HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18 - Meeting Minutes - Authority - Mar. 23, 2018Toronto and Region
Conservation
Authority
Authority Meeting #2/18 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, March 23, 2018. The
Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri
Chair
Paul Ainslie
Member
Jack Ballinger
Member
Ronald Chopowick
Member
Vincent Crisanti
Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Member
Jennifer Drake
Member
Paula Fletcher
Member
Michael Ford
Member
Jack Heath
Vice Chair
Jennifer Innis
Member
Colleen Jordan
Member
Jim Karygiannis
Member
Maria Kelleher
Member
Matt Mahoney
Member
Giorgio Mammoliti
Member
Glenn Mason
Member
Mike Mattos
Member
Jennifer McKelvie
Member
Michael Palleschi
Member
Anthony Perruzza
Member
Gino Rosati
Member
John Sprovieri
Member
ABSENT
Kevin Ashe
Member
David Barrow
Member
Chris Fonseca
Member
Brenda Hogg
Member
Linda Pabst
Member
RES.#A11/18 - MINUTES
Moved by: Glenn Mason
Seconded by: Paul Ainslie
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/18, held on February 23, 2018, be approved.
CARRIED
12
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councillor Michael Ford declared a conflict of interest in regard to item 7.1 — Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 — CreateTO as St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited is a client of
his family's printing business.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#Al2/18
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis
THAT the Committee move into closed session prior to hearing the delegations in regard
to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 — CreateTO, as it contains legal
matters in which TRCA is involved.
NOT CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
4.1 A delegation by Councillor Frances Nunziata, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.2 A delegation by Ms. Chiara Padovani, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.3 A delegation by Ms. Tanya Connors, Director, Black Creek Alliance, in regard to item 7.1
- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.4 A delegation by Ms. Leah Harrison, Co -Chair, Stockyards Residents Association, in
regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.5 A delegation by Ms. Rucsandra Saulean, Principle, DamaPR, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.6 A delegation by Mr. Bill Bryck President & CEO, CreateTO, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.7 A delegation by Cameron Watts, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.8 A delegation by Mr. Luigi Fortini, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.9 A delegation by Ms. Marie -Jeanne Bapuila, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.10 A delegation by Ms. Deane O'Leary, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
13
4.11 A delegation by Ms. Natalija Fisher, resident and watershed management professional,
in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.12 A delegation by Mr. Kevin Best, messenger of Gewayeonjigaywin, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.13 A delegation by Mr. Noel Abreu, resident, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition
Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.14 A delegation by Ms. Edith Rodriguez, resident and watershed management professional,
in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.15 A delegation by Mr. Robert Bielak, President, St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited, in
regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
4.16 A delegation by Mr. Marco Maturi, Rockcliffe Inc., in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
RES.#A13/18 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT above -noted delegations 4.1 — 4.16 be received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
5.1 Years of Service Awards to Staff
5.2 A presentation by Mr. Steve Heuchert, Associate Director, Development Planning and
Regulation, TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 -
CreateTO.
RES.#A14/18 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT above -noted presentations 5.1 — 5.2 be received.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 An email dated March 8, 2018 from Mr. Philip Laffin, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
14
6.2 An email dated March 9, 2018 from Ms. Lise Geffray, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.3 An email dated March 9, 2018 from Ms. Gen Forte, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.4 An email dated March 9, 2018 from Mr. Scotty Graham, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.5 An email dated March 9, 2018 from Ms. Tania Viseu, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.6 An email dated March 12, 2018 from TJ Riley, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.7 An email dated March 12, 2018 from Ms. Tania Carolo, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.8 An email dated March 15, 2018 from Ms. Lindsay Bunce, resident, in regard to item 7.1
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.9 An email dated March 15, 2018 from Alex Hayter, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.10 An email dated March 16, 2018 from Mr. Scott Dillon, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.11 An email dated March 16, 2018 from V & C Lammachia, residents, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.12 An email dated March 17, 2018 from Ms. Kaylin Leier, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.13 An email dated March 17, 2018 from Ms. Gina Mulic, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.14 An letter dated March 18, 2018 from Mr. John Sheldon, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.15 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Mr. Matt Adams, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.16 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Ms. Monica Nunes and Dave Colangelo, residents,
in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.17 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Mr. Jeremy Grimaldi, resident, in regard to item 7.1
- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.18 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Carey Toane, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.19 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Frankie Thompson, resident, in regard to item 7.1
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
15
6.20 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Ms. Cynthia Roberts, resident, in regard to item 7.1
- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.21 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Mr. Rob Deighan, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.22 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Ms. Stephanie Wilson, resident, in regard to item
7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.23 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Mr. Patrick M. Carey, resident, in regard to item 7.1
- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.24 An email dated March 19, 2018 from Mr. Luigi Fortini, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.25 A letter dated March 20, 2018 from Mr. Johnny Dib, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.26 A letter dated March 20, 2018 from Ms. Natalija Fisher, resident and watershed
management professional, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for
2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.27 A letter dated March 19, 2018 from Ms. Miriam Hawkins, Co -Chair, Rockcliffe-Smythe
Community Association, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-
2020 - CreateTO.
6.28 An email dated March 20, 2018 from Mr. Marco Maturi, Rockliffe Inc. (officially registered
name and affiliate of St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited), in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.29 An email dated March 20, 2018 from Mr. Devin Tepleski, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.30 An email dated March 20, 2018 from Ms. Jessica Del Sole and Mr. Matthew Ouellette,
residents, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 -
CreateTO.
6.31 A letter dated March 19, 2018 from Ms. Tanya Connors, Director, Black Creek Alliance,
in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.32 An email dated March 21, 2018 from Ms. Dorian Douma, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.33 An email dated March 21, 2018 from Ms. Kathryn Slade, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.34 A letter dated March 21, 2018 from Laura Albanese, MPP, York South -Weston, in regard
to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.35 A letter dated March 22, 2018 from Mr. Dharsha Quintero, resident, in regard to item 7.1
- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
16
6.36 An email dated March 22, 2018 from Nation Rising, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands
Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.37 An email dated March 22, 2018 from the residents of Terry Drive, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.38 An email dated March 22, 2018 from Andrew Roy, Edible Landscaping, in regard to item
7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.39 An email dated March 22, 2018 from John and Virginia Presseault, residents, in regard
to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
6.40 A letter dated March 23, 2018 from Ms. Leah Harrison, Co -Chair, Stockyards Residents
Association, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 -
CreateTO.
6.41 A letter dated March 23, 2018 from Councillor Frances Nunziata, Ward 11 York South -
Weston, in regard to item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 -
CreateTO.
6.42 An email dated March 22, 2018 from Ms. Jung Kim, resident, in regard to item 7.1 -
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO.
RES.#A15/18 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT above -noted correspondence 6.1 — 6.42 be received.
CARRIED
17
Item 6.1
From: Philip Laffin [mailto
Sent: March 8, 2018 9:21 AM
To: Councillor Augimeri <Councillor_Augimeri@toronto.ca>; iheath@markham.ca
Cc: chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca; Councillor DeBaeremaeker <councillor_deBaeremaeker@toronto.ca>;
johnhballinger@gmail.com; Councillor Crisanti<councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>;
brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca; jennifer.innis@caledon.ca; colleen.jordan@ajax.ca; kstranks@trca.on.ca
Subject: 200 Rockcliffe ct.
Dear Councillor Augimeri, councillor Heath and other members of the TRCA board,
I am writing you today regarding the proposed sale of the site at 200 Rockcliffe Ct. I am certain
at this time that you have heard from other residents of area who are deeply concerned about this
potential sale for a litany of reasons. I would like to add my voice to that group.
I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting on March 23rd at which you'll be hearing
depositions and voting on this potential sale so I feel it is important for me to make my many
concerns clear now.
I live just up the hill from the site at 59 Rockcliffe Blvd a little north of Alliance. The least of
my concern is that the value of my home will be affected by this sale. Nevertheless, it is true.. I
would not complain if my home value were being decreased because of a homeless shelter in the
area, affordable housing or any other project that would serve the community.
The site of the proposed sale is on a flood plain, the proposed development of facilities for Mt St.
Helen's meat packing plant would put the entire area at a much higher risk of basement flooding.
Their are 2 schools in the area where these transport trucks will be driving. The roads are
narrow and the streets won't be able to handle this influx of traffic in the form of large transport
trucks.
This site is still recovering from decades and decades of neglect and toxic industrial use. It was
a sewage treatment facility as well as a landfill site. I understand this makes the site less suitable
for spaces that could serve the community or residential developments however, the land need to
be given time to recover so that the area can accommodate those uses in the future. Allowing
more toxic industry to come in and pollute the area all over again is irresponsible.
Lastly, and most importantly, I have concerns about the company itself. I walk down Lavender
Creek frequently to get to the stockyards. I also use Symes and Gunns roads frequently. I visit
Rainhard and Shacklands Brewing Co's that are in the same area as St. Helen's and I can say
without any doubt in my mind that they are terrible neighbors. The amount of industrial waste in
lavender creek is astounding, they allow their waste to spill over their current site and into
lavender creek without ever doing anything to clean it up or mitigate the amount of industrial
waste that spills over and off their site. They frequently idle their trucks in the middle of the
street blocking traffic in both directions on Glenn Scarlett and Symes roads illegally. Before you
vote to allow this company to purchase the parcel of land at 200 Rockcliffe Ct please take a walk
down Lavender Creek Trail and Glenn Scarlett/Symes Road. Take a look at the amount of
e
disgusting industrial waste that they have allowed to spill over from their existing site. Look at
the state of that area before you allow them to expand their operation and turn more potential
green space into a new site for them to leave their waste, and make sure their is no doubt in your
mind that if you do vote to allow this sale to go through, you will be responsible for allowing St.
Helen's to pollute and ruin a whole new site that could have been something really beneficial for
the residents of the area.
Philip Laffin.
SZam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
19
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.2
Fwd: Discuss the intended sale of the CreateTO lands at 200 Rockcliffe Court
Lise Geffray
%0,% to:
J councillor_augimeri, johnhballinger, colleen.jordan, councillor_crisanti,
councillor_debaeremaeker, kstranks, councillor_mammoliti, councillor_fletcher,
councillor_mford, councillor_karygiannis, councillor perruzza, chris.fonseca, jennifer.innis,
matt.mahoney, michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, brenda.hogg, 1pabst, gino.rosati, jenn.drake
09/03/2018 01:12 PM
Hide Details
From: Lise Geffray > Sort List...
To: councillor _augimeritoronto.ca, jo n i allinger@gmail.com, colleen .jordan@ajax. ca,
councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca, councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca,
kstranks@trca.on.ca, councillor _mammoliti@toronto.ca, councillor fletcher@toronto.ca,
councillor_mford@toronto.ca, councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca,
councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca, chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca,
matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca, michael.palleschi@brampton.ca,
john.sprovieri@brampton.ca, brenda.ho richmondhill.ca, 1pabst@king.ca,
gino.rosati@vaughan.ca,
History: This message has been replied to.
Good morning,
I would like to express my concern about the severance off 200 Rockcliffe
Is that really even a possibility? How much taxes this company is giving to ward
11 to make that even an option? How come this industry has so much power?!?
Our community have been sending e-mails for years now, everyone agrees that
these meat factories as well as the tannery needs to either leave or at least do
something about the smell! Finally something good happen in the area with the
breweries coming on Gunns road. We can make our area the next Lesliville, Annex
or Roncesvalles.
