieve those goals, examples of key efforts aimed at improving current conditions, and new short-term targets for 2021 (where applicable). As noted above, the 2016 report will also feature three essay -type articles on the importance of regional action on sustainability, standardized measurement and reporting, and benchmarking. The Living City Report Card 2016 will be presented in three formats: 1. Hard -copy report — 8.5 x 11 inch paper report similar to the previous report 2. Website — an interactive, animated website dedicated to the 2016 progress report 3. Digital PDF — available from the website or by email The Living City Report Card 2016 Report Overview Staff is continuing to edit the text and graphics of the report before publication, but the general content, structure and format of the 2016 report is available as an internal draft document at ( https:// www. dropbox. com/ sh/ypibxvOocomkilf/ AABRVlcHlRz- Jv8paOPFGYvGa ?dl =0). Authority Members are requested to download and review the document and provide comments to staff by February 6, 2017. Attachment 2 summarizes the key issues and progress toward targets by indicator. An outline of the report content and key messages is provided below: 1. Introduction • The introduction summarizes the current state of the environment along with a call for collective action by local government, the business community, NGOs and citizens, to renew their collective efforts to improve environmental health and sustainability. • The introduction will be signed by Brian Denney and Maria Augimeri on behalf of TRCA, along with John Allard on behalf of The Living City Foundation. • The introduction includes a message of support from CivicAction. Themes & Indicators a. Carbon • Transportation fuel use and natural gas consumption for heat remain the two largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the GTA. • Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal - generated electricity which has significantly reduced carbon emissions but more must be done locally to curb carbon emissions from transportation and heating. b. Air Quality • At the regional scale air quality has improved over the past few decades, with a dramatic decrease in the number of smog days in the GTA. However, air pollution is still a major public health issue in the region and better local area monitoring is needed to understand how air quality is affecting individual communities and neighbourhoods. c. Waste • Residential waste diversion rates in the GTA have not improved over the past five years and diversion rates for multi -unit residential buildings (MURBs) are poor and need to be improved. d. Water • There has been an increase in the percentage area with stormwater management but increase is due to controls installed in new developments rather than progress on retrofitting existing developed areas. Greater effort in this regard will reduce flood risk as well as improve water quality, stream flow and fish habitat. • Chloride and E. coli continue to be a significant water quality issue in our rivers and streams, and in Lake Ontario. e. Land Use • The rate of land consumption (urban sprawl) has decreased, but we continue to experience a decline in greenspace and agricultural land. • Realizing regional sustainability requires building complete, compact communities with denser development patterns linked by public transportation. This type of community can help foster regional economic growth while improving environmental sustainability and climate change resilience. Biodiversity • Although the quantity of natural cover has remained the same, the quality of our natural cover has declined and we have seen a decrease in aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Looking Forward • Three commentaries on why a regional approach to environmental sustainability is critical to the success of the Toronto region: a. Standardized Data by the World Council on City Data: A narrative on how and why standardized data can help cities and regions move forward on sustainability, including benchmarking performance against peers. b. Think Global, Act Regional by Jeb Brugmann - A commentary on how and why a regional approach to sustainability is necessary to achieve meaningful progress, including how regional sustainability tracking, reporting and benchmarking is critical to success. c. Collective Action in the Greater Golden Horseshoe by Evergreen and The Next Practice - A discussion of how multi - sectoral regional alliances could be formed and operationalized to help accelerate progress on regional sustainability. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to edit and refine the The Living Report Card 2016 content and finalize the graphic design over the next few weeks. The document will be printed and the website will be finalized in time to launch the Report Card at the TRCA Annual Meeting and to present it to the Authority for endorsement. Staff will also develop a communication strategy to guide how the Report Card will be disseminated and promoted following the launch. ••• FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff involvement in the development of the The Living City Report Card 2016 has been funded through TRCA capital accounts 129 -92 and 416 -40, which are dedicated to that purpose. Capital money for these accounts is provided by The City of Toronto and Peel and York regions. Staff activities in 2017 and beyond will be funded through capital account 416 -40, which has been consolidated to support all TRCA environmental and watershed reporting and report card projects. Numerous partners have contributed in -kind support in the development of The Living City Report Card 2016 and will continue to provide in -kind support for communication activities in 2017. Staff will also continue to develop partnerships with other organizations to fund and contribute expertise to future versions of the Report Card. Report prepared by: Ryan Ness, extension 5615 Emails: rness(dtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Angela Wallace, extension 5917 Emails: awallace(a)trca.on.ca Date: January 11, 2017 Attachments: 2 700 L STORMWATER MANAGEMENT We need to do a better job managing stormwater Illll° 1111[. IIIIC ellu!ff (II�L ,s TT \1 %l/ 7 1 rr Progress Report 2016 1 31 Currently, just 35% of the urbanized areas across the jurisdiction are served by effective stormwater controls which help to manage water quality and prevent flooding. Untreated runoff, with its heavy load of dirt, road salt, pesticides, oil and grease and other pollutants, may rush directly into a watercourse, or it may flood through local storm sewers before being discharged into a lake, river or stream. The result is an increased risk of flooding, downstream erosion, water pollution and the destruction of wildlife habitat. Stormwater management controls are being installed in new developments but improvements can be made through the use of low impact development (LID) techniques and innovative retrofits in older communities. By installing LIDs such as permeable pavers in parking lots or directing runoff to grassy swales or soakway pits, runoff slowly seeps into the soil replenishing groundwater, removing pollutants, and reducing the amount of flow reaching the stream. Local and regional municipalities in collaboration with the province must continue to advocate for and develop policy requiring the use of LID. THE CURRENT SITUATION Currently, just 35% of the urbanized areas across TRCA's jurisdiction are served by effective stormwater controls which help to manage water quality and prevent flooding. Increases in stormwater runoff is one the most serious environmental threats in urban areas. Across the region, much of the rain water and melting snow flows off rooftops, parking lots, roadways and other paved or impermeable surfaces of the city and ends up in our streams and rivers. Stormwater runoff — with its heavy load of dirt, road salt, pesticides, oil and grease and other pollutants — may rush directly into a watercourse, or it may flood through local storm sewers before being discharged into a lake, river or stream. And that means much less water seeps into the ground to naturally recharge our streams, wetlands and groundwater resources. The result, especially after a major storm, is an increased risk of flooding, downstream erosion, water pollution and the destruction of wildlife habitat. Despite advances in LID technologies and implementation of stormwater charges in several cities on Ontario, many municipalities face challenges related to maintenance and replacement of stormwater systems. 32 WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Modern stormwater controls and low impact development (LIDS) techniques are used to manage both the quantity and quality of the runoff that eventually reaches local rivers, streams and other waterbodies. These systems can work in several ways: • By installing LIDs such as permeable pavers in parking lots or directing runoff to grassy swales, ditches or soakway pits, runoff slowly seeps into the soil, replenishing groundwater and maintaining the ecosystem's natural balance. • Cisterns and rain barrels can collect that water diverted from storm drains for later reuse on gardens and lawns. • Instead of gushing down a downspout, green roofs retain and reuse much of the water that falls on them. • Runoff can be directed into large holding ponds or tanks, where some of the contaminants are removed or settle out, before the water is released slowly to maintain the flow in our rivers or streams. WHAT WE ARE DOING • TRCA and its municipal partners require that all new developments provide modern stormwater controls. TRCA's recently completed Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide and similar guideline documents encourage effective stormwater management. • Almost all the municipalities across TRCA's jurisdiction have begun stormwater retrofit studies to implement stormwater quality /quantity and erosion controls within urbanized areas that currently do not have such controls in place. • A Toronto bylaw requires homeowners to disconnect their home's downspouts from the city's sewer system, while a second bylaw requires new commercial, institutional and high density residential developments to install green roofs. Progress Report 2016 • The Pioneer Park Stormwater Management Pond in Richmond Hill has been upgraded to replace 30- year -old stormwater infrastructure and meet modern standards of water quality treatment, erosion control and flood control. • TRCA is working with our municipal and community partners on Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plans (SNAPS) to make sustainable environmental improvements at the neighbourhood scale. Rain harvesting, eco- landscaping and green home projects are helping to divert, store and reuse runoff following rainstorms The City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) adopted by Toronto City Council in 2003, is a 25- year -plan to better manage stormwater, improve water quality and protect infrastructure from flooding and erosion. Of the 170 projects identified in the plan, those currently underway include the Don River and Central Waterfront Project and the Earl Bales Park SWM Pond Project. 702 Progress Report 2016 TARGETS 2016 Target: Urban area with stormwater management increases from 23% to 35 %. Achieved? Yes. The amount of urban area with stormwater management has increased over the past 5 -years but this is mainly due to stormwater controls in new developments. Target for 2021: Increase the percentage of the urban area equipped with stormwater controls (for improved water quantity, quality and erosion control) from 35 to 45 %. Long -term target: Greater than 80 per cent of urban areas with stormwater management controls. MEASURE The grade is based on the percentage of developed land across the region that is served by effective, modern stormwater controls to manage both the quality and quantity of runoff discharged into watercourses across the jurisdiction. 33 W H Q 3 Attachment 2 Summary of The Living CIry Report Card Indicators gi Results 703 Z011 Son LTT Indigivi &Measure Short -teem Derget(STT) brig -Seim fargei (m) Cunen[situaUOn What needs to be done Cgmmenis Grade achieved Progress Ontario is the fha unsdition In North Amaddy to eliminate coal generates is Name. T2mponanon me use and Adopt pravin[ial and national policy at the Carbon- Dismam iovme ° Red use emh5bm from 19M "la a Rednee emlssmm bg0% below law. a natural gas consumption by homes and mollovel. Brother, public trznSpnNeod thimmwe mmmenUry by ¢qumalmblcgel. 1¢aei by %bv ]tub. Irve5 by 2050, busnoses for neathromin the two bwurage a hematn'etraniponatbn The Atmospheric Fund . IaWOmu_sd GHGemiseonslu the options "T cis sle[M[ vehi[lex GTA. On the limp ande, ab qus My has Dimx imprmrea. Thenam6er N5mogdowin ty mnn ,m ord tort Impmve air quau Xonn w Oganie un0z1.voWrle or arc cram e po(NOGI OCS1. fo.GrA havedemr,al" minahr, mm sole. Improve ub4[e nn mmm¢ntarvbv apse fY Pa rti[ulate Matter IPM E.Sj, DO varies by [ompoana n/a vanes by wmpoana JI a¢oa¢. eugmrqumiryn m¢ options antl encourage active , sums¢ Clean Aif Pa rtnersM1ip. A.,P Q NAwgen OxNes lNOy in sups. he der, sups. Tnereis ard"flutlon. ti IlmXaside qualty Inform atlon at the msed It,imill Information mid aside. semi- gaantrtarve y me %of re5memlal was @Firm, Impmve re5leentiao-mnmg mmi lady commentary by M. v, y, Reddenxal go OF wane GD ReSNemmh ]5 % diversion no ReSmemml6ln: Approach comp w amerr¢a has remained steady drmand In maiti.anineddmrammwmgi Madmen. Combmm two 3 eiverrien erall. ICI: 50 %diveoion am diversion of a than 80 %. indicators mainly 50%. IClwasnatevdluated IMURRS). Improve [whilerery[Iing. pen, ,manether, disc resmanee war e5a nagemmt -x i % orbanareawile tleorm oetl lan1tl wlY1 In[ urban area with G[ea[er than BO %ofu aeon areas have ON 35% of urban areas ere narked by y y Use of modem economists, smarm, with SWM due to SWM b mncrots Installed [on twlS in TgCA F membranes management yes itormwater management H manage smty center went Impart In new development, lu ditlltllonf tut.. fpm3910 35% and pr flooding center quality and prnen[fboding. q Orvebpment lLlD) design. Development design B'dolither p[agres In Yfban retrof6 Flood risk management requires It terenthmanganaa[amn. TRCA Flmotlead, Number° Rank measures our mndnne5 wartmseaand nak. oneater/eaf flood wa waures& Wth ¢war Nmmoeaummensters. flood auto flood d mmeoo * high chkcwmenrs of a high wncentotio.1 /mod-volnerahe ugh oprdmedal improvements, through midga[ioq response antlrttovery. proves y or ".,agm¢Engosses edootiw.Iem bifn to edict buimfromantl wdTact (s C number R¢d u[tion m lad number of ws flootknalimprovements, rig and upgfddghor T W"firm, dcondrrimn s lu Nanheran where, wnena nomd may omur. Identify fmmfbotlingl In TRG'S ores at rBk wa ming or the mnrtru ttlon of opha Menthol m" firm, snipe, etc larelattmrsln flaotl vulnenhleareas. Implement 3 ju dsdi[rlon projects to reduce llootl raF. sing flooding. Climatndayea medial woNS [m mHyate Bkz. tisln[fea ah¢/regoenryand severity of major nare Reduce pN [a pit. Canadians among the highest Water umpuon by to %from Far less lM1an n5u m ere of water per person In me Implement fullegst prmog Air water. sompolive tea[by5mart tial mrsepob mnsumptlon C wrtmtlevely down to 36] n/a R. LIMI[aoansomptiedmf 30°Ietalchuentlalana non- ]I woad water use Encourage water ronseNation. Pmipenty. No new tla[a didamtlal ILfday /ppj .Lou resitlentialmmbinetlf. pu mvwn higher man shipments, analyxetl. No furthertltterioretion °Ford Wattt quality for TRCA'ejunSaktion Louch, of some pollutants have held Water QUaliry Water quality indeilWQlj based mn0 [ nentwdat almait an forage W ]O for N Macy or deceased, but, chloride levels increasing Grassi E. col leg. Reduce mormwatttflows to watermBns , Reduce the use N and look mf Mi[roplartiaarea new tM1reM. paramtters all miry condttbnz at all monitmin0 marks, ants se n M1lBher, with improvements seen In ombined rower overtlowsj also altematives to road salt. 5ilezlWOl were elf Sam 591. eacM1 watershetl. continues to he an issue. Specle5 richness smreS for TRG's hovers as fish may be replacing more Tom FSh Species richness No full er mss of fish j uadiaion h eye 17M of the expeR sensitive Species. Owelopmentneor Stormwam r controls W preserve or Brook Trout populations (observN as expenedl -fish C machos icy across MCAT vas nativespwies. NatunlresfuRmmtof H beadwM may threaten sensitive insprovewa[ergoalily. PmteR/,t5 m thought to be dA ing a ntl biatliversM1y reFlrcur dombes in lmenclttmn. Atlantic salmon will be As ar[ablems! specks. draterpollutbn(including mldwa[erancens, need funkier invealgatlon. msystem funNOn A, healed, in me omens creek. Humber NF_ wadm watml an issue. No fuller mss of terrestrial Blunts and anima is lmaiaain — i nest Hal died lversily -3 furrentabions el. Complete Terminal plants and animals No sign ificint change in intlifators PraaStrve action massive, WoA with indedgms: forest is wetland remention and weland a Marked motle2te to nth abundance g between ]W9 and 2013, Fat marked partners Weserve Fars. Horame.bi C alma¢[ ies of Pgion al Conservation b dMeren[es in biNNersrty between or II in spread of invasive sp[ties. InNest in ,and Ma m0atlow hires: antlfrop3. I,.,ImAtia madipr]SOha rocse ttlo C....i Con[em urban &mnlame, Theater to servation. are manage non -n native invazWe non alive tllverslty. No-.,. On the area ram the total amount of habitat quantity appears to be stable but the quality of me natural area has Natural mva,� sty Qver( %of forest of Increase cover at been On the local over, Trml Ad, notb In natural areas wNand and forest areas and and 30 %(Re% fores[5, 10% m1.1 jaeadow, aeiol habitat such as wetlands have Fmihabitat Mjwmwmc 30%na uralcoer needed ohjectNe5.... natural eetletl [o (apparent due rothe wle of due In. aerial and Quaom Quality'. rility0c B itlmtifiedin tM1e prge[ed almost meadow,andupfastnwemserll. and [i been bit Even removed, t8 protttt species of mourn. 