We have families around here, we are trying to make this area a better one. Most
people moving inhere are young families with babies or toddlers. We need green
spaces, we need farmer markets, we need daycare sand coffee shop s. We
definitely don't need a parking or anything related to these slaughter houses.
We, people deserve better. As Councillors, women and men of powerwe expect
you to defend the interest of the inhabitants living here! We do pay taxes as well!
Make this area a second evergreen brick works. Do not sell this area to an industry
that has no plan to serve the community! These slaughterhouses should be out of
the city - not within!
We need your help - please help us raise our children in a better place with green
areas, parks and farmers markets. Not with the death smell we are in right now.
Lise
20
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web6095.htm 09/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
Item 6.3
March 23 vote on the severance of Parcel A from the 200 Rockliffe Court property
Gen Forte
to:
councillor_augimeri, johnhballinger, colleen.jordan, councillor_crisanti,
councillor_debaeremaeker, kstranks, councillor_mammoliti, councillor fletcher,
councillor_mford, councillor_karygiannis, councillor_perruzza, chris.fonseca, jennifer.innis,
matt.mahoney, michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, brenda.hogg, 1pabst, gino.rosati, jenn.drake
09/03/2018 01:12 PM
Hide Details
From: Gen Forte > Sort List...
To: councillor _auglmen toronto.ca,o a linger@gmail.com, colleen.jordan@ajax.ca,
councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca, councillor _debaeremaeker@toronto.ca,
kstranks@trca.on.ca, councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca,
councillor_mford@toronto.ca, councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca,
councillor_penuzza@toronto.ca, chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca,
matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca, michael.palleschi@brampton.ca,
john.sprovieri@brampton.ca, brenda.h*orichimondbill.ca, 1pabst@king.ca,
gino.rosati@vaughan.ca,History: This message has een rep le
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the severance of Parcel A from the 200 Rockliffe Court
property.
The Black Creek East site needs to be rehabilitated and conserved for future generations.
Voting yes would open this to sale and it should not be sold to St. Helen's. St. Helen's is a noxious, odious industry that has no place in
residential communities. It is not an appropriate industry to be located steps away from people's homes.
Presumably; this potential sale is intended for the profit of the city. However this particular business has had a negative economic and
social impact on the neighbourhood. and creating more of it will continue to hurt our community. It would be classist; it would benefit
richer neighbourhoods to the detriment of our working class neighbourhood. While the rest of Toronto is participating in a post industrial
boom; this wouldthrow us back to the 1900s.
We don't need the increased traffic, the increased odours, the flood risks to an already vulnerable neighbourhood.
The land should be rehabilitated and turned into parkland.
Thank you for your time.
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
21
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web2213.htm 09/03/2018
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.4
Please do not allow the severance off 200 Rockeliffe in Ward 11
Scotty Graham
to:
councillor augimeri, johnhbaUinger, colleen.jordan, councillor _crisanti,
councillor_debaeremaeker, kstranks, councillor_mammoliti, councillor_fleteber,
councillor_mford, councillor karygiannis, councillor perruzza, chris.fonseca, jennifer.innis,
matt.niahoney, michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, brenda.hogg, 1pabst, gino.rosati, jenn.drake
09/03/2018 01:12 PM
Cc:
councillor nunziata
Hide Details
From: Scotty Graham Sort List._.
To: councillor _augimen toronto.ca, jo a mger@,gmail.com, colleen.jordan@ajax.ca,
councillor_ crisanti@torouto.ca, councillor _debaeremaeker@toronto.ca,
kstranks@trea.on.ca, councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, coimcillor_fletcher@toronto.ca,
councillor_mford@toronto.ca, councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca,
councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca, chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca,
matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca, miehael_palleschi@brampton. ca,
john.sprovieli@brampton.ca, brenda.hogg a,richmondhill.ca, 1pabst@king.ca,
Cc: councillor_mmziata toronto_ca
History: This message has been replied to.
Good morning,
I am adding my voice to my neighbours in asking you to not allow the severance off 200 Rockeliffe in
Ward 11 at your March 23rd meeting.
In my professional career I have fought against NOjetsTO and Community Air and all types of
NIMBYism. I am not anti -development.
However I encourage you to consider that the case to sever and sell the land is counter intuitive to the
work that's been done since Hurricane Hazel and, had the property been properly considered during
amalgamation, this brown/green field would never have been assigned as surplus.
The creative work CreateTO orchestrated to get this land off their ledger proves this is not the
straightforward transaction it is presented to be. They are good at their job and rightly formd exceptions
and took advantage of them.
I urge you to close this loop hole and work with our area, who 65 years ago was devastated by flash
flooding, to build our future around the floodplains - not on them.
Sco Graham
t ennis, oronto
PS. I admit this has no relevance to city business but I find it personally difficult to see my municipal
leaders support a slaughterhouse expansion. The city grew around St. Helen's and they are entitled to
their property, but with the Stockyards Mall, three breweries, new event spaces and a regional transit
hub, the smell of carcuss and death should be left in our past where it belongs.
22
file:///C:IUsers/kathy.stianks/AppData/LocaFTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web4391.htiu 09/03/2018
Pagel of 2
Item 6.5
Fwd: TRCA board -Rockcliffe site
just desserts
to:
kstranks
09/03/2018 01:12 PM
Hide Details
From: just desserts >
To: kstranks@trca.on.ca
History: This message has been replied to.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my concern about the possible sale of a parcel of land belonging to the 301 Rockcliffe site.
This land has a long history of contamination, neglect and industrial use dating back to early 1800's.
What's happening with CreateTo and the plans to sever and sell the land is just unbelievable. This has been a green space for
30 years — recovering from decades of pollution. We want to allow this land to recover so that it can eventually benefit the
community.
It actually goes against the philosophy of the TRCA about what to do to mitigate a flood plain.
Yet somehow, through fancy foot work, legal loopholes and technicalities this development has been pushed to the 11th hour
and now a community's integrity and the future of our neighbourhood for our kids, is in the hands of the Board of the TRCA.
I feel that this community has been neglected and abandoned.
Rockliffe is in the heart of a residential area that is only slated to grow and the demographic is changing as seniors are selling
their homes and young families are moving in. The residents would like this site to be returned to the community and rezoned
as a green space. I feel that this is a classic case of environmental racism! (https://en.m.wikii3edia.org/wiki/Environmental
racism)
It's no secret that Rockcliffe Smythe urban heart score is 33 in the bottom 1/3 of all neighbourhoods. We have traditionally
been a working class, immigrant community. I urge you to please look at this issue using gender and immigrant lens. Would
this happen in other neighbourhoods with a different demographics, history and legacy? Rosedale? Leaside?
A lot has happened since the early 2000's when this land was deemed surplus:
1) stockyards shopping centre has been built
2) improvements to Marie Claire park including a splash pad. Currently the only way to access this is to navigate the heavy
traffic already happening at Glen Scarlett
3) Nations Grocery
4) the revitalization and restoration of the Symes Centre
5) Opening of 3 Breweries the "Ale Yards" on Symes
6) A promise of green space revitalization and improvements along hydro corridor
7) changes in demographics of residents as seniors age out and young families move in
8) condo developments on St. Clair and Weston
Yet because of the amount of trucks already in the area, it makes walking to these facilities nearly impossible. Residents
often to choose to drive. It will only get worse with additional trucking back and forth, creating pollution from all ends.
I urge you to reconsider this sale and the sale of any of the 301 Rockcliffe site. We look forward to your support
Sincerely,
Tania Viseu
23
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web9402.htm 09/03/2018
Pagel of 2
Item 6.6
i6200 rockcliffe blvd
TJ Riley
to:
councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca
12/03/2018 12:11 PM
Cc:
"councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca", "johnhballinger@gmail.com", "colleen.jordan@ajax.ca"
"councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca", "councillor _debaeremaeker@toronto.ca",
"kstranks@trca.on.ca","councillor _mammoliti@toronto.ca",
"councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca", "councillor mford@toronto.ca",
"councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca", "councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca",
"chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca", "jennifer.innis@caledon.ca",
"matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca", "michael.palleschi@brampton.ca",
"john.sprovieri@brampton.ca", "brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca", "Ipabst@king.ca",
"gino.rosati@vaughan.ca", "jenn.drake@utoronto.ca"
Hide Details
From: TJ Riley <1jriley_25@hotmai1.com> Sort List...
To: "councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>
Cc: "councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca" <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>,
"johnhballinger@gmail.com" <johnhballinger@gmail.com>, "colleen.jordan@ajax.ca"
<colleen.jordan@ajax.ca>, "councillor_ crisanti@toronto.ca"
<councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>, "councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca"
<councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <kstranks@trca.on.ca>,
"councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca" <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>,
"councillor_ fletcher@toronto.ca"<councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>,
"councillormford@toronto.ca" <councillor_mford@toronto.ca>,
"councillor__karygiannis@toronto.ca" <councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca>,
"councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>,
"chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca" <chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca>,
"jennifer.innis@caledon.ca" <jennifer.innis@caledon.ca>, "matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca"
<matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca>, "michael.palleschi@brampton.ca"
<michael.palleschi@brampton.ca>, "john.sprovieri@brampton.ca"
<john.sprovieri@brampton.ca>, "brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca"
<brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca>, "lpabst@king.ca" <Ipabst@kin ca>
"gino.rosati an han.ca" <gino.rosati@vaughan.ca>, "jenn.drak
<jenn.drak
Hello Frances, councilors and TRCA board members,
My name is TJ Riley I'm an actor and a contractor living in the Rockcliffe-Smythe neighborhood. My
fiance and I sold our condo in Roncesvalles and moved to this neighbourhood a year and a half ago
with hopes of starting a family in a home. We are happily expecting our first child in May! We work
very hard to afford our home in the only "affordable" neighborhood left in the city. We are constantly
renovating and re -investing our money into our home in order to create a future for our incoming
daughter.
The news of an incoming animal rendering plant in place of a much loved green space in my
community is beyond disappointing. This is selling the future of my neighbourhood and my family out
in order for the city to make a quick buck. I see absolutely no value in this decision to move forward
with this sale. You will argue jobs and economic impact but the jobs that will be created are not high
paying, high taxed jobs. It will also decrease property value and thus decrease property taxes.
24
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web8478.htm 14/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
When I was looking to buy a home here I saw many fellow young people looking at the same
properties we were to start families just like us. New homeowners also creates jobs with renovations
and the services that will be needed for young families trying to start their lives. The neighbourhood is
in transition. A factory that smells of animal carcass's and fecal matter puts an end to this transition.
I ask you to PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider this decision.
If this continues to move forward I plan on using everything within my power to put an end to it and
have my voice heard so that those responsible for the destruction of our community are held
accountable.
Thank you for reading,
TJ Riley
S
am
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
25
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web8478.htm 14/03/2018
Pagel of 2
Item 6.7
TRCA meeting re: severance of 200 Rockcliffe Ct
Tania Carolo
to:
councillor_augimeri, johnhballinger, colleen.jordan, councillor_crisanti,
councillor_debaeremaeker, kstranks, councillor_mammoliti, councillor_fletcher,
councillor mford, councillor_karygiannis, councillor perruzza, chris.fonseca,
jennifer.innis, matt.mahoney, michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, brenda.hogg, Ipabst,
gino.rosati, jenn.drake, Councillor Frances Nunziata
12/03/2018 12:11 PM
Hide Details
From: Tania Carolo <tcarolo@sympatico.ca> Sort List...