20,D9a ka /m cove, Quality W COVer /rum habitat TNxss Inlfease quality a /naNfal coverfrom thenegamelmpatti ofaeacent acto.1[ijacent nett robe restoretl aaou TRCA region rn dMGI orationattMnei. Batch an alYS¢ fair mgooe. amdMoody rnext 100 years. ndhunllam[eaze Wood Moody and impair ttosys[em aderviods. ve goal new buldtion aamcarmentsand Maiaain Mefunea ateof major renovationsarewNOn neutral. Adopt policies requiring new buildings to Green OUildings�LEED and /or F M the building grow[ green , The ywabledlementinnguesae PanNpatlon to sec ba,.log orgy naa[pns ®InitiaHVes increasing beld,ng of me naffled tome.[ peen SreIncandesce 2030 SOMA artifetl buildings industry antl. almost zuitainable design mrafegks and T oof exating boil stash is onified,n looked. ngcell, CFalknge mornelntttert wTFlratgnprognmsa3 gm MROnsirmsorf(rom st 205 yam an,pos of taf(ectNe wa tGHGS. large Go ov Isrsummmovernipubli[ ally report energy other spttlflc targets ewahle sources or pardmse &water mnsumptlon. ewabl y. Greaterm.R an q0 AM%iaensih[ation for Inaensifcrtion- IdmdmFRcvdmr intensiflfa[ion ea& opp¢ftief muniriealiNi or as T "so wmpatt, complete"'mantle" Qumti tie wmmenhry by g and. 0036 n/a outlined by the Government of The rate °/ urban SpTwl has tlenosed Improve punts tramponatmn. The Neptk Foundation . mooch m Urban Forest - Leaf Add The urban forest Is a key pan of urban .non, lm'/rsl —mtal upper Develop targets for Leaf Area monstrosities. Seaerwmmicrd IMes Increase diversity to Build resilience . Nees Sneral municipalities have leaf surfare area messed by C Density in who montaidlity as mewhat The average Leaf Pfee Omsiryfir T have adopted urban form roplan far the impacts NtlimaR Strange. usetlaiReremmeMmaS. if we wa n[ bmmpare Onormta, theareainquestion. Note: No new data available for urban forest management lane are developed. TR(A'sluBElttlon is greater than two. managment plans. InsM pests and extreme weatherer nts hove anMN Porest rtudles should be repeated at regomr Intervals. m, tl.... llenion neetletl era NAs. stiutture. (lave..L From 2006 to 2011, the amount of Support regional municipalities In farmland acossthe TIRAV,canductwn updating Mer°Rmal Plans to encourage Agriculture- Thearrountof ducreamtlI, I.8 %. Farm operating unit. ands active policies ro preserve farmland Ruth the TRCA C Nolossaffnduardbetween no Agreaterthan 5%inaeaze in Me area '1' costs continue to rise. Development and supportloal.geaulture. Continue jmagoo oh lCO, antl ]016. Mlana btlng firm N. an attenuation wnenaes Is lM1remm rereamh on Mero've ways to mregofe the amour of apimltural land agricultural actrvRles into the urban vailable. environment TRCA and other public There Is positive Influence of tanners must acquire an amenspace on human and Am ube and protect tlNlonal8reenspa[e G reenspaco -The number of atltlNanal l,goO M1a within lM1e Enhanceihe wrrent ratio of M1a mvirmnmental health, particuletly In Ina Amtegk fashions lest. Terrestrial No new data analysis. bemuse greenspaa per C n emal n/a per l,OW ample, 1 the cunt urban landscapes The Natural Hedtage5ynem comprehenLVe GK lays 1000 peopk. iman people raro o Is A B. per ha per of grk amly TNH 5511 Management ofgreen ipa[e oddery avalla ble. 1.000 people. le. likely tlecreasetl over [he pan5yean. decrquad aacep monst5 ad.. requires footling. 703 RES. #A222/16 - ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD PARTICIPATION Zoning By -law Amendment Application — Z.15.035 Official Plan Amendment Application — OP. 16.005 Site Plan Application - DA. 15.085 Draft Plan of Condominium Application — 19CDM- 16VO01 Lot 10, Concession 7, Lot 8 -12, Reg. Plan 65M -1113 8451 & 8457 Islington Avenue East Side of Islington south of Pine Grove Road City of Vaughan, York Region (Ravines of Islington Encore Inc.). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority participation as a Party at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be affirmed as it relates to the appeal of the Lack of Decision by Vaughan City Council for the Official Plan Amendment, Site Plan, Draft Plan of Condominium and Zoning By -law Amendment for lands on the east side of Islington Avenue, south of Pine Grove Road, municipally known as 8451 and 8457 Islington Avenue, in the City of Vaughan; THAT TRCA staff obtain legal counsel and be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met. CARRIED BACKGROUND The purpose of these applications is to facilitate the development of 37 townhouse units connected by a common element road. Two single family dwellings are currently located on the subject lands. Refer to Attachment 1. TRCA staff believes that TRCA's participation as a party in these proceedings is essential to ensure that matters relating to the public interest including natural heritage and Regulatory matters are appropriately addressed. Description of the Area The subject property is located completely within the valley corridor of the East Humber River in the community of Woodbridge. This portion of the valley corridor has been urbanized and is designated as built -up valley lands by Vaughan's Official Plan (VOP2010). The rear of the property has also been designated as Core Feature under the Natural Heritage Network of VOP2010. A woodlot contiguous with the East Humber River is located at the rear of properties. TRCA conducted a site staking exercise and provided preliminary comments throughout the concept development and application processes. 704 Issue Summary The applicant proposes removal of a woodland contiguous to the valley and a reduced setback of 6m from the staked top of bank, shown in orange on Attachment 1. The proposed townhouse footprint is also shown where it is proposed to intrude into the woodland and buffer from the top of bank. The Living City Policies for TRCA recognize the woodland as part of the Natural System. This is consistent with York Region's Official Plan and the City of Vaughan's Official Plan 2010. The woodland is contiguous with the East Humber River and is located completely within the valley corridor. The policies of the City and TRCA recommend the protection of the woodland and a buffer of 10 metres. This area is represented by the green line on Attachment 1 with a 10 metre buffer added. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff to provide advice to the OMB and undertake to negotiate a resolution consistent with the relevant policies, if possible. Report prepared by: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: jlittle(a)trca.on . ca For Information contact: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: jlittle(a�trca.on.ca Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 1 705 Attachment 1 Proposed Development Plan 706 �' d m Boa m° ad v�� Aga ° 706 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. #A223 /16 Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.3 — OMB Participation Draft of Subdivision & Zoning By -Law Amendment, as it pertains to ongoing legal matters. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES. #A224 /16 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES. #A225 /16 - OMB PARTICIPATION DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION & ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT 230 Grand Trunk Avenue Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road City of Vaughan, York Region, Owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority participation as a Party at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be affirmed as it relates to the appeal of the Lack of Decision by Vaughan City Council for the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By -law Amendment for lands on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, in the City of Vaughan; THAT TRCA staff obtain legal counsel and be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands); AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met. Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea 707 RECORDED VOTE Cont'd Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Michael Ford Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Jim Karygiannis Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Ron Moeser Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Gino Rosati Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MAIN MOTION WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND This site has been discussed by the Executive Committee and Authority previously as it relates to an appeal of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (September 2013, July 3, 2015, July 24, 2015, and May 27, 2016) and a request from neighbouring residents for TRCA to encourage the City of Vaughan to purchase the site (October 14, 2016) which the Authority supported. The City has since responded acknowledging the sensitivity of the site and suggesting that TRCA purchase the property. TRCA maintains an interest in this matter because the property is: Regulated under Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, located on the Oak Ridges Moraine and designated in accordance with the OMB approved policies TRCA was key in determining. TRCA staff believes that TRCA's participation as a party in these proceedings is essential to ensure that matters relating to the public interest including natural heritage and Regulatory matters are appropriately addressed, as outlined in the OMB approved Official Plan Amendment that TRCA staff was instrumental in negotiating with the Appellant. Site Context The subject parcel is 4.5 ha (11.1 ac) in total area and is located on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road (Attachment 1). The property is located within Planning Block 18, which has a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) approved in 2003. The Block Plan envisioned that Grand Trunk Avenue would run north to south through the site and provide a connection to Rutherford Road. Throughout the planning and development process: Block 18 MESP, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) #600 and VOP 2010, this site is protected with environmental and open space designations and policies which recognize the existing, previous and potential natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions on the site. 1: OMB Approved OPA Requirements The approved Official Plan policies are consistent with all the other policy and Block plan recognitions. As studies were not complete at the time of the first Board Hearing, the OMB approved policies for this site that outline study requirements consistent with the requirements of VOP 2010 and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). They require consideration of the features and functions of the property from a regional and site specific perspective. The general section of the policies outline what must be considered for the entire site, whereas each land use designation section outlines what may happen on the site subject to accommodation of site specific and regional considerations. The designations are shown on Attachment 1. The proposed development is included as Attachment 2. The appellant proposes to fill the existing valley landform to accommodate 42 townhouses on the central portion of the property, and on the portion west of Grand Trunk develop 32 single detached units. A connecting corridor is proposed to be created through the rear yards of the detached homes by creating conservation easements across each rear yard. Attachment 3 includes the preliminary issues list to be presented to the OMB. The studies and information submitted to date fail to provide the answers to these questions which will form the basis for TRCA's presentation to the OMB. Note that this is a preliminary list which may be subject to change. TRCA's role in the hearing is as an advisory body based on the Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of York for natural heritage and hazards. TRCA also has its regulatory mandate under the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) which governs issues relating to hazard lands, water management and the related liability. Regardless of the land use approvals granted under the Planning Act, the appellant would need to satisfy the tests established under O.Reg. 166/06, as amended, for site grading and /or development and alteration to a valley /wetland /watercourse on the property. All development approvals need to be consistent with the tests of the CA Act to enable the issuance of future permits. Report prepared by: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: ilittleCa�trca.on.ca For Information contact: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: jlittle(&- trca.on.ca Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 3 709 Attachment 1 Location &v R2o,00smnat. \ \ � \ \ CO « / .! .§� \| � \R§ \ \) 710 Attachment 2 Proposed Development ri `j Subject lands Orthophi,to Google €arth, Dufferin Vistas Ltd. 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan Figure 8 Draft Plan Draft Plan of Proposed Subdivision: Lucas & Associaies, July 15, 2016 File: Ora ft Plan of Subdivision Ph 1 Ph2 July 15 2016.dwg N 0 so "" A I`` sAVAN -lA 711 Attachment 3 Preliminary Issues List Does the proposed development appropriately reflect the policies and tests within: the Region of York Official Plan, The Living City Policies of TRCA, the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Vaughan Official Plan 2010 as amended? Does the proposed development reflect the information and intent of the Block Plan /MESP for Block 18? 3. Does the proposed development meet the tests of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended? 4. Was a detailed slope stability analyses conducted to determine the erosion hazards by delineating the position of the Long -Term Stable Top of Slope for studied area? 5. Are the proposed extensive slope alterations necessary and do they respect the relevant policies? 6. Does the proposed alignment of Grand Trunk protect the hydrological and ecological features and functions on and adjacent to the site? 7. Has sufficient background information been provided to determine the appropriate design and location of Grand Trunk? Does the proposed development protect the hydrological and ecological features and functions on and adjacent to the site? Does the proposed development provide the appropriate connectivity for the natural system within this portion of the Don River watershed? 10. Is the proposed stormwater management strategy consistent with the requirements of TRCA's Stormwater Management Criteria, dated August 2012? 712 RESMA226 /16 - ASBESTOS POLICY Approval of the revised Asbestos Policy for the management of asbestos at facilities that are owned or occupied by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) revised Asbestos Policy attached as Attachment 1, be approved; THAT those described in the revised Asbestos Policy be notified as may be required; AND FURTHER THAT the Asbestos Policy be reviewed by staff on a regular basis to ensure that it is in compliance with Ontario Regulation 278/05 and be updated as required. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Meeting #07/09, held on September 11, 2009, Resolution #8119/09 was approved as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Asbestos Policy for managing asbestos within TRCA buildings and facilities as outlined in the staff report be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the Asbestos Management Plan (AMP) be reviewed by staff on a regular basis to ensure that it is in compliance with Ontario Regulation 278105 and be updated as required. RATIONALE The purpose of an asbestos policy is to control any activities that may disturb known or presumed asbestos containing materials, in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05 (Regulation), in order to provide a healthy and safe environment. As directed by Resolution #6119/09, staff undertook a review of the existing Asbestos Policy, approved in 2009, to ensure compliance with the Regulation. The evaluation of the existing Asbestos Policy identified several opportunities to revise the policy, in order to support implementation at facilities owned or occupied by TRCA and to comply with the Regulation. In some cases, the revisions include formalizing within the policy, current staff practices. Revisions to the Asbestos Policy include: • State the characteristics of an asbestos containing material (ACM) and presumed asbestos containing material as defined by the Regulation. • Extend the purpose of the policy, and all associated policy statements, to include presumed asbestos containing materials as well as ACM. • Provide definitions of key terms noted in the Regulation. 713 • Include the term "verify' in policy statements related to staff and contractor training; qualifications of those completing asbestos repair or abatements; and that repairs or abatements follow the requirements of the Regulation. • Provision for appropriately trained staff to perform minor asbestos abatements (Type 1) as defined under the Regulation. • Provision made to require that staff retain qualified asbestos consultants and abatement contractors, as defined under the Regulation. • Defines the scope of the policy and how it will be communicated to staff, visitors, contractors and leasehold tenants. ' • In general, to support a better understanding of the requirements of the policy and Regulation, further detail has been provided in the revised policy statements. A copy of the revised policy is outlined in Attachment 1. FINANCIAL DETAILS There is no additional financial burden with the revised Asbestos Policy. Management of asbestos containing materials is included within various operating and capital programs delivered by TRCA, including: • Existing Operating Budget: to complete annual building inspections of ACM and presumed ACM within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, maintain ACM records and respond to emergency and maintenance requests. • Special Project Capital Funding: continue the current practice to identify requirement for asbestos surveys and abatement works as part of developing capital funding budgets. • Individual Departments Budgets: will fund staff asbestos awareness training requirements. Human Resources department budget will fund any staff medical surveillance assessments that may be required. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will undertake the following actions: • An Asbestos Management Plan, containing procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Asbestos Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. • A copy of the TRCA Asbestos Policy will be posted onto the TRCA website. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: eclriesbach(a.trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fanning, extension 5223 Emails: mfennina(a)trca.on.ca Date: January 6, 2017 Attachments: 1 714 Attachment 1 Asbestos Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.............................................................................................................................. ..............................1 i1111111111111010*611 � ...... 2 2. AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................. ..............................2 3. SCOPE ........................................................................................................................... ..............................2 4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS ................................................................. ..............................3 4.1. Asbestos Management Plan ... - ...... - ...... - ...... - ...................................................... ..............................3 4.2. Record Keeping ......................................................................................................... ..............................3 4.3. Renovation, Repair or Demolition Works in Facilities Owned or Occupied by TRCA .......... 3 4.4. Operations for Asbestos Repair or Abatement ................................................. ..............................3 4.5. Training and Notification ......................................................................................... ..............................3 4.6. Organizational Responsibilities ............................................................................ ..............................4 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................. ..............................4 6. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................ ..............................4 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. ..............................5 PREFACE Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral previously used in the construction industry and is still used in some limited applications to this day. Its high tensile strength, flexibility, ability to withstand high temperatures and its resistance to many corrosive chemicals has made asbestos useful in hundreds of applications. Two categories of asbestos were used in building construction, non - friable asbestos containing materials and friable asbestos containing materials. Common applications of friable asbestos include sprayed on fireproofing, pipe and boiler insulation and loose fill insulation. Non - friable applications include asbestos cement products (commonly referred to by its commercial name "transite ") and vinyl floor tiles. In Ontario, the use of asbestos in building materials began in and around the 1930s. Asbestos increased in use until the early 1970s, when health concerns became more prominent. In 1985, friable asbestos containing building materials were banned. Non - friable asbestos containing building material products can still be used legally. The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) contains a general duty clause to mandate an employer to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of workers. To address the protection of a worker from asbestos, the Government of Ontario approved Regulation 278/05 (`Regulation "). This Regulation came into force in 2005 and is administered by the Ministry of Labour. Toronto and Region ; onservation for The Living City 715 The Regulation applies to any facility where it is known or reasonable to anticipate that asbestos containing materials will be encountered during repair, alteration or maintenance of a building. The characteristics of facilities owned or occupied by TRCA make it reasonable to anticipate that, asbestos containing materials may be present. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulation apply to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( "TRCA "). Under the Regulation, TRCA is required to develop an Asbestos Policy and a management tool known as an Asbestos Management Plan to assist in the control of any activities that may disturb known or presumed ACM at facilities that are owned or occupied by TRCA. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to control any activities that may disturb known or presumed asbestos containing materials that may be present within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, in accordance with the Regulation. This Policy outlines methods to comply with the Regulation and prevent exposure to harmful levels of asbestos fibres associated with the uncontrolled or unintentional disturbance of asbestos containing materials, in order to provide a healthy and safe environment in facilities owned or occupied by TRCA. 2. AUTHORITY The Policy is being provided on the basis of the requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05. On the advice of staff, the Authority may accept, revise, or rescind the Policy. 3. SCOPE This Policy applies to all facilities owned or occupied by TRCA where it is reasonable to anticipate the presence of asbestos containing materials. The Policy specifically provides direction to all staff, consultants and contractors responsible for requesting, authorizing and overseeing renovation, repair and demolition works in facilities owned or occupied by TRCA. However, the Policy applies to all staff, visitors, consultants, contractors and leasehold tenants. The Policy will be communicated to staff through the corporate health and safety training program. Staff training will include applied awareness training (i.e. for maintenance staff and building managers), and less intensive training for those with job descriptions that would make them unlikely to come into contact with asbestos containing materials. The Policy will be communicated to consultants, contractors and leasehold tenants through their respective agreements with TRCA. The Policy will be made available to the public on the TRCA website. Further information pertaining to training and communication of the Policy is presented in the TRCA Asbestos Management Plan. Asbestos Policy Page 2 716 4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS 4.1. Asbestos Management Plan Develop, implement and maintain procedures and guidelines that are consistent with the Regulation (defined under the Regulation as an Asbestos Management Plan "AMP "), to control any activities that may disturb asbestos containing materials (ACM) or presumed asbestos containing materials within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA. 4.2. Record Keeping Generate and maintain an inventory of all asbestos containing materials and presumed asbestos containing materials within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, and conduct annual inspections consistent with the Regulation. 4.3. Renovation, Repair or Demolition Works in Facilities Owned or Occupied by TRCA Prior to beginning any construction or maintenance works in a facility owned or occupied by TRCA, where it is known or reasonable to anticipate that ACM may be present, retain a Qualified Environmental Consultant to complete a building survey consistent with the Regulation to identify suspect asbestos containing building materials. When required, repair or abate ACM that may be disturbed during any works prior to start. 4.4. Operations for Asbestos Repair or Abatement Verify that all ACM abatements within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA are consistent with the Regulation. Verify that Type 1 operations as defined by the Regulation are only completed by TRCA staff and contractors that have received applied asbestos awareness training and have received approval from the property and human resources departments. Prevent staff from performing a Type 2 or Type 3 operation as defined by the Regulation. Type 2 or Type 3 operations shall be completed by a Qualified Asbestos Abatement Contractor engaged by TRCA. 4.5. Training and Notification Ensure that training and notification of the Policy is consistent with the Regulation Verify that staff has received asbestos awareness training to a degree that is acceptable to their job description. Verify that consultants and contractors, retained to complete works within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, have received asbestos awareness training. All employees and contractors, who during their normal duties may be exposed, or accidentally disturb asbestos containing materials, are to be properly informed of the Policy. Asbestos Policy Page 3 717 Establish and maintain emergency response and notification procedures in the event of fibre release form an asbestos containing material or presumed asbestos containing material, as well as, the unanticipated encounter of an asbestos containing material or presumed asbestos containing material. 4.6. Organizational Responsibilities Identify and maintain individual staff and departmental responsibilities to implement the Policy and associated procedures. 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE An Asbestos Management Plan, containing procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Asbestos Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. 6. DEFINITIONS Asbestos Containing Material — Regulation defines as a material that contains 0.5% by weight of asbestos, as determined through laboratory analysis. Friable Asbestos Containing Material - Materials that when dry can be crumbled, pulverized or powdered by a hand pressure, or is crumbled, pulverized or powdered. Non - Friable Asbestos Containing Material — Hard materials that do not crumble under hard pressure. Occupied— Defined by the Regulation to be (a) a person who is in physical possession of premises or (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises, despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (`occupier") Presumed Asbestos Containing Material — Any material, where based on the characteristics of the item, it is reasonable to assume that asbestos may be present; however, this has not been confirmed or refuted through laboratory analysis. Qualified Environmental Consultant — A consultant that meets the following criteria: (a) is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to perform asbestos related work, such as building surveys, abatement procedures and inspections; (b) is familiar with the Regulation and with the provisions of the Regulation that apply to the work; and (c) has knowledge of all potential or actual danger to health or safety in the work. Qualified Asbestos Abatement Contractor - A contractor that meets the following criteria: (a) is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to perform asbestos repairs and abatement related works; (b) is familiar with the Regulation and with the provision of the Regulation that apply to the work; and (c) has knowledge of all potential or actual danger to health or safety in the work Asbestos Policy Page 4 718 7. REFERENCES "Ontario Regulation 278/05: Designated Substances- Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations, under Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1" found online November 15, 2016 at: http: / /www.ontario.ca /laws /regulation /050278 "Asbestos What Is ...... found online November 15, 2016 at: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety hftp: / /www.ccohs.ca /oshanswers /chemicals /asbestos /whatis.html Asbestos Policy Page 5 719 RES. #A227/16 - PRIVATE LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTION FOR EROSION CONTROL WORKS Policy Update. Proposed policy revision regarding cost - sharing agreements for benefiting landowners. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, under Resolution #A71/16 to report back at a future Authority meeting with proposed revisions to TRCA's Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the proposed revisions to the policy described herein be approved and effective immediately. CARRIED BACKGROUND The prevention, elimination or reduction of risk to life and property from flooding and erosion is one of the core mandates of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. TRCA's Erosion Management Program seeks to fulfill this mandate through the ongoing identification and remediation of erosion hazards, carried out on a priority basis and subject to available funding. The Conservation Authorities Act gives conservation authorities the power to establish and undertake programs that help achieve its objectives, from developing watershed plans, to policies that guide the review of development applications, to various programs ranging from education and stewardship to the implementation of restoration activities. With respect to erosion control and remediation, TRCA has a long- standing management program to monitor erosion and instability -prone areas, and to implement stabilization works on a priority basis to the limit of available funding each year. This program is funded annually by TRCA's partners at the City of Toronto, and Peel, York and Durham regions, and on a project -by- project basis by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The majority of funding is applied toward the maintenance of existing erosion control structures along TRCA's rivers and valleys that protect public greenspace, park amenities and municipal infrastructure; however this program is extended to the protection of private property where homes and other essential structures have been confirmed as at -risk by erosion or instability as funding and priorities permit. Although TRCA is not compelled legally to assist private landowners with erosion control works, TRCA offers this assistance recognizing that staff has considerable experience in erosion hazard management, and the ability to support TRCA's municipal partners by mitigating past development decisions with cost - effective solutions that also foster resilient watersheds and contribute to the expansion of safe and enjoyable public greenspace. Where staff has recommended that erosion control works be carried out to benefit private property, the benefiting landowners are subject to the execution of a binding erosion control agreement which requires the benefiting landowner(s) to contribute to the cost of the project in accordance with current TRCA policy, which originates from a staff report brought forward to TRCA's former Flood Control and Water Control Advisory Board in 1981. 720 On September 11, 1981, staff brought a report forward to Meeting #3/81 with operational criteria for determining the benefiting owner(s) contribution under the Erosion and Sediment Control Programme for approval. At the time, clause c) recommended that where title was required but the lands could not be transferred to TRCA as the owner contribution, that the benefiting owner(s) be assessed at 45% of the cost of the works, representing the municipal share of the total cost. This operational criteria was adopted as policy by the Authority by Resolution #71/81 on October 9. 