To: councillor_augimeri<councillor _augimeri@toronto.ca>, johnhballinger
<johnhballinger@gmail.com>, "colleen.jordan" <colleen.jordan@ajax.ca>,
councillor _crisanti <councillor crisanti@toronto.ca>, councillor_debaeremaeker
<councillor _debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, kstranks <kstranks@trca.on.ca>,
councillor _mammoliti <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>, councillor_fletcher
<councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>, councillor mford <councillor _mford@toronto.ca>,
councillor_karygiannis <councillor karygiannis@toronto.ca>, councillor perruzza
<councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, "chris.fonseca" <chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca>,
"jennifer.innis" <jennifer.innis@caledon.ca>, "matt.mahoney"
<matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca>, "michael.palleschi"
<michael.palleschi@brampton.ca>, "john.sprovieri" <john.sprovieri@brampton.ca>,
"brenda.hogg" <brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca>, Ipabst <1 abst king.ca>, "gino.rosati"
<gino.rosati@vaughan.ca>, Jenn.drake" <jenn.drak�, Councillor Frances
Nunziata <councillor_nunziata toronto.ca>
Please respond to Tania Carolo
Hello,
"By committing ourselves to protecting, restoring and enhancing nature, we allow the natural
world to bestow its many benefits on our bodies, our minds, our spirits and our communities."
According to it's website, the above is the mission of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
My email today as to express my concerns regarding the severance of 200 Rockcliffe Ct.
I was raised Rockcliffe/Smythe and have since decided to grow my family here. One thing that has
remained constant over the years is the number of neighbours and community members at large who
have been affected by flooding. My home backs on to the Black Creek, and everytime we are subject
to intense rain I peek out the window to see what the creek level is at. The flood of 2013 is an event
that I hope to never see happen again. Many hard working residents is our neighbourhood have been
the subject of flooding problems over the years and I believe that more needs to be done to mitigate
the risk.
At a recent meeting organized by Councillor Nunziata to provide information regarding the Flood
Remediation Environment Assessment & Basement Flooding Program the messaged seemed to be
clear -- more needs to be done to protect our waterways and help reduce the likelihood of flooding.
Some of the alternatives suggested included increasing conveyance capacity (by way of creek
naturalization) and even land and or property acquisition in and around the flood prone areas.
26
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web0650.htm 14/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
This first part of the meeting seemed to highlight the importance of taking control of our lands and
making choices that would help reduce flooding. Once the second part of the meeting commenced,
with regards to providing information related to severance of the property in question, everything
changed. The important environmental measures discussed in the first part of the meeting seemed to
have been thrown out the window.
The decision to potentially sever 200 Rockcliffe goes against the mission of the TRCA. By allowing
the severance of the property in question, we are doing a dis justice to the community. This
community has for so long been neglected and many important issues have been brushed aside and
the community at large has been ignored. The lands in question are in the flood plain. All that
separates the creek's channel from the lands in question is a roadway. The community wishes to work
together to provide a solution to the lands that would include naturalization which would in turn help
to mitigate flood occurrences.
We deserve and demand the same respect and opportunity as other parts of the city. If people can
allow a rail deck park to be built, rally behind a project like the Evergreen Brickworks, then surely we
can unite to help green this small parcel of land in Rockcliffe! Our children deserve to be able to tun
in as much green space as possible. Birds and wildlife need to be considered. The furture needs to be
considered as well. If this severance is approved today, what precedent will it set for the future? We
need to insure that residents are able to live and enjoy their homes and community without worry
every time it rains.
I remind you once again or the mission of the TRCA -- "By committing ourselves to protecting,
restoring and enhancing nature, we allow the natural world to bestow its many benefits on our
bodies, our minds, our spirits and our communities."
I am unable to attend the meeting on March 23 where a decision on this matter is expected. Kindly
circulate my email in opposition of the severance of the lands. My family and I support of the
eventual naturalization of 200 Rockcliffe!
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Have a wonderful day.
Tania Carolo
Snam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
27
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web0650.htm 14/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
Item 6.8
RE: TRCA Agenda Item 7.1 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - CreateTO
Lindsay Bunce
to:
councillor_augimeri, johnhballinger, colleen.jordan, councillor_crisanti,
councillor_debaeremaeker, councillor_mammoliti, councillor_fletcher, councillor_mford,
councillor_karygiannis, councillor_perruzza, chris.fonseca, jennifer.innis, matt.mahoney,
michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, brenda.hogg, 1pabst, gino.rosati
15/03/2018 09:01 PM
Cc:
kstranks, Councillor_Nunziata
Hide Details
From: Lindsay Bunce > Sort List...
To: councillor _augimer� toronto.ca,0 a roger@gmail.com, colleen.jordan@ajax.ca,
councillor _crisanti@toronto.ca, councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca,
councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca,
councillor_mford@toronto.ca, councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca,
councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca, chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca,
matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca, michael.palleschi@brampton.ca,
john.sprovieri@brampton.ca, brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca, 1pabst@king.ca,
gino.rosati@vaughan.ca
Cc: kstranks@trca.on.ca, Councillor Nunziata@toronto.ca
TRCA Board Members -
As a past TRCA employee for nearly a decade, and having attended several board meetings
during this time, I can appreciate the complexity of your role as board members. That said,
the decision to oppose the sale and development of 200 Rockcliffe Court should be quite
simple.
To allow the sale and development of this property, would be counter to everything I know
about the values of the TRCA and your vision for The Living City. I urge you to please consider
the importance of enabling our community to access green space (as the site continues to
naturalize) and to protect our properties from flood damage.
Your position as community leaders allows you to empower neighbourhoods as they work to
foster a connection to nature and each other. Allowing this sale to unfold will do nothing but
hinder the positive growth within our community.
Thank you for letting me add my voice to this conversation.
Lindsay Bunce
S
am
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
28
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web2712.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
Item 6.9
// Concern re: 200 Rockeliffe Court site
Alex Hayter
to:
kstranks
15/03/2018 10:49 PM
Hide Details
From: Alex Hayter >
To: kstranks@trea.on.ca
To the TRCA board,
I am a resident of Rockeliffe-Smythe in Toronto near- Black Creek and I wanted to write to express my
concern regarding the sale of 200 Rockeliffe Court_
Thus site is best suited as a green space for 3 reasons:
- As a public safety concern, it serves as a vital flood plain, protecting home owners/renters from the real
possibility of water damage
- The area is still in the process of recovery after years of environmental abuse. A green space would
help to continue to reverse this damage
- With schools and various neighbourhoods surrounding it, it can serve as an important public space,
with the option of light retail if need be
A parking lot associated with a slaughter house is a depressing move in the opposite direction of serving
our area's needs.
I hope you consider these concerns in your meeting next Wednesday regarding the sale.
Best,
Alex Hayter
M
:
httRPeyt"xerom
041exhayter
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
29
file:///CJUsers/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web3379.htm 19/03/2018
Pagel of 3
Item 6.10
GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
Scott Dillon
to:
ksmmks@tma on ca
16/03/2018 09:34 AM
Hide Details
From: Scott Dillon
To: "kstranks@troa ov ca < etran a@tma on ca>
Attention Kathy;
RE: SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
7 1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 16
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Hamber River Watershed
CmancTO (formerly Build Toronm Inc )
CFN 55477
1 ..able instead the board meeting on March 23, 2018
However, I am writing you today to formally ask that you reject the proposal to divide and sell this land
With global warming and severe weather becoming more frequent we absolutely need to save all green lands, especially those as rare as being within the City of Toronto's limits
Even if only part of this land is part ofthe 350 year flood plain, the world is changing
Toronto is called the City within a park, that is simply not true in this industrial neighbourhood of Toronto
This partieular area needs open GREEN space, not grass school yards See below for "green space" in this community...
Imagine this path with a maintained dirt hail, with beautiful trees, right in the heart of emonto!
30
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web9l89.htm 19/03/2018
Page 2 of 3
This would be sit alar in puny, sites from my hometown of Calgary, AB Can Toronto nmbe more forward thinking tban the west?
31
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web9l89.htm 19/03/2018
Page 3 of 3
Perhaps Storm Management Ponds could he created in this area as well as Dirt, of the etforc to reduce Flooding?
RockClitfe Park sounds amazing
Please note: this area of land is frequented by a variety of wildlife, which if you do not reject this proposal will endanger their existence
I have personally seen deer, foxes, and rabbits in this exact vicinity
1 would also like to paint out item ] 2 which seems to support not dividing this land
I ask you to look at your mandate and I hope you can we the greater opportunity here
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Scott Dillon
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Foreet previous vote
32
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web9l89.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.11
200 Rockcliffe Court, March 23rd Board Meeting Agenda Item 7
Bea L
to:
kstranks@trca.on.ca
16/03/2018 04:15 PM
Cc:
Councillor Nunziata
Hide Details
From: Bea L >
To: "kstranks trca.on.ca" <cstrar cs trca.on.ca>
Cc: Councillor Nunziata <Councillor Nunziata@toronto.ca>
To whom it may concern:
Re: 200 Rockcliffe Court, March 23rd Board Meeting Agenda Item 7.1
My wife and I have been residents of Terry Drive for 36 years. We attended the meeting on March 7th,
2018, in regards to the proposed sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court and are writing to you today to express
our concerns regarding this matter. I am unable to attend the board meeting on March 23rd; I request
that you present my email in opposition of the sale of this property.
We'd like to begin with expressing how poor the consultation and engagement has been with the
community on this initiative. Outside of the meeting that Councillor Nunziata organized on March 7th,
where the issue was discussed for 30 minutes, there has been no consultation on this matter. Little
time was dedicated to taking questions from the residents at the meeting. An issue this important
should have had a dedicated meeting to allow for thorough discussion.
Our home has experienced flooding on several occasions and because of this the reduction and
mitigation of flooding in Ward 11 is of paramount importance to our family. We have experienced
significant financial hardship and dealing with the impacts of flooding on our home has been difficult to
cope with. We've had our insurance premiums substantially increase and have had to pay for several
repairs out-of-pocket as the insurance company did not cover all the damage we experienced. We have
tried to do everything we can to help reduce the impacts of flooding on our home, but we are truthfully
at a loss when the city experiences heavy rainfall. We have had several engineers from the private
sector come to visit our property to provide their professional opinion on what can be done for further
protection from future flooding and all of them provided the same response — saying that there isn't
much more you can do, the city has to improve the stormwater management systems in your
neighbourhood because with heavy rainfall the water has nowhere else to go right now. You may think
to yourself - why does this matter? It matters because at the recent meeting we were advised that
industrial development will occupy the land at 200 Rockcliffe if the property is sold. This news was
extremely upsetting. Ward 11 has been determined to be a high flood risk zone. It is completely
irresponsible to build these types of developments in a high flood risk area. This developments will only
place an excessive burden on the community's water and electrical systems and exacerbate the current
flooding issue. We need to reduce and mitigate flooding and increase green space to address the
current issue.
We want access to nature, not areas dominated by pavement, steel and concrete. In the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority Sustainability Report 2012-2013, it was outlined that "connection with
nature supports human health" (p16). 200 Rockcliffe is located directly parallel to a stream corridor.
How will community continue to enjoy the stream corridor with industry so close to it? The reality is it
will be unsafe to enjoy the space. To the community, it really does matter what is put on the property —
industry has a history of high greenhouse gas emissions and negative impacts on water use, air quality
and biodiversity. Poor carbon footprints, high energy and water consumption, waste production and
associated carbon emissions, do not make a strong argument for further introduction of industry into
city communities with such close proximity to people. TRCA indicates that keeping people safe is one
33
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web1818.htm 19/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
of their priorities — building an industrial development at 200 Rockcliffe will not achieve this.
In addition, industry does not minimize habitat disturbance for wildlife which is an important
consideration. Our community has undergone significant change over the last ten years with the
introduction of substantial industry, but none will be as significant as this proposal at 200 Rockcliffe
because of its proximity to the stream corridor and waterways. We must do better for the wildlife in our
communities.
TRCA has committed to engage and consult with stakeholders including residents to inform their work
and deliver results. Our community has overwhelmingly advised TRCA that flood protection, land and
water management and biodiversity matter most. I hope you have you heard our voices.
I'd like to thank you in advance for your continued commitment to keeping our rivers and shorelines
healthy, for promoting greenspace and biodiversity and sustainable communities. I urge you all to make
the right decision for our community, future generations and wildlife. Industry has ample opportunity to
locate in areas that don't pose the same risks as 200 Rockcliffe Court.
Regards,
V. & C. Lamacchia
Get Outlook for Android
SS am
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
34
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web1818.htm 19/03/2018
Item 6.12
200 Rockliffe Court
KaylinLeier to: kstranks 17/03/2018 10:04 AM
Cc: Dan Fergusson
Hi there,
My husband and I will not be able to attend the vote to preserve 200
Rockcliffe on March 23rd. We do not want to see another meat packing facility
in this area - We have signed the petition and shared on social media as well.
Please let us know what else we can do to get involved.
Can you count this email as 2 votes against Helen's Meat Packers.
Thank you,
Kaylin
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
---------------------------
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID OaVn24XRk) is spam:
Spam:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=s&i=OaVn24XRk&m=dd69a2f55dcc&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180317
Fraud/Phish:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=p&i=OaVn24XRk&m=.dd69a2f55dcc&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180317
Not Spam:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=n&i=OaVn24XRk&m=dd69a2f55dcc&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180317
Forget vote:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=f&i=OaVn24XRk&m=dd69a2f55dcc&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180317
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
35
Page 1 of 1
I' 1199%K
March 23 Board Meeting
Gina Mulic
to:
mike, jenn.drake, gino.rosati, 1pabst, brenda.hogg, john.sprovieri, michael.palleschi,
matt.mahoney, jennifer.innis, chris.fonseca, councillor perruzza, councillor_karygiannis,
councillor mford, councillor_fletcher, councillor_mammoliti, kstranks,
councillor__debaeremaeker, councillor_crisanti, colleen.jordan, johnhballinger,
councillor_augimeri
17/03/2018 09:51 PM
Cc:
Councillor Doucette
Hide Details
From: Gina MuomonRi
> Sort List...
To: mik Senn gino.rosati@vaughan.ca, 1pabst@king.ca,
brenda.hogg nca, jo nsprovieri rampton.ca, michael.palleschi@brampton.ca,
matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca, chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca,
councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca, councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca,
councillor _mford@toronto.ca, councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca,
councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, kstranks@trca.on.ca,
councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca, councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca,
colleen.jordan@ajax.ca, johnhballinger@gmail.com, councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca
Cc: Councillor Doucette <councillor doucette@toronto.ca>
Dear members of the TRCA,
I'm writing to you about 200 Rockcliffe Crt in Toronto, unfortunately I can not attend your meeting in
person so I am writing ahead.
I have learned from neighbours that you are considering allowing the sale of this property to a private
entity. I implore you, as a nearby resident, to vote against the severance and sale of this property.
The impact of climate change is only beginning to show us what's possible in terms of weather events and
we should be taking whatever action is available to us to protect against severe weather, particularly
flooding. It would be a terrible mistake to close the door on this property without fully considering how the
community could use the space in the future.
Protecting the land would allow us, as a community, to enjoy protection from flooding and relief from the
heat if it was a park instead of made from concrete. It could also mean the ability to provide healthy outdoor
space, to introduce food growing, and to improve the overall resiliency of our neighbourhood among other
things.
I hope that you carefully consider the input of all voices when you make your decision.
Thank you,
Gina Mulic
Snam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
36
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web0050.htm 19/03/2018
Item 6.14
John Sheldon
Toronto, ON M6N 2R7
March 18, 2018
Chair and Members of the Authority
C/O
Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat
Toronto Regional Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview. ON. M3N 1S4
Re: 200 Rockcliffe Court, Toronto /
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 — CreateTO
To: Chair and Members of the Authority,
I wish to offer conditional support for St. Helen's Meat Packers and CreateTO in their
efforts to complete the sale of a portion of 200 Rockcliffe Court to St. Helen's Meat
Packers. For clarification, I have no pecuniary or personal interest in St. Helen's Meat
Packers, and do not stand to benefit from the sale and development of this land. I have
lived approximately 1 km away from 200 Rockcliffe Court for the past 24 years.
It is only fair that this application be treated on the same basis as would an application
from any other lawful business, and that St. Helen's be treated in the same manner as
other firms that have sought and received approval for development from the TRCA in
similar circumstances. There is no justification for denying this application if St. Helen's
Meat Packers has followed all zoning and legal requirements and has not sought any
special exemptions. Therefore, I conditionally support St. Helen's Meat Packers in their
efforts to develop this property provided that this project will not result in any
foreseeable:
- release of waste into Black Creek,
- release of harmful pollutants into the air.
- release of unpleasant odours, and
- risk of flood damage to other properties.
I acknowledge that this project will cause a marginal increase in traffic volumes, which
believe, is not within the domain of the TRCA. However, I find no evidence to support
the contention that this project will harm neighbouring property owners or the
environment if the previously mentioned conditions are met.
37
I commend St. Helen's for their efforts, as this project will:
create employment in our area,
provide much needed revenue to the City of Toronto from the sale of this
property and annual commercial property taxes, and
support Ontario farmers as meat produced in this province will likely be further
processed and stored at this facility.
Sincerely,
Ing ��y�rarMe,
C.G. Councillor Frances Nunziata
St. Helen's Meat Packers
2
M.
Page 1 of 1
Im"IMA �
Re: sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court
Matthew Adams
to:
kstranks
19/03/2018 08:09 AM
Hide Details
From: Matthew Adams >
To: kstranks@trea.on.ca
Dear Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, TRCA:
I have been homeowner in the Blackereek area for over ten years and am writing to express my strong
concern about the environmental (and social) impacts of the proposed sale of 200 Rockeliffe Court to St.
Helen's Meat Packers Limited for a 50,000 square foot facility. I urge the TRCA to reject the proposed
sale.
This space is on a flood plain, next to the black creek river and across from a middle school. The claim
by Don Logie from CreateTO (as attributed in the Toronto Star March 13) that a factory in this area will
not have an impact on the community or "users of the flood plain" seems bizarre. I suspect the trucks
and the smell alone will be an issue at the school. All developments will have an impact and putting in a
large meat plant on land that could potentially be green space in the future is the kind of mistake that is
hard to undue.
Toronto is not well equipped for floods, especially the kind that are likely to come with climate change.
We have to start paying attention to developing in a way that preserves communities and the
environment. This sale, if it goes forward, will be yet another industrial project that goes forward
without any true community consultation and eliminates countless possibilities of projects or
developments that respect the environment and the people of the area.
Again I urge you to reject the sale of the 200 Rockcliffe Court to St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited.
Sincerely,
Matt Adams
oronto i =
Spann
Phish/Fraud
Not sham
Forget previous vote
39
file:///C:/Users/lathy.strauks/A`ppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—webl507.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
ImZYM to
200 Rockliffe Court
Monica Nunes
to:
kstranks
19/03/2018 08:09 AM
Cc:
Dave Colangelo, councillornunziata
Hide Details
From: Monica Nunes —
To: kshanU@,trca.on.ca
Cc: Dave Colangelo E
councillor nuurtata@toronto.ca
Dear Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, Toronto Region and Conservation Authority:
We are a young family and homeowners in the Rockliffe -Smythe community are and writing to express our strong
concern about the environmental (and social) impacts of the proposed sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court to St. Helen's
Meat Packers Limited for a 50,000 square foot facility. I urge the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority
(TRCA) to reject the proposed sale. There are several reasons for our plea:
• This space is on a flood plain and building on the land may increase flooding. Don Logie from CreateTO (as
attributed in the Toronto Star March 13) has made the claim that a factory in this area will not have an impact on the
community or "users of the flood plait". However, it's been studied and proven that when we pave over green spaces,
the risk of flooding increases. According to the latest flooding vulnerability assessments in Toronto, the
neighbourhoods that make up Ward 11 are already extremely at high risk for flooding.
• It will impede the flood remediation work of the TRCA. Selling off this land for development will impede the
needed flood management work of the TRCA in the Black Creek Valley, making it impossible for the TRCA to
actually implement its long-term recommendations for floor remediation in the area. in fact, it is ironic that at the
same meeting on March 23, the TRCA Board is considering a report on flood remediation measures in the
Rockcliffe area (item 7.2 on the agenda) while there is an opportunity to mitigate such risks by preventing
the sale of 200 Rockliffe Court. Essentially, permitting this sale would be contradicting the TRCA's own
mission statement of "protecting, enhancing and restoring nature...".
• It is a lost opportunity to build a resilient, community-based response to climate change locally.
Over time, flood risks will only be heightened with the impending outcomes of climate change. By
preserving and remediating 200 Rockliffe Court we can instead develop opportunities for for green
community space that enhance the well-being of community members while creating a community culture
and physical landscape that thrives in the midst of climate change and other environmental threats.
Sincerely,
Monica Nunes and Dave Colangelo
M69 3Y9
Spain
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
40
file:///CJUsers/kathy.stranks/AppData/Loc,al/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—webl635.htin 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.17
Black Creek
Jeremy Grimaldi
4t V to:
—` kstrankse`trea.on.ca
19/03/2018 08:09 AM
Hide Details
From: Jeremy Grimaldi >
To: "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <cstra atrca.on.ca?
Hi Kathy,
I must say I was pretty taken aback to hear that the land across from Rockcliffe school was
being sold to a meat packing company that planned to build meat freezer, something that what
would inevitably be an eyesore.
Since we moved into the neighbourhood, we've been working hard to make it a nicer place.
Planting trees, repairing disused and unsafe parks and paths, throwing street parties and
making the neighbourhood child -friendly.
Residents had been succeeding
And although the city has supported us in these ventures, there have also been a slew of
incidents in which all of our work has been knocked aback by shortsighted planning.
First, the city placed a men's shelter at the corner of Runnymede and St Clair, an intersection
that has yet to properly develop.
Second there was a power station expansion beside a slew of low-income housing with
absolutely NO public discussion beforehand.