1981. At Authority Meeting #4/98 as part of the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 -2001, it was approved that the policy regarding the contribution by private property owners remain unchanged (Resolution #A91/98). At Authority Meeting #7/09, held on September 25, 2009 the policy now referred to as the Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program Policy was revised under Resolution #A159/09 to delete clause c) and substitute it with the following: (c) Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed at 100% of the cost of the works. When the policy was first introduced in 1981, erosion control projects were generally funded 45% by the municipality and 55% by the Province of Ontario. In the mid- 1990s, however, the majority of provincial funding was downloaded to municipalities. From that time through the 2000's, the backlog of erosion works continued to grow with limited provincial funds and relatively stagnant municipal funding, therefore during the 2009 update of the policy, clause c) was revised to charge the benefiting owner(s) 100% of the cost of the work to reflect the municipal share, where title to the lands could not be achieved or not desirable. On July 8, 2013 the Toronto area endured an intense thunderstorm, with nearly 400 private properties damaged by erosion and /or slope instability and more than $40 million in estimated damages to private and TRCA property. While TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years under various program names and special projects, the July 8`" event created TRCA's largest backlog of erosion hazards waiting for assistance in its history, overnight. RATIONALE With special funding for Critical Erosion and Flood Works (CEFW) projects from the City of Toronto following the July 81' event, TRCA has been able to expedite dozens of repairs, and in doing so has executed a record number of erosion control agreements with private landowners. In executing these agreements, a number of issues have been raised by staff involved in the negotiation process, leading staff to recommend that the existing contribution policy be reviewed, which is in keeping with Resolution #A71/16 from Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, which read, in part, as follows: ...THAT staff be directed to report back at a future Authority Meeting with proposed revisions to TRCA's Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy;... Following extensive in -house consultation with staff from the Erosion Management Program and Property and Risk Management, several changes to the existing policy are recommended, as detailed in Attachment 1 which compares the clauses and language of the existing policy to the proposed. In general, however, the proposed changes include: 721 1. Updating the name of the policy to Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Works; 2. Adding a clause to explain the priority basis for erosion control works; 3. Adding a clause to emphasize TRCA's preference for natural, cost - effective and low maintenance solutions; 4. Adding a clause excluding properties with outstanding TRCA or other regulatory violations from assistance until the violations are resolved; 5. Revising the land conveyance clause to emphasize the preferred method of contribution of the majority of cases; 6. Clarifying the original clause c) to indicate that 100% of the costs are to be borne by the benefiting owner(s) when a conveyance, easement or restrictive covenant, along with a cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale cannot be achieved; 7. Adding a clause to note that where the benefiting owner(s) pay 100% of the costs, they will be responsible for all future monitoring and maintenance of the works; 8. Adding a clause that TRCA may apply additional conditions to the contribution requirement depending on the cause(s) of the hazard and the type and extent of works required; 9. Adding a reimbursement clause at TRCA's sole option, where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with erosion control works but is unable or unwilling to implement the work with its own forces due to a shortage of resources or other concerns; 10. Adding a clause with the conditions of reimbursement and how the maximum reimbursement amount is to be calculated; 11. Adding a clause to note that a restrictive covenant will be required in addition to conveyance and easement requirements, in some cases to protect the structural integrity of the work; 12. Adding a clause to require the benefiting landowner to provide a Letter of Credit or other promissory note where a cash contribution is required, prior to the commencement of the works; 13. Add a clause providing notice to the benefiting owner(s) that a breach of payment will result in collection efforts up to and including legal action being taken; 14. Revising the contribution for residential properties to 20% of the total cost for works up to $100,000, 25% for works $100,000 - $200,000, and 30% for works $200,000 and over to accelerate the number of repairs that can be completed with available funding, and to encourage more natural, cost - effective solutions during negotiations with benefiting owners; and 15. Revising the contribution for commercial properties to 25% of the total cost for works up to $100,000, 30% for works $100,000 - $200,000, and 35% for works $200,000 and over to accelerate the number of repairs that can be completed with available funding, and to encourage more natural, cost - effective solutions during negotiations with benefiting owners. FINANCIAL DETAILS Costs for staff time associated with this policy revision, estimated at approximately $2,000, are funded through the 2017 Critical Erosion and Flood Works budget from the City of Toronto within account 133 -01. As a result of these revisions, a positive impact is expected on the number of projects that can be completed in the 2017 -2026 forecast through the increase of the contribution amount from the benefiting landowners toward the total costs of the works. 722 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon approval of the proposed revisions to the policy, staff will provide written notice to all landowners who have requested assistance with erosion control works to protect their property, as part of a larger communication strategy that will include notifying TRCA's municipal funding partners, local councillors and other stakeholders who may have an interest in the policy. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell(cDtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416 - 392 -9725 Emails: mmcdonnell(cDtrca.on.ca Date: January 13, 2017 Attachments: 2 723 Attachment 1 Table 1. Current and Proposed Changes to the Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Works Policy. Clause Current Language Description of Proposed Changes Proposed Language None •Add new clause to provide a general description of TRCA has a long- standing Erosion Management Program TRCA's Erosion Management Program for information (EMP) that aims to eliminate or reduce erosion and slope new a) purposes instability hazards throughout TRCA's jurisdiction, on a priority basis and subject to available funding None •Add new clause to emphasize TRCA's preference for TRCA endeavors to implement solutions that mimic natural new b) natural cost- effective, low maintenance solutions solutions that are cost- effective and low maintenance to the fullest extent possible None •Add new clause c) to state voluntary, conditional and TRCA's EMP is a voluntary program. TRCA is under no new c) limited nature of the assistance offered to private obligation to carry out erosion control works to protect landowners private property, and offers this assistance on a limited and conditional basis None •Add new clause that property owners with TRCA or Properties with known violations issued by TRCA or any of new d) any other regulatory violations will not be eligible for its regulatory partner agencies will not be eligible for assistance assistance with erosion control works until the violation is resolved Where the property involved would meet other TRCA •Revise wording to emphasize that land transfer is the The lands where the works are located are to be transferred objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to preferred contribution method in the majority of cases to TRCA as the benefiting landowner's contribution to the b) / new e) TRCA as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash •Clarify objectives of land transfer project; to permit TRCA to monitor and maintain the contribution completed works; to foster resilient ravine systems; and to expand public greenspace TRCA will require a minimum of a permanent None TRCA will require a minimum of a permanent easement easement over the work area and access routes over the work area and access routes where TRCA does a) / new f) where title is not required. A cash contribution in not require title to the lands. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be accordance with the approved scale will also be required required Where agreement to policy b) cannot be achieved, *Update that this clause applies only when e) or f) Where agreement to clause e) or f) and n) if applicable c) / new g) the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 100% of the cannot be achieved cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be cost of the works re onsible for 100% of the cost of the works None *Add a clause to apply additional conditions to the TRCA may add additional conditions to the contribution contribution requirement depending on the cause(s) of requirement depending on the cause(s) of the hazard and h) the hazard and type and extent of works required to type and extent of works required to mitigate the hazard(s) mitigate the hazard(s) None •Add clause that where clause g) applies, the owners Where benefiting owners are responsible for 100% of the will be responsible for future monitoring and cost of the works, the benefiting landowner(s) assumes all maintenance responsibility for future monitoring and maintenance of such works 724 Clause Current Language Description of Proposed Change(s) Proposed Language None •Add clause with terms and conditions of a Where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with reimbursement option for owners approved for erosion control works but is unable or unwilling to implement assistance the work with its own forces, the option to reimburse landowners will be made available at TRCA's sole option, j) subject to confirmation that all permits and approvals have been obtained and the execution of a binding indemnification; None •Add clause to state how reimbursement amount will Where clause i) has been activated, the eligible be calculated reimbusement amount is to be determined based on staff's k) estimate of the cost to construct the work with its own forces, minus the property owner's financial contribution in accordance with the approved scale if no land is conveyed Where works are carried out on TRCA -owned lands None Where works are carried out on TRCA -owned lands for the d) / new 1) for the protection of private property, the cash protection of private property, the cash contribution will be contribution will be waived waived In all cases, the TRCA will require some form of None In all cases, TRCA will require some form of binding e) / new m) binding indemnification agreement signed by the indemnification agreement signed by the benefiting benefiting landowner(s) which may be registered on landowner(s) which may be registered on title title n/a *Add clause regarding the potential requirement for a In addition to conveyance or an easement, TRCA may n restrictive covenant on title to protect the structural require some form of restrictive covenant registered on title integrity of the works to protect the structural integrity of the works n/a *Add clause requiring the benefiting landowner(s) to Where a cash contribution is required, the benefiting Q) provide a guarantee of payment, where a cash landowner(s) are required to agree to provide a Letter of contribution is required Credit or other promissory note to TRCA's satisfaction prior to the commencement of work n/a •Add clause advising that where a benefiting If the benefiting landowners) fail to make payment in P) landowner is in breach of payment, legal action will be accordance with the agreed payment terms, collection taken efforts up to and including legal action will be taken The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to None The benefiting owners) may make representation to the the Authority, Executive Committee, or any advisory Authority, Executive Committee, or any advisory board with f) / new q) board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in programs in accordance with procedures adopted by accordance with procedures adopted by Authority Authority Resolution #18180 Resolution #18/80 Where required, the cash contribution from the None Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting g) new r) benefiting landowners) will be based on the following landowner(s) will be based on the following schedules: schedules: 725 Attachment Schedule A. Owner Contribution Schedule - Residential Properties Value of Works Current Owner Contribution Formula Current Maximum Contribution Proposed Owner Contribution Proposed Maximum Contribution $0-$15,000 $1500 + 10% of [Cost - $01 $3,000.00 20% of the total cost $3,000.00 $15,000 - $30,000 $3500 + 10% of [Cost - $15,0001 $5,000.00 20% of the total cost $6,000.00 $30,000 - $50,000 $4500 + 10% of [Cost - $30,000] $6,500.00 20% of the total cost $10,000.00 $50,000- $75,000 $6500 + 10% of [Cost - $50,0001 $9,000.00 20% of the total cost $15,000.00 $75,000 - $100,000 $9000 + 10% of [Cost - $75,0001 $11,500.00 20% of the total cost $20,000.00 $100,00 - $200,000 $11500 + 10% of [Cost - $100,0001 $21,500.00 25% of the total cost $50,000.00 $200,000+ $11500 + 10% of [Cost - $100,0001 JTBC 30% of the total cost JTBD Schedule B. Owner Contribution Schedule - Commercial Properties Value of Works Current Owner Contribution Formula L;urrent Maximum Contribution Proposed Owner Contribution Proposea Maximum Contribution $0-$15,000 $2,200 + 15% of (Cost — $0) $4,450.00 25% of the total cost $3,750.00 $15,000 - $30,000 $4,400 + 15% of (Cost — $15,000) $6,650.00 25% of the total cost $7,500.00 $30,000 - $50,000 $6,600 + 15% of (Cost — $30,000) $9,600.00 25% of the total cost $12,500.00 $50,000- $75,000 $9,600 + 15% of (Cost— $50,000) $12,100.00 25% of the total cost $18,750.00 $75,000 - $100,000 $13,350 + 15% of (Cost — $75,000) $17,100.00 25% of the total cost $25,000.00 $100,00 - $200,000 $11,500 + 15% of (cost — $100,000) $26,500.00 30% of the total cost $60,000.00 200,000+ 11500 + 15% of [Cost- $1UU,UUUj TBD 35% of the total cost TBD 726 RES. #A228/16 - INDIAN LINE CAMPGROUND PROJECT Hydro Service Upgrades. Award of Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton, be awarded to Tiltran Power Services Corporation at a total cost not to exceed $382,560.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Indian Line Campground (ILC) is located at 7625 Finch Avenue West in Brampton and contains 247 campsites which generate approximately $943,000 in annual revenue. The existing electrical infrastructure at ILC was originally installed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Since this time, ILC has seen considerable growth in the facilities, attendance, and the size and type of recreational vehicle (RV) equipment being used. Over the past five years, ILC continuously dealt with ongoing power failures and expensive repairs as a result of this increased demand and aging infrastructure. The original hydro system was installed using parts that are no longer available, making repairs and spare parts increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. These power failures created both a loss of revenue to the campground, and significant public safety concerns given that Claireville Dam, located adjacent to the facility, also sources its power from the ILC hydro infrastructure. In order to ensure the safety of ILC staff, facility users and the continued capacity to operate the Claireville Dam without interruption, an assessment of the current system was required. In 2016, TRCA staff retained Kayski Engineering to provide professional electrical engineering services to assess and make recommendations for upgrades to ILC's entire electrical infrastructure, including upgrading electrical services to campsites to accommodate users requiring higher capacity and upgrading the power supply to Claireville Dam. The engineer focused their assessment on maintaining a high level of safety for staff and the general public through recommendations that incorporate recent electrical code changes and the future growth and needs of the entire facility. Results from the assessment determined that key infrastructure required immediate attention. This included relocating the main hydro switch, adding a series of isolation switches, replacing transformers and redesigning the existing hydro service room. The new infrastructure and upgrades will alleviate both safety concerns and the growing need to 727 deliver a higher capacity of hydro services required to operate a competitive tourist destination in the GTA. RATIONALE Contract #10002835 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http: / /www.biddingo.com /) on October 25, 2016 with a mandatory site information meeting held on November 1, 2016. Tender packages were sent to eight contractors as follows: • Ainsworth; • Avertex Utility Solutions; • Beacon Utility; • Dilisado Enterprises; • KPC Power; • Platinum Electrical Contractors; • Sturdy Power Lines; and • Tiltran Power Services Corporation. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on November 17, 2016 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT (EXCL. HST) Tiltran Power Services Corporation $382,560.00 Dilisado Enterprises $383,500.00 Sturdy Power Lines $385,879.28 Beacon Utility Contractors $398,978.27 Staff reviewed the bid received from Tiltran Power Services Corporation against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Tiltran Power Services Corporation's experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Tiltran Power Services Corporation is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the evaluation of the bids received, staff recommends that Tiltran Power Services Corporation be awarded Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton for a total amount not to exceed $382,560.00, plus a contingency amount of 15% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS This project is funded jointly through the Peel Capital Levy and the Flood Infrastructure Capital Account also funded by Peel Region. The funds can be found in accounts: 420 -59, 424 -01 and 107 -03. Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, extension 5905 Emails: mauv(cDtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Aaron J. D'Souza, extension 5775 Emails: aidsouza(a)_trca.on.ca Date: January 5, 2017 728 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL INVESTIGATION Review of Release of Confidential Authority Minutes #7/15, July 24, 2015. Report on Chief Executive Officer's review of release of confidential board documents and recommendations for processing similar material in future. Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the proposed process for distribution of confidential board material to Authority Members outlined in the staff report be approved. NOT CARRIED AMENDMENT RES. #A229/16 Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT the main motion be amended to read: THAT the proposed process for distribution of confidential board material to Authority Members outlined in the staff report, with the amendment that courier be replaced with email distribution and any required changes to procedures to bring this to effect, be approved. CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT the proposed process for distribution of confidential board material to Authority Members outlined in the staff report, with the amendment that courier be replaced with email distribution and any required changes to procedures to bring this to effect, be approved. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, Resolution #A214/16 was approved as follows: WHEREAS, Global News published confidential closed session documents of the TRCA and of the City of Vaughan in the following article: http://globalnews. ca /news /3117212 /how -de velopers- are - truing -to- build -on- ontarios -prote cted - greenbelt- landl; AND WHEREAS Authority Members and staff of TRCA have a fiduciary responsibility to TRCA to maintain confidentiality; AND WHEREAS the release of confidential documents above could have significant consequences for TRCA and any other parties; AND WHEREAS such a breach of confidentiality and responsibility must not happen; 729 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Chief Executive Officer, TRCA be directed to undertake an investigation into whom and how such confidential documents were given to the media in this specific circumstance and report back at the next Authority meeting as to the findings as well as any recommended actions on the breach, and measures to mitigate such further breaches of confidentiality in the future; THAT staff look into the practice of no longer emailing confidential items to Authority Members and placing the name of Authority Members on confidential documents; THAT staff consult with municipal clerks for practices for handling of confidential documents. Staff was directed to conduct an investigation into the release of confidential Authority Minutes #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, pertaining to Dufferin Vistas Ltd., which included confidential minutes of settlement between The City of Vaughan and Dufferin Vistas Ltd. which were provided to TRCA by Michael Di Biase at Executive Committee Meeting #7/15, held on July 3, 2015. Copies of the material was provided to Executive Committee Members and TRCA staff at the meeting, and was not collected back after the meeting. TRCA has reviewed files and have not found this material having been received in any other manner. Following the release of the December 14, 2016 Global News online story Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff conducted a review of handling of the confidential minutes from Authority Meeting #7/15 with the following results: The Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat (herein Senior Manager) prepared confidential Authority Minutes #7/15 and provided a hard copy to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for approval. The hard copy was on the desks of the CEO, Senior Manager and Executive Assistant, Chair and CEO's Office (herein EA) desks for a short period of time. When the file was created it is temporarily stored on a network drive that can be accessed by: • Senior Manager; • EA; • IT administrators. • The approved electronic minutes were stored in TRCA's electronic records and document management system (Laserfiche) on September 30, 2015 by the EA and were subsequently removed from the network drive. Staff with access to the Laserfiche folder where the records are stored is as follows: • CEO; • Directors; • Senior Manager; • EA; • database administrator gains access if required. However, review of the audit log shows that the only staff to access the subject folder between July 1, 2015 and December 30, 2016 was the Senior Manager who accessed the folder on July 2 and 7, 2015 and December 15, 2016, only before the minutes were produced and after the story was released. The EA did not access Laserfiche to add the file on September 30, 2015 to the folder, which is a feature of the program. 730 Confidential minutes or board reports are circulated by email to board Members (and their staff that they have requested be circulated on all correspondence) when the item is before them on an agenda. However, the circulation of confidential minutes as part of the distribution and approval of minutes from previous meetings, which is the situation with the minutes of this investigation, has taken various forms over the past few years including: • no circulation; • hard copy only distributed at the meeting; • by email; • by request of Members only. Staff has confirmed that the confidential minutes in question were not circulated by email to the Authority Members for approval along with the public minutes at Authority Meeting #8/15, held on September 25, 2015. Staff cannot confirm whether or not a hard copy was provided to the Members at the meeting. In addition, staff cannot confirm which Members may have received the minutes upon request due to the deletion of transitory sent emails on a regular basis as part of records and data management. Back up tapes from the period is not comprehensive as emails may have been deleted between back ups, so any review for circulation of minutes would not be complete. The conclusion is that staff cannot confirm if the minutes were circulated to all Authority Members, nor can staff confirm the treatment of any material beyond any circulation, except to report on the responses from Members that they did not circulate the minutes as noted in Attachment 1. • The review of corporate records files, discussions with staff and normal operating procedures, all lead to the conclusion that the staff handling the Dufferin Vistas file, the subject matter of the confidential minutes, never received a copy of the confidential minutes. • On September 15, 2016 the Senior Manager responded to a request from Gil Shochat, Investigative Producer, Global Television for the minutes and any audio /video recordings from Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016. No audio or video recordings are currently produced of TRCA board meetings, so just a link to the public minutes was provided. The confidential minutes were not provided. • On January 9, 2017 an email was circulated to all current and past Authority Members who served during the period of July 1, 2015 to December 14, 2016, polling individuals to determine whether or not they or their staff provided the material in question to the reporter Gil Shochat or any other parties outside of TRCA at any time and if so when. The results of this poll are outlined in Attachment 1. • On January 10, 2017 staff contacted Furio Libertore as he contributed to the Global News story, and Mr. Libertore advised that he was contacted by the reporter to participate in the story, and that he had no knowledge that the reporter had the confidential material until the story was released online. Mr. Libertore also confirmed that he did not have a copy of the material prior to its release. 731 Further on January 10, 2017 staff contacted both the Global News reporter who authored the article, Gil Shochat and the National Online Journalist who posted the TRCA material, Leslie Young, to obtain information on how and from whom they received the material. On January 11, 2017 a response was received from Ron Waksman, Vice - President, Digital I Editorial Standards and Practices, Global News I Corus Radio, that "...As a credible Canadian news organization, Global News does not voluntarily share information about its news gathering process, including information concerning the identity of sources, except to the extent that such information is appropriate or necessary to include in a published or broadcast news story...." FOI Request TRCA received a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Furio Libertore on November 8, 2016 requesting access to records containing the settlement agreement between TRCA and the developer pertaining to OMB Case# PL 111154 for 230 Grand Trunk Avenue in Vaughan. This material is not the agreement between Dufferin Vistas Ltd. and The City of Vaughan that was included in the confidential minutes. To date of authoring this report, no material has been released to the applicant under this request due to the Third Party Notification conducted as per the Municipal Freedom and Protection of Privacy Act. The third party ( Dufferin Vistas Ltd.) and the applicant were notified on December 20, 2016 that TRCA's Information and Privacy Officer's decision is to release this information, and that the third party may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) within 30 days of receiving the letter (by January 19, 2017). As part of the immediate commencing of an investigation into the release of the confidential material after it was in the media, staff reviewed records and advised the City of Vaughan solicitor on December 15, 2016 that this information had not yet been released to the applicant. Process of Distribution TRCA's current process for distribution of confidential material is as follows: 1. If the material is to be considered as part of an agenda for a meeting, the confidential report or minutes are emailed to the Members of the relevant board, watermarked as confidential. Some Members have requested that their staff be circulated on all correspondence from TRCA pertaining to their duties as board Members, so they would have obtained copies. In addition, many Members provide access to their email accounts to staff for email management. 2. If the material is just receipt of the confidential minutes from the previous meeting, the various processes for distribution that have been used over the past few years are those noted above: no circulation; hard copy only distributed at the meeting; by email; by request of Members only. As per the January 9, 2017 resolution, staff sent a request to clerk's offices at the regions of Peel and York, the cities of Toronto and Vaughan, and the Township of King for information on their processes for distribution of confidential material. The responses received are summarized in Attachment 2. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To date staff has been unable to determine who provided the material to Global News, however if such discovery is made the following are the potential actions to be taken: 732 TRCA staff is bound by the Code of Conduct, including clause 2.5 — The Commitment to Confidential Information and Intellectual Property, which lays out the duties of care as it pertains to confidential information. Should it be determined that the information was released publically by TRCA staff in contravention of the Code of Conduct, sections 3 -5 of the Code will be enacted which cover: rules of dismissal or disciplinary action, and the investigative and appeal processes for staff. If the source is determined to be an Authority Member, staff will notify the appointing body of this breach of their municipal code of conduct. However the decision to remove the Member from TRCA or impose any other sanctions is at the discretion of the appointing agencies and /or their employer. Proposed Process Staff recommends TRCA's distribution process of confidential material be amended as follows: • As always, staff reports be public as much as possible. Should there be a requirement for material to be considered in camera, that a public report be circulated to Members and the confidential material be verbally reported in camera. Should there be an extensive amount of confidential material for consideration, that circulation shall be by hard copy only, couriered to Members. • Each confidential report shall be printed on purple paper and contain a watermark with the name of the individual receiving it as a unique identifier. • Members be reminded with the circulation of reports of their duties around confidentiality. • That confidential minutes will only be available to Members, eligible staff or legal counsel upon request, and that when circulated be watermarked with a unique identifier. • Staff shall maintain a log of who confidential items are circulated to, at any time it is circulated. • Continue the process of reporting out publically at this meeting or a subsequent meeting when /if the resolutions can be made public. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks(a )trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416- 667 -6290, Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: bdenneyfttrca.on.ca, kstranks(atrca.on.ca Date: January 13, 2017 Attachments: 2 733 Attachment 1 Responses to the January 9, 2017 poll to Authority Members from the period July 1, 2015 to December 14, 2016 (31 Members), as to whether the Member or any of their staff provided the confidential July 24, 2015 Authority Minutes to the reporter Gil Shochat or any other parties outside of TRCA at any time and if so when. All 31 Members polled responded, as noted below. Authority Member Name Appointing Agency Member Response Staff Response Paul Ainslie City of Toronto NO NO Kevin Ashe Region of Durham NO NO Maria Au imeri City of Toronto NO NO Jack Ballinger Region of Durham NO N/A David Barrow Region of York NO NO Ronald Cho owick City of Toronto NO N/A Vincent Crisanti City of Toronto NO NO Glenn De Baeremaeker City of Toronto NO NO Michael Di Biase Region of York NO NO Justin Di Ciano City of Toronto NO NO Jennifer Drake City of Toronto NO N/A Chris Fonseca Region of Peel NO NO Rob Ford City of Toronto DECEASED N/A Jack Heath Region of York NO N/A Rodney Hoinkes City of Toronto NO N/A Jennifer Innis Region of Peel NO NO Colleen Jordan Region of Durham NO NO Maria Kelleher City of Toronto NO N/A Matt Mahoney Region of Peel NO NO Giorgio Mammoliti City of Toronto NO NO Glenn Mason Town of Mono /Township of Adjala- Tosorontio NO N/A Mike Mattos City of Toronto NO N/A Jennifer McKelvie City of Toronto NO N/A Ron Moeser City of Toronto NO NO Frances Nunziata City of Toronto NO NO Jennifer O'Connell Region of Durham NO N/A Linda Pabst Region of York NO N/A Anthony Perruzza 1 City of Toronto NO NO Gino Rosati Region of York NO NO John S rovieri Region of Peel NO NO Jim Tovey Region of Peel NO NO N/A indicates they either do not have staff or their staff from the time in question are no longer available. 734 Attachment 2 Responses from Municipal Partners on Processes for Release of Confidential Material to Members of Council and Committees Region of Peel • Utilizes an electronic agenda package delivery system where in camera reports are delivered in a separate package from the public agenda and can only be accessed by password, and the password is only given to the Councillors. The system does not prevent printing or distributing a report. • Region staff is exploring options to increase security, but this is their current process. • The Regional Clerk and Director further advised that the cities of Mississauga and Brampton distribute hard copies of the material and it is watermarked with the Councillor's ward number so the material is traceable to a particular Councillor. City of Toronto • The City prepares a public report and accompanying it may be some in camera material, but the entire report is not confidential. • The report author needs to be certain to only include confidential material in the confidential report and not include public material, so as to not put Members in a position of potentially breaching rules of confidentiality by releasing public information that was contained in the in camera report. • The in camera material is distributed in hard copy only to Members of Council with a unique identifier on each report to identify the Councillor who has the report. • A log is kept of who the report is distributed to. • If the material is distributed for a committee meeting, it is distributed at the time of original distribution to all Members of Council as they will all need to deal with the report at the upcoming Council meeting. If amendments are made at a committee meeting, Council is provided with a hard copy transmittal document with the amendments. • With the distribution of in camera reports, Members are reminded of their obligations with respect to confidentiality. • Members do not receive confidential minutes, but they are available upon request. Region of York • Some Councillors get hard copies or access electronically through eScribe (same program used by TRCA) by login, confidential or not. Reports can be emailed by Members from eScribe. • Printed on orange paper which is difficult to photocopy clearly. • Have not had issues so are not looking at changing procedures. City of Vaughan • Prepare in camera reports on coloured paper. • Distribute routine confidential reports in advance, but special reports are distributed at the meeting only and collected at the end of the meeting, and the special reports have the Member's name in the corner on a label. • Reminds Council Members of their duties of care of the consequences. • Recommends against watermarking reports as it is a huge administrative effort with very little benefit in Vaughan's circumstances as special reports are distributed and collected at the meeting. 