A dog park was wedged in between nearby basketball courts and the new power station. It's so
small as a result as to render it completely useless. It appeared to be built after years of
residents waiting for it, to appease angry residents
I think many people hoped the land across from Rockcliffe school that is now slated to be a
meat locker, would be used for some sort of park area considering many people currently use
it to walk dogs and take strolls.
Now residents are faced with further industrial builds and concrete instead of grass and trees.
I really struggle to understand why a meat locker is the choice as a street facing development.
Would anyone on the TRCA like to live near this?
Has anyone from the TRCA seen the flooding that takes place in the area? Is building this
structure on a floodplain really a sustainable plan? Or a good plan for that matter?
I hope you rule in favour of the environment and residents and human beings, rather than
profit.
Yours,
41
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stianks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/–webl869.htm 19/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
J. Grimaldi
S
am
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
42
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web1869.htm 19/03/2018
IM701V:�E:3
(I No to development at 200 Rockliffe
'ih� Carey Toane to: kstranks 19/03/2018 08:09 AM
Dear Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, TRCA:
We bought our first home in the Blackcreek area five years ago and I am
writing to express my strong concern about the environmental (and social)
impacts of the proposed sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court to. St. Helen's Meat
Packers Limited for a 50,000 square foot facility. I urge the TRCA to reject
the proposed sale.
This neighbourhood is set to change rapidly as a new generation of young
families purchase affordable homes in the area. Old buildings are becoming
breweries and event spaces. We are looking to you for vision to recognize that
this space is ripe for development as a green space for the people who live
here, not as more industrial wasteland and parking lots for noisy trucks.
Toronto would do well to look to cities around the world that are balancing
social and environmental concerns in planning. is not well equipped for
floods, especially the kind that are likely to come with climate change. We
have to start paying attention to developing in a way that preserves
communities and the environment. This sale, if it goes forward, will be yet
another industrial project thatgoes forward without community consultation
and eliminates countless possibilities of projects or developments that
respect the environment and the people of the area.
Again I urge you to reject the sale of the 200 Rockcliffe Court to St. Helen's
Meat Packers Limited.
Sincerely,
Carey Toane
Sent from my iPhone
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID OaVmmsIXv) is spam:
Spam:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=s&i=OaVmmsIXv&m=35693ccdl3b2&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180315
Fraud/Phish:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=p&i=OaVmmsIXv&m=35693ccdl3b2&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180315
Not spam:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php.?c=n&i=OaVmmsIXv&m=35693ccdl3b2&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180315
Forget vote:
https://emailfilteringservice.net/canit/b.php?c=f&i=OaVmmsIXv&m=35693ccdl3b2&r
lm=trca-on-ca&t=20180315
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
43
Page I of 1
Item 6.19
Rockcliffe site
Frankie Mcrae
to:
kstranks, Ana Bailao, Justin Di Ciano, councillor_nunziata, councillor—shiner
19/03/2018 0&14 AM
Hide Details
From: Frankie Mcrae > Sort List...
To: kstranks@trca.on.ca, Ana Bailao <councillor_bailao@toronto.ca>, Justin Di Ciano
<councillor_diciano@toronto.ca>, councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca,
councillor shiner@toronto.ca
Dear Kathy and Councillors,
I have a letter below to yours and the boards attention for the upcoming meeting. I can not attend, but I
hope to voice my opinion.
Good morning,
I am writing to express great concern about the possible sale of a parcel of land belonging to the 200
Rockcliffe site.
As a resident of the area I am strongly against selling this land to a meat packing company. The lot is in
the heart of a residential area that is only slated to grow and the demographic is changing as seniors are
selling their homes and young families are moving in.
It is awful to think a slaughter house could park their trucks across the street from a school or
even consider moving their slaughter house there in the heart of a residential neighbourhood.
The amount of noise and smell these facilities create will ruin the atmosphere of a
neighborhood that is moving away from this type of development.
This land has a long history of contamination, neglect and industrial use dating back to early
1800's. The area in question is also a known flood plain with historical references dating back
to late 1800's in the former city of York council minutes. While I understand this limits to what
can be placed in the area, there is no reason the city should profit on the displeasure of the
area residents.
Residents would like this site to be returned to the community and rezoned as a green space. We
envision a site like Evergreen Brickworks being developed on this land bringing green employment to a
neighbourhood improvement area that sorely needs community development and green space .
I urge you to reconsider this sale and the sale of any of the parcels on land on the Rockcliffe site.
Sincerely,
Frankie Thompson
SS am
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
44
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web5414.htm 19/03/2018
Page I of 1
Item 6.20
About the sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court
Cynthia Roberts
to:
kstranks@trca.on.ca
19/03/2018 12:10 PM
Hide Details
From: Cynthia Roberts >
To: "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <cstranks trca.on.ca>
Dear TRCA Board,
As a resident of the Rockcliffe-Smythe area, I am writing today to express my deep concern about the
potential sale and proposed new use for the 8 -acres of land at 200 Rockcliffe Court. While this
neighbourhood has a prolonged industrial history, the natural history is even longer and the surviving
natural environment is in desperate need of conservation --I'm referring to the ravines, creeks, and flora
around here (to mention just a few).
We currently co -exist with meat -packing industries on Glenn Scarlet Road and experience the impact on
traffic, smells, etc. as well as the environmental impact on Lavender creek behind it. Please don't vote to
approve yet another one of these lackluster industrial environments that benefit only the few companies
and not the neighboring communities. City -building should also be about community -building and
place -making.... parking lots or storage units does not encourage any of this.
We hope that you will take into consideration the community's concerns and commit to turn this parcel
of land into a green public space that would benefit everyone for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Roberts
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
45
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web0094.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
200 rockcliffe Item 6.21
Robbie D
to:
kstranks
19/03/2018 12:10 PM
Hide Details
From: Robbie D >
To: kstranks@trca.on.ca
Hello,
I would like to express my opposition to the sale of land at 200 rockcliffe.
We have a history of flooding in the area and allowing this use on a floodplain won't help. Its your job
to protect this community from flooding and I would ask that you not allow anything that could make
the chance of flooding worse.
I have a question about the floodplain. When was the risk of flooding last assessed and does it take
climate change into consoderation? How has this changed the risk of flooding to the area? Is it more or
less likely to flood now? Seems to me you should err on the side of caution and reject any change that
could put property at risk given the uncertainty.
The green space here is an important one to the community to my family and shouldnt be lost.
I hope you will do the right thing here and reject the sale application.
Thank you
MW
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
46
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web4872.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 2
f I VG A
200 Rockcliffe
Ste
Steph
to:
Trea
19/03/2018 12:10 PM
Cc:
Councillor Nunziata, mayor tory
Hide Details
From: Steph >
To: Trca <kstr trea.on.ca>
Cc: Councillor Nunziata <councillor nunziata@toronto.ca>, mayor tory@toronto.ca
Dear TRCA Board Members,
We are writing this letter to speak out against the sale of 200 Rockcliffe
We are hoping that you will determine that you need more than the small allotment of land accorded in
the agreement to help you property manage flood protection issues in Rockcliffe Smythe. Indeed, it is
hard to understand, as someone without a background in environmental science, how this new storage
facility would not increase runoff and sewage flooding in a storm.
200 Rockcliffe is in the centre of many NIA (needs improvement) neighbourhoods, such as Mount
Dennis, Weston, and Rockcliffe-Smythe.
Although 200 Rockcliffe is to most of you simply vacant, contaminated, flood land, the border of this
parcel of land was not considered empty to us- it contained our hopes and dreams- it was to one day
serve an important purpose in our community- to connect residents to transit, to services, jobs, schools,
nature, and each other.
Perhaps very foolishly, residents planned and dreamed about what could be- over pints of beer at the
local ale yards, at monthly city led Neighbourhood Strong planning meetings, at countless community
meetings, and in each other's homes.
We dreamed that one day, the land behind our homes would have bike paths and multi- purpose trails
where we could have long walks with our families down better lit trails, with park benches to sit for a
while and contemplate the world. We dreamed of a safe, car -free link to transit infrastructure,
downtown, shopping, and a way to access the new state of the art ree centre for our children and
grandchildren.
Residents talked, workshopped, and dreamed of planting lavender down the close by "lavender trail," of
having our green space actually smell like lavender, the hail's namesake, instead of pollution and waste.
Neighbours spoke of a community hub, where people could come together and enjoy eachother's
company.
The ONLY positive factor in the urban heart measure for Rockcliffe Smythe is Green space (of note,
our score is —33, anything below 42 is in need of direct action). Green space is our ONLY protective
factor in an at risk neighbourhood that suffers from chronic unemployment, low SES, record high
asthma rates, and model inner city schools, the list could go on and on. I fail to see how this sale would
be in line with a Toronto Strong neighbourhood strategy or even your own Living City Strategy... after
all,
47
file:///C:/Use.is/kathy.shanks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web0233.htiu 19/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
"what more important legacy can there be than creating a healthy and livable city region of which we can be proud and
which our grandchildren and great- grandchildren will inherit?"
We are asking you to protect our green (currently brown) space ...and our dreams for one day achieving
a better community in which to raise our families.
We are counting on you.
Thank you for your consideration,
Stephanie Wilson
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
48
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—webO233.htm 19/03/2018
Page 1 of 1
Item 6.23
Regarding: Sale of 200 / 301 Rockcliffe Court
Patrick Carey
to:
kstranks@trca.on.ca
19/03/2018 12:10 PM
Cc:
councillor nunziata
Hide Details
From: Patrick Carey >
To: "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <cstrat cs trca.on.ca>
Cc: councillor nunziata@toronto.ca
Dear TRCA Boardmembers,
I am a proud Rockcliffe-Smythe resident. It's my duty as a citizen to express my concern
regarding the upcoming potential sale of the 8 acres of land contained within 200 / 301
Rockcliffe Court to St. Helen's and Senso. This neighbourhood has a long history of industrial
use, but this is but a miniscule fraction of its natural history. The remaining, mostly untouched
environment-- creeks, streams, woods, grassland, flora and fauna-- desperately need conserving.
We currently coexist with meat-packing/slaughterhouse industries on Glenn Scarlet Road
and experience the immediate impact on traffic, water and air quality, noise and odour, not
to mention the direct environmental impact on Lavender Creek. I kindly urge you not to
approve yet another dirty, loud, unsightly industrial environment that solely benefits a few
corporate entities, literally at the expense of the neighboring communities. City -building
does involve making space for industry and efficient businesses, but it is equally about
place -making, community -building, nature and natural processes, which are clearly not
encouraged by storage units and parking lots.
As a resident of the great, progressive city of Toronto, I hope you will take the Rockcliffe-
Smythe community's concerns into consideration and turn this wonderful piece of natural
land into a green public space that will benefit everyone for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Patrick M. Carey
CC: Councillor Frances Nunziata
councillor nunziata(a)toronto.ca
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
49
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web1062.htm 19/03/2018
Item 6.24
To:tLuigi Fks@trce.on.ca" <kstranks@trca.on.ca> ( Ce: Luigi ortini >
Bce:
�14M.j Subject: proposed sale of 200 rockaliffe en.
From: Luigi Fortini Monday 1910312018 12:23 PM
TRCA
I am writing to you in this email as a concerned citizen and a concerned neighbour, this issue is very
important to me and my neighbourhood, how can the TRCA even think about letting this atrocity
happen , to even think about building anything on this priceless parcel of land , I have lived in this area
for over 30 years growing up here was great all the creeks and ponds it was like being at the cottage
everyday, but over the years this has begun to decline all the wildlife is leaving because the greenspace
is being taken away from them, not only is this a flood plain, but it is future vital greenspace. This cities
greenspaces are being eaten up by these buildings, how can an entity like TRCA who's mission statement
is "protecting, restoring and enhancing nature" even think about allowing this to happen, the TRCA
should have stopped this deal dead in its tracks the moment this was proposed. Does anybody from the
TRCA remember the flood of 2013 that happened in this neighbourhood, I DO, it left me and my
neighbours displaced for weeks, and now you want to get rid of the flood plain?
On another note I find this very ironic that in this same meeting about paving over a flood plain, you
are going to consider a report of flood remediation measures in my neighbourhood, this is so
hypocritical of the TRCA, I can give the TRCA a recommendation do not build or pave over existing flood
plains, that were put in for this specific reason, it is only common sense. There has been issues of
flooding going back 100 years in this area, and still there are no answers on how we can help this
problem but building or paving over land that can help soak up excessive water sounds like a terrible
answer. The pollution these heavy trucks will let out into the atmosphere in my neighbourhood not
including right across the street from a school with innocent children is another huge issue, especially for
me because my son suffers from asthma, why does my son and the countless number of children need
to suffer future health risks in the name of industry, it makes me cringe thinking about the excessive use
of these trucks in a residential neighbourhood, not including the wear and tear on our city streets.
Please I am writing from the bottom of my heart, think twice about this enormous issue, it is not only
my future, it is my children's future, it is your future, it is your children's future and it is their children's
future, please reconsider this decision, I would love to hear back from you regarding this issue, thanks
for your time.
Luigi Fortini
Mississaucla, ON AV 1V1
50
Johnny Dib
Resident of Mount Dennis, Toronto, Ontario
WM
Item 6.25
Letter dated: March 20, 2018
Please circulate to all members of TRCA board present on the March 23, 2018 meeting.
I would like to remind members of the TRCA board of the mandate of any conservation authority in Ontario:
• to ensure that Ontario's rivers, lakes and streams are properly safeguarded, managed and restored
• to protect, manage and restore Ontario's woodlands, wetlands and natural habitat
• to develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as
flooding and erosion
• to provide opportunities for the public to enjoy, learn from and respect Ontario's natural
environment
I would like to remind members of the TRCA board that in their previous motion regarding 200 Rockcliffe Court, that
they asked staff to work closely with Build Toronto to ensure the "Maximum Natural Heritage" of this land. And remind
the board that the maximum natural heritage of this land, in accordance with the TRCA's broad mandate and in
accordance with TRCA reports on this portion of the Black Creek valley specifically, the maximum natural heritage is
RENATURALIZATION. And this is not utopia. Renaturalization efforts, though costly, are very realistic and
cost-effective in this context. You have to remember that all lands on either side of Rockcliffe Court are currently in
public hands.Severing Parcel A of 200 Rockcliffe Court would
represent a near -fatal blow to any future renaturalization
plans and flood management infrastructure. This land is the lowest lying
land in the vicinity, and this is where the natural flow of Lavender Creek would pass if we ever wanted to restore it (as
per TRCA mandate). Given the astronomical costs of expropriation, it would be illogical to let go of publicly owned
land right at the bottom of the valley. The TRCA may not have jurisdiction over land use, but the TRCA has full
jurisdiction over what can and cannot be developed at the bottom of this valley. And the TRCA has full jurisdiction to
overturn the ill-conceived City of Toronto's Special Policy Area on this specific site.
While I appreciate that the buyer will find it unfair to be barred from purchasing land zoned appropriately for their
desired use, I think it's only fair to direct the buyer's grievances to City Hall; the TRCA is not responsible for the false
promise that the City of Toronto made to its agency Build Toronto and to their prospective buyer. And while
appreciate that Build Toronto has spent years trying to sell this land, and that it would be awkward to bar them from
doing so at such a late stage in the game. I would like to remind the board that the community has
been waiting DECADES for serious flood management
infrastructure and all we got was report after report after
report telling us exactly what we already knew, this
community is prone to flooding. Any decision from the TRCA Board that would allow
the sale to go through is a decision against the spirit of the mandate of TRCA, and a decision against the magnificent
51
flood -management future potential of this land specifically if kept in public hands. Rockcliffe Court in conjunction with
upstream and downstream measures can prevent serious damage from flooding in the future.
52
Item 6.26
March 20, 2018
Dear Chair and Members of the Authority,
I am grateful for the work you do to restore and enhance Toronto's natural environment. This
week is Canadian Water Week, and on Monday I heard TRCA's own Sheila Boudreau speak to
how 'naturalizing' areas of the city can change the way we live.
Unfortunately, the health of nature and the health of my community are a concern. The parcel of
land in question is 301 Rockcliffe Boulevard - located in a regulated flood plain vital for flood risk
mitigation. Located across the street from one school (Rockcliffe Middle School) and down the
road from another (Blessed Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School), this site has been
polluted, used for illegal dumping, and now stands to be intensified with a hardscape. Just the
other day I was able to capture a picture of rubbish dumped a mere few metres from City of
Toronto By -Law warning signs. When I called the number listed, I got the wrong number. This is
shameful and needless to say, these posts have done nothing to deter violations, but I hope that
the voices of a community banding together will deter the improper use of lands vital for flood
prevention, the health of the Humber River watershed, and community well-being.
I speak to you as concerned resident, but also as someone that has dedicated the past decade
of my life to protecting freshwater environments - from supporting Ontario's Minister of the
Environment to finding innovative solutions to decentralize stormwater management.
Under, Ontario Regulation 166/06, s. 3(1), development is prohibited unless it does not impair
the control of flooding, erosion, pollution and conservation of the land. Black Creek is one of
Toronto's Priority Improvement Neighbourhoods. The TRCA's own website notes that "the hard
surfaces of local roofs, roads and parking lots... contribute to degraded water quality... [and]
localized basement flooding." In fact, the parcel of land in questions falls entirely under TRCA's
Regulated Area, and would require the authority's permission for development in order to
control flooding, erosion, and pollution. The TRCA has explored costly options for flood
mitigation in the Rockcliffe neighbourhood, including land acquisition of neighbouring homes.
So, why grant new development so close to the Black Creek flood control channel?
The northern portion of the site is located within the 350 -year storm flood plain, and is
unsuitable for development as stipulated in the Rockcliffe SPA policies. However, the whole
parcel of land falls entirely within the floodline. I appreciate that a conservation easement for the
protection of the flood plain has been recommended for 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres) of land, i.e.
200 Rockcliffe Court. However, the TRCA is mandated to "Reduce human impact on natural
resources while acquiring, protecting and restoring conservation lands to further watershed and
resource management". The easement, and proposed amendments concerning naturalization,
do not go far enough. And so I ask:
• Why is only a small portion the 301 Rockcliffe site being granted to the TRCA for the
control of flooding, pollution, and conservation?
53
• How would you measure and ensure that development, allegedly outside of the flood
plain, is adequately flood proofed when additional hard surfaces would further degrade
the watershed?
What is needed for the TRCA to fully acquire this land by purchase?
o [Possible under the Conservation Authorities Act Section 20(d)]
According to the TRCA's "Living City Policies" (Resolution #A186/14), section 6.7.1 sets out the
goal of supporting and promoting the use of green infrastructure. Green Infrastructure is a flood
mitigation asset that requires investment. The social and environmental benefits of green
infrastructure have led some communities to raise alternative funding using Green Bonds to
finance its development. The community is clearly keen on preserving a naturalized area vital
for mental health, as well as the physical health of people and the environment. Why not
consider creative solutions, like a Green Bond, to purchase the land and protect the health of
residents and the environment?
I implore you to consider Black Creek's Priority Improvement Neighbourhood status, and the
fundamental role of the Natural System in forming complete communities with a high quality of
life. And, I join my community in urging you to reconsider developing any portion of 301
Rockcliffe for purposes other than flood control and neighbourhood revitalization.
Thank you,
Natalija Fisher, MSc
Concerned Citizen & Water Management Professional
Brendwin Road, M6N
54
Item 6.27
TRCA Board of Directors, c/o Chair Maria Augimeri; councillor aueimeri@toronto.ca
c/o kstranks@trca.on.ca
March 19, 2018
Dear Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Chair and Members:
On behalf of the Rockcliffe-Smythe Community Association and residents of the Black Creek Flood Study
Area, I am writing to ensure you do not permit severance of 200 Rockcliffe Court for the purposes laid
out by Build TO— industrial development of a floodplain brownfield in the middle of a sensitive, flood -
prone urban residential neighbourhood — notwithstanding all current flood management and floodplain
remediation best practices and legislative norms.
The intended application of TRCA's outdated "Special Policy Area" loophole governing Toronto's sale of
its jointly -governed Rockcliffe Court floodplain property for normally prohibited industrial development
and asphalt does not uphold TRCA principals of sustainable development. It is clearly an unintended
anomaly dating back many decades to a less enlightened time when the SPA exempted the site and
allowed industrial zoning for the City's historic sewage treatment and dumps, also no longer permitted
on floodplains and watershed control areas by TRCA conservation, stewardship and flood management
policy advancements.
Pending environmental assessments will only further confirm the implications of major new industry in
the lower Black Creek watershed. Impacts of inadequate watershed management are already felt: Many
hundreds of area homes and commercial, school and city properties were seriously flooded in 2013,
with millions of dollars in damages. Engineering solutions are costly and distant - a widened tunnel at
Jane Street would cost $30 million and the City says this will not be considered for another decade.
Residents have asked for the City to maintain ownership of the parcel and work with the TRCA and
community to lead the remediation, restoration, redesign, naturalization and parkland development in
this area. Although the site is best suited for parkland as with adjacent floodplains at Smythe Park and
Alliance, Build TO said it was rejected by Toronto Parks Department as surplus in an area with enough
parks — most likely because it's a brownfield project needing both a will and a way with no budget for
needed cleanup. This continued neglect of a toxic floodplain brownfield is irresponsible and
unacceptable on the part of both the City and the TRCA. Proper restoration should not hinge on a buyer
with a plan to pave over the site instead of cleaning it up. Build TO's proposed severance and sale of the
property to industry simply adds insult to injury. The site was contaminated by City of Toronto (and its
earlier incorporations) and should be restored to health on behalf of the residents who have endured
decades of health damaging pollution.
We ask the TRCA Board to vote against allowing the severance of 200 Rockcliffe Court for industrial
development now and in future, and to ensure a cohesive best practice approach governs the
protection, remediation, use and appreciation of the Black Creek flood management areas in our
neighbourhood and throughout the watershed.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Miriam Hawkins;
Co -Chair, Rockcliffe-Smythe Community Association
55
March 21, 2018 Addendum to
Item 6.27
Fbdcdiffe-Smythe Community Associ at ion
do Bissa Riddell
105 Black Creek Blvd. M6N2K6
Toronto and Fbgion Conservation
101 Exchange Avenue
Concord, Ontario
L4K5M
Dear Members of the Board at the Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA),
The Fbdcdiffe-Snythe Community Association wasformed to help provide a oonscilidated voice for the
neighbourhood and to actively plan, support and encourage the participation of our neighbours in the advancement
and protection of our greenspaces, safety and citizen engagement. We aim to develop and promote a healthy,
sustainable, well -serviced, inclusive and socially -just community. In short, we support individuals, actions and projects
that work to make life better for the Fbckdiffe -Smythe area.