735 Township of King • Most reports are not distributed in advance of meetings, and most reports are verbal. If circulated in advance it is in a sealed envelope, the seal initialed by the Clerk, and Council Members are reminded that it is confidential. Gets the report back from Members at the closed session, and the reports are numbered on the back of the document. • Printed on purple paper which is difficult to photocopy clearly. • Provides confidential minutes as part of the approval of minutes at the next confidential meeting, with either notes of the matter if verbal, or containing the staff report if available. • Will make resolutions and /or reports available publically when possible at the meeting so they do not remain confidential. 736 RESMA230 /16 - TORONTO ZOO Approval of the Master Plan Plan. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath Approval of the Toronto Zoo's 2016 Master WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a management agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now City of Toronto) for certain TRCA -owned lands on June 14, 1961, with the lands being used for park and recreational purposes; AND WHEREAS the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo (Board) operates the Toronto Zoo on certain TRCA lands in the Rouge River watershed pursuant to an agreement between the Board, the City of Toronto and TRCA dated April 28, 1978; AND WHEREAS the Board has prepared an updated Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2016 Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo attached as Attachment 1, be approved. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road between Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, City of Toronto and is approximately 287 hectares (710 acres) in size. Over 80% of the Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, comprised of valley and table lands. The subject TRCA lands were acquired between 1962 and 1970 and are included in the June 14, 1961, Management Agreement with the City (formerly Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto). On April 6, 1967, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro Toronto) Council approved in principle a proposal to construct a new zoological park on a site in the Rouge River area. In March of 1968, Raymond Moriyama Architect and Site Planner submitted to the Metropolitan Parks Commissioner a Feasibility Study and Master Development Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Park, Glen Rouge. On April 29, 1969, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Society (the Society) was incorporated as a non - profit corporation for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and operating zoological facilities in the Metropolitan Area. On November 1, 1970, Metro Toronto, TRCA and the Society entered into an agreement for the construction and operation of a zoological park and related facilities in the Rouge River watershed. On June 16, 1977, Metro Toronto served a notice of termination of this Agreement to TRCA and the Society, effective July 1, 1979. On April 28, 1978, Metro Toronto, TRCA and a newly constituted (by Metro Toronto) Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo Board entered into an Agreement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo by the Board. The entire site is within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt. Portions of the site are regulated by TRCA, within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and are comprised of the Rouge River Valley, Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, Environmentally Significant Areas and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Other Key Natural Heritage Features may also exist, such as Significant Wildlife Habitat. In addition, there are natural hazards such as steep slopes, river erosion and floodplains. 737 The Toronto Zoo celebrated its 42nd anniversary in August 2016 and attracts an average of 1.3 million visitors annually. The Zoo is home to more than 5,000 animals with more than 300 exhibits and a large plant population. The Zoo aims to provide exposure and understanding of the world's zoogeographic regions and oceans by creating several representative zones including Indo - Malaya, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, Eurasia, Tundra and the Canadian Domain. Master Plan The original Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo was approved in 1969 with an update being approved in 1990. The 2016 Toronto Zoo Master Plan provides a conceptual framework defining the Zoo's future direction for the next 15 -20 years. The Master Plan was developed after research, consultation and input undertaken during 2015 and 2016 and is consistent with the 2015 -2020 Strategic Plan adopted by the Board in November 2014. The plan can be downloaded at http:// www .torontozoo.com /ExploreTheZoo /Vision /2017 -01 -24 TZ -MP Final Report web.pdf The Master Plan aims to ensure that Toronto Zoo remains as one of the top zoos in the world and that it is well positioned to become a Centre of Excellence in Canada for the preservation and protection of endangered species. In May 2015, led by MMM Group, the Toronto Zoo began the master planning process to further define its future direction. The process included: • undertaking a market analysis with a primary focus on conservation; • meeting and holding workshops with Zoo staff and the Board, and consultation with key stakeholders, including staff from TRCA, City of Toronto, Parks Canada and University of Toronto Scarborough, to develop various approaches to the Zoo's vision; and • development of an associated financial and marketing plan. The Strategic Mission, Vision and Goals recognize the importance of preserving and enhancing the ecologically significant areas on and around the Toronto Zoo, and of engaging the community in its protection and enhancement. This is consistent with TRCA's policies as a landowner, regulator and one of the Toronto Zoo's partners. Through the master planning process, seven goals were developed guiding the Zoo's strategic direction: • Conservation impact — advance to a zoo -based conservation centre of excellence • Guest engagement — enhance the guest experience to appeal to a more diverse audience and inspire conservation action • Governance — enhance the governance structure • Financial stability — build an organization that is fiscally and environmentally sustainable for the long term • Strategic alliance — maximize existing partnerships and identify new opportunities • People — create an organizational culture that attracts, engages and retains highly motivated staff and volunteers • Understanding and caring — increase awareness, understanding and support of the Zoo as a centre for conservation excellence 738 The Master Plan reflects the need for a contemporary and innovative wildlife conservation park that is environmentally and fiscally sustainable for the long term. It is intended that the Toronto Zoo will become a world class leader in wildlife conservation and a catalyst for wildlife habitat preservation, while delivering enhanced and engaging guest experiences. To support this vision, the Master Plan specifically proposes: • revitalized, expanded and enhanced habitat areas including a focus on Canadian species and relocation of the "Canadian Domain" exhibit out of the valley; • development of clear pedestrian systems and advance accessibility on the Zoo site; • revitalized welcome area; • a new Wildlife Health Centre (scheduled to open in 2017), new off - exhibit breeding area, a four - season children's play area, and the possible redevelopment of the "Red Barn" as a horticulture and education centre; • restored wetlands and forests, in particular restoration of some of the existing valley lands (i.e. "Canadian Domain" area); and • a variety of, conference, meeting and overnight camping facilities. The Master Plan will also provide guidance in making key business decisions by the Board. Two such impending plans include: • a Tripartite Agreement with TRCA and the City which will confirm the land holdings occupied by the Zoo for the future, and • the Toronto Zoo /Rouge National Urban Park Shared Facilities Study currently being finalized with Parks Canada. RATIONALE Since a majority of the Toronto Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, the Toronto Zoo Master Plan requires TRCA approval. FINANCIAL DETAILS There is no financial impact to TRCA arising from the approval of the Master Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • Finalize the Tripartite Agreement with the Toronto Zoo, City and TRCA which will update the terms and conditions for the operation of the Zoo on TRCA lands and rationalize the Toronto Zoo boundaries. • As projects come forward for implementation details related to site planning, landscape restoration and stormwater management be addressed according to the conservation objectives of the masterplan and in consultation with City and TRCA. • Encourage the Toronto Zoo to consult with Parks Canada and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as implementation of the masterplan proceeds. Report Prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenningC&trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenninq(@trca.on.ca Date: January 13, 2017 739 Section III — Items for the Information of the Board RES. #A231/16 - PROVINCIAL REVIEW OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD Comments to Environmental Bill of Rights Posting #012 -7196. To inform the Authority of TRCA's formal submission of comments on December 19, 2016 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in response to their Environmental Bill of Rights Registry posting on Consultation on the Role of the Ontario Municipal Board in Ontario's Land Use Planning System. Moved by: Michael Di Blase Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) invited the public to provide comments on their document entitled, "Review of the Ontario Municipal Board Public Consultation Document" through an Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Posting #012 -7196; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has roles and responsibilities affecting planning matters that come before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), through which TRCA staff regularly participate in OMB hearings and other OMB processes as required; THEREFORE IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT TRCA's formal response to the Province of Ontario through the Environmental Registry on December 19, 2016, as outlined in Attachment 1, be received. AND FURTHER THAT TRCA's municipal partners, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and Conservation Ontario be so advised by the CEO's Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Environmental Bill of Rights posting on the Ontario Municipal Board Review explains that since 2004, the government has implemented a series of land use planning reforms to make Ontario's planning system more inclusive and transparent. These reforms have also affected the OMB, limiting the number of matters that can be appealed to the Board, giving municipalities a stronger voice and more independence in local land use decisions, and giving residents more say in land use decisions in their communities. These changes occurred through the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 and, most recently, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015. The purpose of the most recent EBR notice ( #012 -7196 posted from October 5, 2016 to December 19, 2016) was to inform the public of the government's consultation on the OMB review. The Province intended the consultation to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views on whether the land use appeal system is responsive to the changing needs of our communities. As part of the first phase of this consultation, initiated on June 23, 2016, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs webpage invited the public to provide feedback on topics regarding the OMB review. Through this review, the government is seeking ways to build on past improvements to ensure the OMB can contribute within the land use planning system to its best effect. 740 Recent government consultations on related issues, as well as a posting on the MMA website that invites public input on topics regarding the OMB, have helped to inform the priorities for discussion in this review. The OMB review was organized according to the following five themes, with input requested on possible changes the government is considering and questions identified for each theme: Theme 1: OMB's jurisdiction and powers Theme 2: Citizen participation and local perspective Theme 3: Clear and predictable decision - making Theme 4: Modern procedures and faster decisions Theme 5: Alternative dispute resolution and fewer hearings A public consultation document was provided that included background information on Ontario's land use planning and appeal system. The OMB Public Consultation Document sets out possible changes being considered to improve the OMB's role within the system, as organized under the five key themes noted above. The document also raises several questions for consideration under each theme. TRCA'S Response On December 19, 2016, TRCA submitted a formal response through the EBR consisting of a covering letter overview and a chart of detailed comments organized by the themes and questions provided in the public consultation document. A number of key comments are listed in the overview below and a copy of TRCA's full submission can be found in Attachment 1. Overview TRCA policy planning staff within the Planning and Development division coordinated the internal review of the OMB discussion paper. Policy staff garnered input from senior development review staff in Planning and Development, Planning Ecology and Engineering with experience in participating in OMB processes; some TRCA staff attended stakeholder listening sessions hosted by the Province, which also helped inform TRCA comments. In TRCA's experience, appeals to the OMB are frequently associated with Planning Act applications circulated by municipalities in which inadequate information has been provided by the proponent that nevertheless becomes deemed a complete application. This starts the review period clock ticking, during which an informed municipal decision cannot be made in time, so the proponent appeals. It is this type of appeal scenario that comprises the bulk of OMB cases in which TRCA is involved. TRCA's municipal partners frequently rely on TRCA technical expertise and planning advice to resolve the increasingly high volume of OMB appeals related to the natural environment, including natural heritage, water resources and associated natural hazards. In recent years, TRCA has provided recommendations to the Province as part of its ongoing review to improve the scope and effectiveness of the OMB. While some of TRCA's comments through past consultations have since been addressed through amendments to the Planning Act and the land use planning and appeal system, others have not. Most recently, the introduction of the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 has spurred positive changes to the OMB. In turn, the amendments made to the Planning Act affected the decisions that can be made by the OMB and outlined which matters cannot be appealed. However, the full effect of these changes has not yet come to fruition, considering their implementation within Ontario's land use planning framework is still fairly new. A number of hearings now in process were initiated prior to the "new rules" being in effect and so stakeholders are not yet able to see the anticipated benefits of the new legislation. TRCA is expecting that the recent changes to the OMB will yield positive results 741 by enhancing the role of third -party comment and technical review for OMB appeals and strengthening decision making to protect provincial interests. TRCA staff have a number of years of experience participating in OMB processes with the interests of the Province, TRCA and our municipal partners in mind, and anticipate that TRCA's comments will assist the Province in improving the role of the OMB in the land use planning system. Some of the key comments that TRCA included in its submission to the Province are: • Appeals based on failure to make a decision are often tied to applications that may have been deemed "complete" by the municipality, yet in reality lack the required supporting environmental information required for agencies to make an adequate assessment of the application. • Appeal rights should be restricted for decisions that protect provincial issues and prohibit development related to natural heritage, source water and natural hazards in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). • Further to the above, given the unique provincial Ministerial approval process, appeal rights should be restricted for official plan or official plan amendments associated with flood vulnerable Special Policy Areas under Section 3.1.4 (a) of the PPS. • The technical criteria developed to provide guidance on provincial interests at OMB hearings, specifically those related to the natural heritage and natural hazard policies of the PPS, should be given more weight and status at the OMB. • When new technical work in support of an application is introduced during a hearing, the hearing should be adjourned and the application should continue to be processed to a decision in the municipal planning realm. NEXT STEPS The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will review and analyze the feedback received in response to the EBR posting. The Ministry expects to move forward on possible changes in spring 2017. TRCA staff will keep the Authority informed of any further notices from the Province in this regard. Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: mburns(dtrca.on.ca For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: cwoodland(&trca.on.ca Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 1 742 ATTACHMENT December 19, 2016 By email only Ken Petersen, Manager Ministry of Municipal Affairs Local Government and Planning Policy Division Provincial Planning Policy Branch 777 Bay Street, 13' Floor Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5 Dear Mr. Petersen: Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City Re: TRCA Comments in Response to "Consultation on role of Ontario Municipal Board in Ontario's land use planning system" (EBR # 012 -7196) Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the role of the Ontario Municipal Board in Ontario's land use planning system. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has a strong interest in the role of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), given our role as a public commenting body under the Planning Act and as a body with delegated responsibility to represent the provincial interest for natural hazards encompassed by Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014. In recent years, TRCA has provided recommendations to the Province as part of its ongoing review to improve the scope and effectiveness of the OMB. While some of TRCA's comments through past consultations have since been addressed through amendments to the Planning Act and the land use planning and appeal system, others have not. Accordingly, we will reiterate some of our comments from previous correspondence as part of this current consultation process General Comments As a conservation authority, TRCA is not only a commenting body but also administers a regulation affecting planning matters within the regulated areas of our jurisdiction, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act. TRCA's watersheds encompass the most heavily urbanized and densely populated lands in Ontario. For TRCA planners supporting 18 municipalities and administering our regulation, a significant amount of development, redevelopment, and intensification review and approvals work is required in TRCA watersheds. Presently, the majority of redevelopment and intensification is being planned within growth centres that also happen to be associated with Special Policy Areas, flood vulnerable areas, and /or within environmentally sensitive landscapes. When planning for growth in these areas, it is often a contentious process in finding the balance between the need for growth and the management of natural hazards and natural heritage systems; accordingly, there is a high volume of OMB appeals related to TRCA interests. This has led to a significant amount of "planning done at the Board" for lands that contain some of the Greater Golden Horseshoe's most precious resources vital to the health of the growing and intensifying urban population. The amount of time spent at the OMB, means TRCA planners and supporting technical staff have less time to spend in the `743 review and approval of applications that are respecting environmental protection policies and leading the development industry with innovative and sustainable approaches to urban planning and design. Recent Improvements Most recently, the introduction of the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 has spurred positive changes to the Ontario Municipal Board. In turn, the provisions made to the Planning Act affected the decisions that can be made by the OMB and outlined which matters cannot be appealed to the OMB. However, the full effect of these changes has not yet come to fruition, considering their implementation within Ontario's land use planning framework is still fairly new. Indeed, a number of hearings now in process were initiated prior to the "new rules" being in effect and so stakeholders are not yet able to see the anticipated benefits of the new legislation TRCA is expecting that the recent changes to the OMB will yield positive results by enhancing the role of third -party comment and technical review for OMB appeals and strengthening decision making to protect provincial interests. The feedback solicited as a part of the current consultation on the role of the OMB within Ontario's land use planning system is anticipated to help achieve further improvements. TRCA Comments and Key Recommendations TRCA's detailed comments are provided in the attached chart, which is formatted to correspond to the questions in the consultation document related to the following themes: OMB's Jurisdiction and Powers, Citizen Participation and Local Perspective, Clear and Predictable Decision - Making, Modern Procedures and Faster Decisions, and Alternative Dispute Resolution and Fewer Hearings. However, we wish to highlight the following key recommendations that are of particular importance from our jurisdictional perspective and experience at the OMB: • Appeals based on failure to make a decision are often tied to applications that may have been deemed "complete ", yet in reality lack the required supporting information required for agencies to make an adequate assessment of the application. • Appeal rights should be restricted for certain land use matters that protect provincial issues and prohibit development related to natural heritage, source water and natural hazards in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Further to the above, given the unique provincial Ministerial approval process appeal rights should be restricted for official plan or official plan amendments associated with Special Policy Areas under Section 3.1.4 (a) of the PPS. • The technical criteria developed to provide guidance on provincial interests at OMB hearings, specifically those related to the natural heritage and natural hazard policies of the PPS, should be given more weight and status at the OMB. 744 • Updated provincial planning rules should apply at the time of decision for applications submitted before 2007, if not earlier. • Clarification is needed as to what constitutes information as "significant" when new "significant information" is introduced at an OMB hearing and sent back to council for reconsideration. • In the interest of scoping appeals, limiting the number of appeals, and shortening appeal timelines, broad appeals unsubstantiated by a sound planning rationale should be required to provide this rationale prior to proceeding. • When new technical work in support of an application is introduced during a hearing, the hearing should be adjourned and the application should continue to be processed to a decision in the municipal planning realm. • Multi- member panels would increase the consistency of decision- making by increasing breadth of experience and providing a more holistic and balanced perspective of the various public interests relevant during appeals, particularly for complex cases. • Where applicable, OMB members may benefit from professional development/training on emerging or complex issues such as environmental management and /or issues related to the Conservation Authorities Act. Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important initiative. The OMB plays a vital role in balancing the position of councils, ratepayer groups, developers and agencies, while having regard to municipal decisions. TRCA supports efforts to improve and modernize the OMB process to resolve appeals effectively and efficiently while maintaining a decision making process that is fair, well- informed, and respects the objective test of "good planning ". Should you have any questions, require clarification, or would like to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Carolyn Woodland, GALA, FCStA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Enclosure: OMB Response Chart 745 TRCA Comments on the Review of the Ontario Municipal Board: Public Consultation Document December 2016 Background /Context for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) Comments TRCA's perspective on the changes being considered to the OMB is based on our roles as: a public commenting body under both the Planning Act and the environmental assessment process with delegated responsibility for the provincial interest in natural hazards, a resource management agency operating on a watershed basis, a landowner, and as the administrator of a development regulation that affects land use planning matters. TRCA works with its member municipalities in support of their implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Provincial Plans through regional and local municipal planning documents. In many cases, TRCA has memorandums of understanding with municipal partners that describe TRCA's technical support roles to the municipality in their land use planning processes. The introduction of the OMB Public Consultation Document opines that appeals often occur because "people don't always agree" with approved plans. Conversely, in TRCA's experience, appeals are frequently associated with scenarios in which inadequate information has been provided that passes as a "complete application ", starts the clock ticking and an informed decision cannot be made in time, so the proponent appeals. It is this type of appeal scenario that comprises the bulk of OMB cases in which TRCA is involved. Our municipal partners frequently rely on our technical expertise and planning advice to resolve the increasingly high volume of OMB appeals related to the natural environment, including natural heritage, water resources and associated natural hazards. Structure of Current Provincial Review The Public Consultation Document discusses how the government has heard a range of viewpoints on the role of the OMB and that this input was used to formulate the questions as outlined in this chart for public feedback. TRCA commented in a letter dated January 10, 2014 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs MMA (MMA) in response to EBR posting 012 -0241 on the Land Use Planning and Appeal System Consultation. TRCA also commented in writing on June 3, 2015 to MMA in response to Bill 73 (amendments to the Planning Act) through EBR posting 012 -3651. While some of TRCA's comments through these consultations have since been addressed through amendments to the Planning Act and the land use planning and appeal system, others have not. In addition, the benefits of the new legislation and procedures have not yet been realized as many of the appeals in process right now began before the changes came into effect. Accordingly, we will reiterate some of our comments from previous correspondence as part of the current consultation process. Discussion Questions I Comment Theme 1. OMB's Jurisdiction and Powers 1. What is your perspective on . TRCA supports the changes being considered to limit appeals on the changes being considered matters of public interest. In particular, we recommend to limit appeals on matters of restricting appeal rights for certain land use matters that public interest? protect provincial issues and prohibit development, such as the policies related to natural heritage, source water and natural hazards in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS): - Significant Wetlands (PPS, section 2.1.4); - Significant Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (PPS, section 2.1.5); - Municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas, vulnerable surface and ground water, ff e sensitive surface water features, and sensitive ground water features (PPS, sections 2.2.1 e] and 2.2.2); and, Natural Hazards (PPS, sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.5). • Recent amendments to the Planning Act did not address the role of the OMB with respect to appeals of Official Plans or Official Plan Amendments associated with Special Policy Areas (SPAS). In accordance with Section 3.1.4 (a) of the PPS, the designation of an SPA and any changes or modifications to official plan policies, land use designations or boundaries applying to SPA lands, must be approved by both the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources and Forestry. Furthermore, the application for a new SPA or a comprehensive review and update to an existing SPA can only be initiated by a municipality, in accordance with provincial SPA guidelines. Given this unique provincial approval process, the Planning Act should be amended to restrict appeals related to SPAs. • Although TRCA supports transit - oriented development, advancing it should not come at the expense of forgoing other provincial interests that are also in the public's interest, such as public safety from managing natural hazards and resilient communities from protecting natural heritage systems. • If decisions that support the use of transit cannot be appealed, agencies like TRCA would have little recourse to prevent transit - oriented development that could negatively impact natural heritage systems and /or increase risk from natural hazards, other than our regulatory authority, as prescribed under the 747 • More weight needs to be given to the technical criteria developed to provide guidance on provincial interests at OMB hearings, specifically those related to the natural heritage and hazard policies of the PPS. Documents such as the Natural Heritage Reference Manual and the Technical Guide for River and Stream Systems, were prepared by the Province to help planning boards deal with such circumstances. However, in our experience, they are often overlooked at the OMB in favour of subjective expert testimony. This can lead to contested debates on matters such as determining the "significance" and extent of natural features and hazards (further comment on this in Q.24). 2. What is your perspective on As a commenting agency under the Environmental Assessment Act the changes being considered as well as the Planning Act and, and a regulatory agency under the to restrict appeals of Conservation Authorities Act, TRCA is involved in integrated development that supports planning and approvals processes related to transit - oriented the use of transit? development and related infrastructure. With this experience in mind, we provide the following recommendations: • Although TRCA supports transit - oriented development, advancing it should not come at the expense of forgoing other provincial interests that are also in the public's interest, such as public safety from managing natural hazards and resilient communities from protecting natural heritage systems. • If decisions that support the use of transit cannot be appealed, agencies like TRCA would have little recourse to prevent transit - oriented development that could negatively impact natural heritage systems and /or increase risk from natural hazards, other than our regulatory authority, as prescribed under the 747 Conservation Authorities Act. • Further to the above, pursuant to the Places to Grow Act 2005, Section 1.0 of the Growth Plan indicates that the only exception to the Growth Plan prevailing over the PPS, where there is a conflict between them, is when the conflict is between policies relating to the natural environment or human health. In that case, the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment or human health prevails. 3. What is your perspective on TRCA supports the proposed changes in the public consultation the changes being considered document but suggests the Province consider the following: to give communities a stronger voice? • The OMB should provide training for community members on the board's process and hire professionals (i.e. planners), or provide funding to professional associations (e.g. Ontario Professional Planners Institute [OPPI]) to implement this training. Alternatively, the OMB could hire a third party on retainer that could provide planning advice to or on behalf of community advocates. • Circulation to the public is very limited regarding OMB hearings. As such, the public may not fully understand what is transpiring. Local government and the OMB need to be as transparent as possible and provide adequate notice. Because of the option of "in camera" sessions, other public review agencies and the public are not always privy to the final position of a municipality on an application before going into a hearing. Transparency would increase if in- camera sessions were further restricted. • There are a lot of obstacles the general public needs to overcome just to participate in hearings, let alone understand decisions. For instance, hearings often occur during the middle of the day and, consequently, not everyone is able to attend. Other options should be offered to increase access such as videos, webcasts and transcripts. • Clarification is needed as to what constitutes information as "significant" when new "significant information" is introduced at an OMB hearing and sent back to municipal council for reconsideration. If important new technical information, or even a new concept /modified proposal, is introduced during the hearing process, it should benefit from a detailed analysis without a hurried evaluation to meet arbitrary and unrealistic timelines at the hearing. 