The Fbdcdiffe-Smythe Community Association would like to formally voice our opposition to the selling of 200
Fbckdiffe Court to any buyer for three main reasons
1. The selling of this parcel of land goes against The Living Cities Policies and the Block Creek SNAP program
philosophy;
2. The selling and future development of this land does not support the philosophy of sustainable, ecologically -
friendly and socially responsible development; and,
3. The selling of this parcel of land goes against the recommendations of Blade Creek Rood Remediation (lass
Environmental Assessment by Amec Foster Wheeler.
1. The selling of this parcel of land goes against the TRCA mandate, The Living Cities Policies and the Black
Creek SNAP program philosophy
On the TFCA website it states that," TFCA is committed to protecting our natural areas for the benefit of all living
things As our region's population grows, the quality of our greenspace is decreasing.'"
In addition, the TFCA mandate indudestwo critically -relevant objectives:
"Reduce human impact on natural resources while acquiring, protecting and restoring conservation landsto
further watershed and resource management"
• "Work to preserve and protect the land, improve wildlife and plant habitats. 311
On the topic of the development within floodplains, the TF Atakes a dear and concise stand:
"In locations where the floodplain remains undeveloped, the risk to Iife and property is reduced.""
r https://trca.ca/conservation/greenspaoe-management/
2 https://troa.calabout/
3 https:// t rca.cal about/
56
"Development and redevelopment should contribute to the prevention, elimination, and reduction in risk
from flooding, erosion, and slope instability."' We have seen no plans nor any indication that the proposed
severing and selling of 200 Fbdcdiffe Court will uphold this point.
The sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court. directly contravenes the key points the TRCA was formed to protect.
Additionally, the sale of this land goes against the principles and philosophies outlined in the Living Cities Policies
document. Under section 2.3, the document states, "..changes in land use are often approved site -by -site without
understanding how, cumulatively, they affect the region's Natural System and environmental health."' This parcel of
land and how it has historically been used provesthat it has long been viewed in silo, without considering the
downstream implications of how it is leveraged. First as a dump, then a water treatment plant, and now potentially as
a paved over industrial complex. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop viewing 200 Fbdcdiffe Court asa
standalone nine acres, instead of how it should be considered —as a large portion of land that feeds into a historically
polluted tributary of the Humber Rver.
As you state yourself in the Living Cities Policies, "TKA is in a unique position to be able to consider the cumulative
impact of many different projects on a particular sbwatershed or shoreline reach, especially given the range of
development applications circulated to TWA from multiple munidpalities"
We implore you to abide by what you professto do, and the unique position you are in, to prevent the selling of 200
Fbdcdiffe Q)urt.
Lastly, the sale of this land goes against the prioritization that the TRCA has already placed in the Blade Creek
neighbourhood with the roll out of your Block Creek SNAP program. One of the main goals as stated on the SVAP
program website is, "..to find waysto better manage rainwater to reduce basement flooding and restore more natural
flows and stream conditions in Black Creek" and "to enhance natural areas such as local parks for the community to
enjoy.7"
2. The selling and future development of this land does not support the philosophy of sustainable, ecologically
friendly and socially responsible development.
In 2016, Sameer Dhalla, associate director, TFCA, was quoted in aToronto Sar article entitled Stopping Toronto's next
flood," Heavily urbanized areas do not mix well with rivers and streams ..So every single opportunity you can take (to
retrofit) highly urban areas you have to." If this sale is allowed to proceed, the development on 200 Fbckdiffe Court
will further exacerbate the issue of over pavement of lands and adding to the issue of overly heavy urbanization in this
neighbourhood.
In our research, we uncovered two other examples of areas similar to 200 Fbckdiffe Court that were naturalized and
re -vamped to promote sustainable, ecologically friendly usage of keyfloodlands Keffer Marsh Langstaff EcoPark is an
area of natural regeneration located along a 2km stretch of the west Don Rver as it flows through the Langstaff
industrial park. Secondly, the Alfred Kiehne Sream Fbstoration Project is located in the Elobicoke Creek watershed in
the Qty of Brampton. Astraightened concrete channel was replaced with natural meanders and habitat features such
as riffles, pools and runs.
If well thought out development of parkland can occur at these two locations, why not 200 Plockdiffe Court?
3. The selling of this parcel of land goes again the recommendations of Black Creek Flood Remediation Class
Environmental Assessment by Amec Foster Wheeler
4 https//trca.calconservation/flood-risk-management/flood-plain-management/
" https// t rca.ca/ oDnservat ion/flood-risk-management/flood-plain-management/
"The Living Oties Fblicies, TFU'A
7 https//trca.calconservation/sustainable-neighbourhoodstsnap-neighbourhood-projects(black-creek-snap/
4fi
On March 7, the community was invited to a very informative meeting hosted by the TFUk At that meeting, several
representatives from the7FVA, including Sameer Dhalla, and Amec Foster Wheeler walked Flockdiffe-Smythe to
determine how to lessen the impact of flooding in the area.
Even if all the" preferred alternatives" presented by Amec Foster Wheeler on March 7 were enacted (.lane 3. crossing
update, flood berms, channel widening and naturalization), 200 Rodkdiffe Court is still firmly within the floodplain.
The dtyof Toronto identifies the Back Greek floodplain, where 200 Fmdkcliffe Court sits, as part of aSpecial Policy
Area. As part of the TFKA and qty of Toronto's study from the July 2013 flooding event, one of the optionsto help
mitigate risks and control flooding damage in the future was land/ property acquisition in the flood plain.
By the ITUNs own admission, buying back land and properties in the affected area is one of the waysto prevent
future issues In the case of the study completed byAmec Foster Wheeler, the purchasing back of these affected lands
and buildings would be cost prohibitive ($540M for all properties). We are struggling to understand how the selling of
one such property in this highly affected area aligns with TFUNs mandate and one of the investigated alternatives
uncovered in the course of the study. Would it not make more sense to keep the land the Oty already owns? Why
would the Oty selloff a property that may need to be purchased back, at great expense, at some point in the future?
The ask is simple -will you help protect this land from further damage and make the future ecological reclamation
of 200 Rockcliffe Court a possibility?
The TFU, and the dedsion-makers whom we are appealing to today have the unique opportunity to prevent the sale
of a key piece of land in one of Toronto's important watersheds, and the potent responsibility to uphold the
philosophy of the TFOk If we cannot stop the sale of thisfragile land, the future purchaser will only add to the existing
brownfield situation, and add additional complexity and runoff to an existing flooding problem area.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bissa Rddell
on behalf of the Roc kdiffe-Smythe Community Association
Community signatures:
R Beveridge -14 Hillborn Ave.
H. Madkenae - 32 Bernice Ors,
J trackman - 244 Eileen Ave.
L Geffray and M. Kanoatov - 416 Maybank Ave.
A Parrett - 75 Bernice Ora
M. Kastelic and A Chandler - 33 Eileen Ave.
M. Amaral - 9 Fbyal 8.
X Lugo - 2 Val port Crt.
T. C arolo and L Miranda - 31 Black Cheek Blvd.
A Morganti and M. Karrandjas- 39 Pendeen Ave.
J and N. Cerolo - 5 FLnghorn Ave.
C Fenech, S Fenech and J Fenech - 40 Criscoe 3.
M. Lyons -132 Bernice Crs
S Gement - 40 Lapp 3.
C Doucette -136 Blean Ave.
O. Kozela - 3 Hill born Ave.
R Li and P. Pham - 54 Hilldale Pd.
L Sade - 41 F lockdiffe Blvd.
M. Adams - 28 Norval 3.
R Karr and A Holmes - 62A Hilldale R1.
M. Mic lethwaite and A Libby - 47 Eileen Ave.
T Rmanich - 36 Britannia Ave.
E Ronningen and K Jefferson - 21 diff 3.
J Fbbertson - 9 Pritchard Ave.
S Cavanagh and P. Major - 86 Black Creek Blvd.
Pagel of 2
Item 6.28
March 23rd TRCA Meeting -Re Rockcliffe
Marco Maturi
to:
kstranks
20/03/2018 02:15 PM
Cc:
councillor_augimeri, jheath, kashe, johnhballinger, colleen.jordan, councillor _crisanti,
councillor debaeremaeker, councillor_mford, councillor_fletcher, councillor_karygiannis,
councillor_mammoliti, councillor perruzza, chris.fonseca, jennifer.innis, matt.mahoney,
michael.palleschi, john.sprovieri, officemayor, brenda.hogg, 1pabst, gino.rosati,
councillor ainslie, jenn. drake
Hide Details
From: "Marco Maturi" <mmaturi@sthelensmeat.com> Sort List...
To: <kstranks@trca.on.ca>
Cc: <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>, <jheath@markham.ca>, <kashc@pickering.ca>,
<johnhballinger@gmail.com>, <colleen.jordan@ajax.ca>,
<councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>, <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>,
<councillor_mford@toronto.ca>,<councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>,
<councillor_karygiannis@toronto.ca>, <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>,
<councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, <chris.fonseca@mississauga.ca>,
<jennifer.innis@caledon.ca>, <matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca>,
<michael.palleschi@brampton.ca>, <john.sprovieri@brampton.ca>,
<officemayor@richmondhill.ca>, <brenda.hogg@richmondhill.ca> <1 abst kin .ca>
<gino.rosati@vaughan.ca>,<councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>, >
History: This message has been replied to.
Firstly, we would like to thank all the members involved to date, including all the efforts of the
Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority in relation to the Rockcliffe site.
St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited is one of the largest Canadian family owned and operated
federal processing establishments in Canada. More importantly, we have been a member of this
community for almost 40 years. We are an integral part of the Provincial and Federal agricultural sector,
supporting our local farmers while expanding and developing new markets for Canadian producers.
We have invested over two years to this special project and we recognize and understand the
concerns of the community. We believe that these issues can be resolved, and are prepared to work with
the community and the City to find solutions. We are hoping to set the record straight, and educate the
community on the real facts surrounding this property — namely, that as part of our agreement we have
made covenants to take ownership and responsibility to clean and maintain it in perpetuity while
adhering to the restrictions associated with it, including the naturalization of the 350 year flood plain
On the surface, when we first began to look at this site, Rockcliffe was not the most enticing
acquisition. The contamination, the special building and ventilation requirements, the floodway/plain
were all significant development challenges.
According to estimates provided by Maple Reinders in their "Facility Pre -Design and Budget
Report" there is even an additional $1,962,000 in costs associated with just addressing the unique
challenges associated with this property.
We were able to see beyond those challenges and costs after reassessing the property in terms of
how we could compliment and support other local businesses in the community - a community where
we have proudly resided and supported for years. In short, we became committed to finding a viable
59
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web8561.htm 20/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
solution to make this land a functional part of the community, as well as our growth strategy.
We have reviewed and educated ourselves on the Special Policy Area as identified in the Living
Cities Policy. We engaged an Environmental Consultant and a Design Specialist to meet the
requirements associated with the property, and we also had a strategy meeting with numerous
representatives from the City to discuss their expectations in relation to the land. More importantly we
did this all in good faith recognizing that if we met the criteria associated with the SPA and the Toronto
Building Act of 2014, there would be no objection to this purchase. We even consulted with TRCA
representatives to discuss and express our commitment to making this work throughout the design
process.