4. What is your view on whether • The OMB plays a vital role in balancing the position of municipal the OMB should continue to councils, ratepayers groups, developers and agencies by conduct de novo hearings? applying a test of "good planning" while having regard to municipal decisions. • TRCA recognizes the benefits of de nova hearings, such as providing the hearing officer with a full context of information, or lack thereof, including incomplete technical information, that transpired in the decision making process. • Municipal councils are not always familiar with the roles and policies of conservation authorities (CAs) and how they apply to development applications, including related permissions under the Conservation Authorities Act. A de novo hearing would allow CA staff to explain those policies and how they apply. An appeal that focuses on the previous decision only may not allow for this. • TRCA recognizes longer hearings are a drawback of de novo hearings; however the process could be streamlined for efficiencies and cost effectiveness. 5. If the OMB were to move • The key to any approach /process is that it enables a decision to away from de novo hearings, be produced that is fair, sound and respects the objective test what do you believe is the of good planning. most appropriate approach and why? 6. From your perspective, should • OMB panels should have access to previous municipal policies the government be looking at in place at the time of decisions to provide as much changes related to transition information as possible to inform current decisions but should and the use of new planning not overemphasize why a previous decision was made. It rules? If so: doesn't make sense to assess the merits of a new application • What is your perspective based on legislation and policies that were revised and updated on basing planning for a reason and are now out of date. decisions on municipal policies in place at the • We agree strongly that updated provincial planning rules time the decision is made? should apply at the time of decision for applications before • What is your perspective 2007, if not earlier. If projects have not been built since 2007 on having updated (e.g. an unbuilt draft approved subdivision) then there is no provincial planning rules need to perpetuate what could now be considered "bad apply at the time of planning" based on outdated policies. decision for applications before 2007? Theme 2. Citizen Participation and Local Perspective 7. If you have had experience No comment. with the Citizen Liaison Office, describe what it was like — did it meet your expectations? 8. Was there information you No comment. needed, but were unable to 4 749 get? 9. Would the above changes • An enhanced Citizen Liaison Office would make sense for support greater citizen stakeholder groups with valid concerns and finite resources to participation at the OMB? have access to the appeal process. 10. Given that it would be • In our experience, citizens often seem to be excluded from inappropriate for the OMB to participating in the OMB process because they aren't able to provide legal advice to any gain party status or obtain the necessary planning or legal party or participant, what type advice to inform them of how to do so. A provincially funded of information about the program distinct from the OMB could administer or have a role OMB's processes would help in selecting a pool of qualified independent professionals to citizens to participate in provide a gratuitous service to the public. mediations and hearings? 11. Are there funding tools the • The current filing fee ($125.00) to appeal a decision to the province could explore to OMB should be commensurate with the scope and complexity enable citizens to retain their of the project associated with the appeal. Additional own planning experts and consideration should also be given to streamline the appeal lawyers? process once it is sent and received by the OMB (pre- hearing, hearing, mediation, or motion) as well as the anticipated length of time and /or number of board members needed to come to a decision. For example, the current fee may be appropriate for an appeal from a local resident for a minor variance case, especially given the additional costs required if lawyers or planners are needed. However, this fee would be too low if, for example, a developer were to appeal a policy in an Official Plan, or a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision. • Appropriately scaling the cost of an appeal with the scope of the associated project could provide additional revenue which could cover the cost of additional board members, advanced training for board members, enhancing the Citizen Liaison Office and improving public education /outreach regarding OMB processes. 12. What kind of financial or other • The Province could establish and fund a program that creates a eligibility criteria need to be pool of qualified independent professionals (lawyers and considered when increasing planners, etc.) which could be selected to assist the public with access to subject matter advice on OMB appeals. Partial funding for this could be experts like planners and provided by revenue captured by appropriately scaling the cost lawyers? of an appeal with the scope of the project associated with the appeal. Citizens should not have to hire a team of planners, lawyers, and other environmental experts at their own expense when dealing with matters that are in the public's interest. Theme 3. Clear and Predictable Decision - Making 13. Qualifications for adjudicators • If a former /retired board member who has joined the private are identified in the job practice used to sit on the board with the board member who description posted on the is currently presiding over a hearing, a conflict of interest OMB website. What additional should be declared, as is required by section V of the Code of qualifications and experiences Conduct for Ontario Municipal Board Mediators. To avoid the 750 are important for an OMB perception of preferential treatment, perhaps there should also member? be a code of conduct for former /retired board members that may enter into practice. • Where applicable, OMB members may benefit from professional development /training on emerging or complex issues such as environmental management and /or issues related to the Conservation Authorities Act. 14. Do you believe that multi- • Multi- member panels would increase the consistency of member panels would decision- making by increasing breadth of experience and increase consistency of providing a more holistic and balanced perspective of the decision - making? What should various public interests relevant during appeals, particularly be the make -up of these for complex cases. panels? • When choosing Board members (either individuals or for panels), should be chosen based on their expertise relevant to the issues of the case. Having multi- member panels would help diversify this experience. 15. Are there any types of cases • Complex cases, such as those involving appeals of Official that would need a multi- Plans and Zoning By -Law Amendments, Subdivisions, etc. member panel? should not have a single board member. Perhaps creating a scaled fee and charging for appeals based on the nature of the project would help cover this cost. 16. How can OMB decisions be . The OMB's website could be improved with a more efficient made easier to understand search function. and be better relayed to the public? • Electronic attachments are not always posted with each case decision on the OMB website. • There seems to be no mechanism to review and have access to reference exhibits on the OMB website. • There is no common structure for how decisions are written. The decisions read as essays based on each board member's personal writing style. Decisions should be written more comprehensively byjustifying the planning rationale that informed their conclusions and not just restate the preferred witnesses' evidence. Accordingly, the decision should be written to explain how this evidence was viewed as representing "good planning." • Case transcripts to be made more publicly available. Perhaps stenographers should be required in certain circumstances involving complex cases. • More detailed notice of decisions to the public is needed. Once a decision is made, the OMB should provide notice of the 751 752 decision as per the Planning Act requirement for notice of an application (i.e., residents within 120 m of the subject property). Theme 4. Modern Procedures and Faster Decisions 17. Are the timelines in the chart • A particular issue that TRCA continues to face is when OMB above appropriate, given the cases are scheduled within a certain amount of time based on nature of appeals to the OMB? the receipt of a "complete application" that does not include What would be appropriate the necessary technical information to make informed timelines? decisions. Technical documents are an integral part of many "complete applications" and there needs to be enough time to gather appropriate studies and adequately review them. • Before beginning a hearing, appellants should provide a complete set of information, prior to the appeal being deemed "complete ". Otherwise the decisions of board members and opinions of experts will not be properly informed. 18. Would the above measures TRCA welcomes the proposed measures to modernize and help to modernize OMB streamline OMB hearings and recommends the following hearing procedures and additional changes: practices? Would they help encourage timely processes • TRCA appreciates that evaluating the diverse array of issues and decisions? heard before the OMB involves balancing a number of interests. However, appeals do not always appear to be substantiated by a comprehensive planning rationale and demonstration of an iterative, communicative process to justify the appeal. In the interest of scoping and limiting the number of appeals and shortening appeal timelines, broad appeals unsubstantiated by a sound planning rationale and documenting of how the proposal was vetted through the review process should be required to provide this rationale and documentation prior to proceeding. • For example, in our experience, appellants often argue that a proposal complies with a single section of the PPS or Provincial Plan (i.e. intensification) without regard for other sections (i.e. section 3.1 of the PPS, re: flood hazards). Appeals should derive from a defensible planning perspective considered from a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the Province's policy framework and implementing municipal documents and expressed using proper policy language. Therefore, appeals could be limited by having requirements for a conformity report to be submitted in order to substantiate an appeal. • Hearings should allow for video evidence, especially for issues related to the protection of natural features (e.g. drone videos of natural features); 752 753 • Active adjudication would make it easier for environmental matters to be heard by OMB members and would also increase community participation; • Attending the OMB can be expensive and time - consuming. It often requires individuals to take considerable time off or away from their regular work. The OMB should consider allowing parties to not attend portions of the hearing when matters are of no concern to that party are discussed. This would considerably reduce legal, staff and consultant costs. • Hearings that involve a large group of landowners typically require scheduling for in- person meetings /pre- hearing conferences that can cause delay because of the number of people's schedules to be coordinated. Digital options for conferencing should be made available to avoid this type of delay. • Perhaps mediation sessions and OMB cases and decisions should be audited to see if the changes to the OMB process coming out of the recent reformations to the Planning Act are being enacted in hearings; • Up -to -date audio - visual equipment and internet access should be readily available for all hearings to help document evidence clearly (i.e., overlays, maps, etc.). • Appeal packages should require more detailed information to justify the rationale for an appeal so that external agencies and the public can better understand whether their interests are likely to be affected prior to the hearing. This would have the effect of enhancing the efficiency of the process so that agencies such as conservation authorities would be able to scope their involvement with appropriate appeals; • All prescribed agencies (including CAs) should be copied on all notices of appeal that affect their areas of interest, including background materials submitted to the OMB as part of the appeal package. 19. What types of cases /situations • No comment. would be most appropriate to a written hearing? Theme 5. Alternative Dispute Resolution and Fewer Hearings 20. Why do you think more OMB • Appeals based on a failure to make a decision are premature, cases don't settle at and tend to take place before all parties have an effective mediation? opportunity to discuss their interests. This typically occurs because the appellant has not properly managed their project, 753 754 has not attempted to engage with the other parties, or may have received poor or inaccurate advice from consultants. Consequently, the parties involved are subject to a longer, more costly hearing that could have been avoided were procedures in place to ensure an application is complete and /or an appeal is well substantiated with a comprehensive planning rationale. 21. What types of cases /situations • Mediation is effective for hearings that are not highly polarized have a greater change of and /or for resolving certain technical issues (such as settling at mediation? engineering) which can reduce the overall length of a hearing. 22. Should mediation be required, • Mediation should not be required but the option to mediate even if it has the potential to should always be available. This will allow parties that are lengthen the process? willing to compromise to do so effectively in a shorter amount of time and at less cost than a full hearing. It will also prevent forced mediation when parties are polarized, which takes less time and reduces overall costs. If both parties are willing to consider mediation, it does, in our opinion, provide an effective forum for scoping and identifying each party's interests. • Allowing parties to discuss matters before mediation can resolve a number of important issues and lets some parties withdraw, thus reducing the length of hearings and costs for all parties involved. 23. What role should OMB staff • TRCA staff have had almost no interaction with OMB staff, other play in mediation, pre- than the exchange of written correspondence. OMB Planners screening applications and in should be less administrative and more involved in pre - not scheduling cases that are screening applications. out of the OMB's scope? General Question 24. Do you have other comments . When new technical work in support of an application is or points you want to make introduced during a hearing, the hearing should be adjourned about the scope and and the application should continue to be processed to a effectiveness of the OMB with decision in the municipal planning realm. regard to its role in land use planning? . Further to the above, and to limit the number of appeals, pre - consultation and complete application requirements should be modified to include participation by all public agencies prior to an application being deemed complete by the municipality. Additional time should be given to municipalities to make decisions before being subject to appeal. The time involved in complex development proposals tends to be much longer than the appeal timeframes. Appeals that occur because of the failure of a municipality to make a decision within the allotted timeframe should only be heard if the municipality is legitimately not responding for political reasons (e.g. deferral without decision). Perhaps there should be a short OMB 754 decision making process available to allow for the determination of whether an appeal due to non - decision can go ahead or not, rather than it being automatic. This process should be easily accessible for the appellant and decision made immediately, so the period in which the appellant awaits a decision is shortened. 10 755 RES. #A232 /16 - SECTION III — ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis THAT Section III item 10.1.1 — Voluntary Project Review of Works Undertaken by Organizations Exempt from Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/16, held on January 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section IV - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES. #A233 /16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT Ontario Regulation 166106, as amended item 10.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/16, held on January 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:37 a.m., on Friday, January 27, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks 756 Brian Denney Secretary- Treasurer