To our knowledge there was never any concerns in relation to the sale of the land expressed by
any member of the community until after the TRCA board meeting of it's Executive Committee where it
was disclosed that St. Helen's was affiliated with the sale.
It is our understanding this meeting was intended to discuss the flood protection and easement
required as part of the conditions of severance and not to negate or rule on the use or sale of the land.
We believed that this meeting would demonstrate our commitment to working with this land and with
the TRCA in a common goal.
The proposed facility will create an estimated 100 new local employment opportunities, and
support approximate 500 existing jobs in the community. The strategy will also support the Canadian
Agricultural sector and our local producers in the form of increased access of Canadian products both
domestically and internationally.
We truly believe that this will be a partnership between the TRCA and Rockliffe Inc (official
registered name and affiliate of St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited). We are hopeful the board will
recognize all the effort invested to date, including those of TRCA staff to truly re -naturalize and
revitalize these former sewage plant lands into a contributing and functional part of the community.
It's our hope that the TRCA will consider all the facts in their consent of an easement and
severance, and we'd like to thank the board in advance for their consideration of all the issues around
this important acquisition.
Marco Maturi
Rockliffe Inc. (officially registered name and affiliate of St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited)
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
60
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web8561.htm 20/03/2018
ITEM 40 October 12, 2017
File Number: B0092/16EYK Zoning PE (Waiver)
Owner(s): CITY OF TORONTO Ward: York South -Weston (11)
Agent: BUILD TORONTO Heritage: Not Applicable
Property Address: 200 ROCKCLIFFE CRT Community:
Legal Description: CON 3 FB PT LOT 37 PLAN 66M2324 BLK 5 AND PT BLK 6 << ENTRANCE
ADDRESS FOR 301 ROCKCLIFFE BLVD
THE CONSENT REQUESTED:
To obtain consent to sever the lot into four lots.
Retained - Parts 17-27
Address to be assigned
The lot area is 5683.4 m2. The existing parcel of land currently occupies a TTC pole storage yard.
Conveyed - Parts 1-11
Address to be assigned
The lot area is 32,856.4 ml. The existing parcel of land will occupy future Employment Lands uses.
Conveyed - Parts 12 & 13
Address to be assigned
The lot area is 7,546.2 m2. The existing parcel of land will continue to be used as an Employment Lands use.
Conveyed - Parts 14-16
Address to be assigned
The lot area is 16,711.6 mz. The existing parcel of land will continue to be used as an Employment Lands use.
Easements - Any existing easements will be maintained.
The Committee had before it the following communication:
- A copy of the minutes from the March 23, 2017, public hearing.
- A copy of the Draft Plan of Survey.
- Copies of the revised Draft Plan of Survey, received on September 14, 2017, along with an
accompanying letter from the surveyor, and received on October 5, 2017.
- The covering letters from Mary Ormond, Build Toronto, agent, dated March 16 and September 14,
2017.
The covering letter from Don Logic, Build Toronto, agent, dated December 21, 2016.
The e-mail from Mia Baumeister, Build Toronto, agent, dated October 3, 2017.
Commenting Agency Reports
The correspondence from:
- The Associate Director, Development Planning and Regulation, Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, dated March 20 and October 6, 2017.
Page 1 102
61
- The Specialized Services Team Lead, Hydro One Networks Inc., dated March 9, 2017.
The Staff Report from:
- The Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, dated January 23, 2017.
The Departmental Memoranda from:
- The Manager, Development Engineering, Engineering and Construction Services, Etobicoke York
District, dated January 20 and October 11, 2017.
- The Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review, Urban Forestry, dated March 15, October 5 and
October 11, 2017.
The following persons appeared before the Committee of Adjustment in connection with the foregoing matter:
Mary Ormond, agent, outlined the application, referring to the material on file.
Councillor Nunziata, Ward 11, spoke in support of the application.
DECISION:
It was moved by Dominic Gulli, seconded by Allan Smithies and carried unanimously that the application be
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of Revenue Services Division, Finance
Department.
2. Municipal numbers for the subject lots indicated on the applicable Registered Plan of Survey shall be
assigned to the satisfaction of Survey and Mapping Services, Engineering Services, Engineering and
Construction Services. Contact: John Fligg @ (416) 338-5031 or Elizabeth Machynia @ (416) 338-
5029.
3. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions concerning City/Privately owned trees, to the satisfaction of
Urban Forestry Services.
4. Where no street trees exist, the owner shall provide payment in an amount to cover the cost of planting a
street tree abutting each new lot created, to the satisfaction of Urban Forestry Services.
5. Two copies of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS
(3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their
respective areas, shall be filed with the Manager of Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Services,
Engineering and Construction Services. Contact: John House, Supervisor, of Property Records, at 416
392-8338; jhouse(a),toronto.ca
6. An electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of
the Manager of Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Services, Engineering and Construction
Services, shall be filed with the Committee of Adjustment.
The following conditions shall be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Construction
Services Division:
7.1 The applicant is required to provide a grading and drainage plan to show existing topography
and depicting surface drainage patterns for all the conveyed and retained lots, Parts 1 through
Page 1 103
62
11, Parts 12 and 13, Parts 14 through 16 and Parts 17 through 27 on the draft reference plan to
the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction
Services.
7.2 Following its acquisition from the City of Toronto of Parts 1-16 on the draft reference plan,
Build Toronto shall enter into a Consent Agreement securing the following requirements on
terms satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction
Services, which agreement will be registered on title to the proposed lots free and clear of
encumbrances to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor:
a. The Owner shall make satisfactory arrangements and pay all costs and applicable fees
for the installation of municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer service
connections to such lot in accordance with Chapters 681 and 851 of the City of Toronto
Municipal Code and the Ontario Building Code and to the satisfaction of the Chief
Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
b. The Owner of each lot shall provide a proposed grading plan for the subject lot showing
the surface drainage and drainage plan illustrating proposed conditions on such lot to
the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and
Construction Services;
C. The Owner of each lot shall provide a proposed grading plan for the subject lot showing
that surface drainage for the lot is self-contained and the lot is neither receiving nor
contributing any surface drainage to the adjacent lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief
Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.
d. For any lot where surface drainage containment as per (c) above is not achievable, the
owner provide shall to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director
Engineering and Construction Services provide evidence that all necessary easements
including reciprocal easements have been obtained or provided for the subject lot.
e. All of the above requirements, a through d, shall be satisfied prior to application for a
Building Permit for any of the subject lots.
8. Prior to the sale of the subject site, the City of Toronto shall register a restrictive covenant and
conservation easement (or other appropriate legal mechanism) on title to Part 1 of the subject site, to the
satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, providing that:
No development, parking or outside storage will take place in the portion of Part 1 subject to the
350 year storm flood as identified in a Flood Study approved by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
ii. The 350 year storm area identified in (i) will either be: (A) planted with native low growing
shrubs and grasses, or (B) sodded or seeded with grass, and in either case will be maintained in
reasonable condition in perpetuity by the landowner.
iii. The 350 year storm area identified in (i) will be kept clean of waste in perpetuity by the
landowner.
iv. The TRCA will have the ability to enter and use the 350 year storm area identified in (i) for
inspection and flood control purposes including any development or infrastructure required for
flood control.
Page 1 104
63
9. Within ONE YEAR of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with
the above -noted conditions and prepare and submit for electronic submission to the Deputy Secretary -
Treasurer, the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or
(5) or subsection 53(42) of the Planning Act , as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent
transaction.
The Committee of Adjustment has had regard to the matters under subsections 51(24) & 53(42) of the Planning
Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not necessary for the proper and orderly development
of the municipality.
Page 1 105
• A
Page 1 of 2
Regarding the Sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court Item 6.29
Devin Tepleski
to:
kstranks@trea.on.ca
20/03/2018 02:54 PM
Hide Details
From: Devin Tepleski a>
To: "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <xstrtrca.on.ca>
Security:
To ensure privacy, images from remote sites were prevented from downloading. Show
Images
To the TRCA Board:
am writing to oppose the sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court. For the last month and a half I studied it and adjacent
properties as part of a Regional Design Studio in fulfillment of my Master of Landscape Architecture degree at the
University of Toronto. I was shocked to learn that this flood prone community could soon face such a problematic
development.
As was made clear in both my analysis and the Black Creek Flood Remediation Class Environmental Assessment by
Amec Foster Wheeler, the lots between Rockcliffe Blvd and Symes Rd. / Hillsdale Rd. play a vital role as flood
infrastructure. Requiring the development be prepared to withstand a 350 year flood event neglects the important
fact that this complex of properties is in a flood plain that captures water during flood events caused by impacts
further upstream. The criteria should he whether this sale limits the ability of this land to provide flood mitigation and
floodwater storage services, not whether it simply captures water that lands within the property line or can withstand
a 350 year storm.
came to the site after a regional analysis of infrastructure spending within proximity of ravines or flood prone areas.
A cluster of future infrastructure projects caught my eye. These were mostly stormwater, sewer and transportation
infrastructure including bridges and culverts seemingly impacted by erosion by the poorly configured Lavender Creek.
The city seems willing to spend significant amounts of money in the next decade to, in many ways, repeat many of the
stormwater conveyance mistakes of the past. The sale of this land for industrial use is yet another example of the
city's missteps on this matter and endangers the properties, livelihoods and lives of people in the area. With
increased probability of majorflood events due to climate change, the likelihood of tragedy isn't something to be
shrugged off. The City and the TRCA know what happened in 2013 and 1954. It will happen again.
Rejecting this sale should only he the beginning. This property and those around it represent a gap in the trail system.
While there is plenty of 'open space' held by the public within the area, much of it is unprogrammed and barely, if at
all, serviced. The area is surrounded by residences. With Rockcliffe Middle School due to close very soon, the city
should consider the transfer of existing industrial users in the floodplain to this more elevated school site and fulfill its
obligation to clean up the environmental damage caused by the City's former sewage treatment plant through the
creation of a public park.
It has come to my attention that the TRCA rejected an opportunity to acquire these lands due to the costs associated
to cleanup and the high cost of expropriating other properties in the floodplain now makes it difficult to acquire
additional land here. I point to the exorbitant costs of some parks the city is considering like Rail Deck Park that would
provide a poor cost to benefit ratio from an ecological perspective. I point also to other prominent parks in the city,
like HTO, that provided beloved public space through capping the contaminants. Yes, ultimately capping the
65
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web8733.htm 20/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
contaminated area here would have similarly impact the ability of that portion of the floodplain to retain water that
an industrial use would, but if this was done in a targeted way, while taking strategic steps to offset impacts through
the development of intermittent wetlands on the rest of the floodplain, a park could be created that would be more
suitable to its residential context; utilize the geological characteristics of the area which are suited to slow drainage
(and potentially groundwater recharge); increase much needed wetland habitat; and mitigate the impacts of floods
that are certainly coming. I would be curious to see how the cost of this would compare to other possible flood
mitigation efforts within the largely urbanized Black Creek Watershed (or to Rail Deck Park for that matter). I can
think of few areas along Black Creek that already have so much publicly owned land being squandered from an
ecological services perspective and so few adjacent property owners to negotiate with in order to make a major new
park a reality. These are large plots in an area with limited uses due to the environmental situation they are in. This is
not highly valued land, as the decades long effort to sell 200 Rockcliffe Court attests. With the imminent school
closure and the amount of spending on infrastructure that is at the end of its life -cycle in the area, now is the time for
a grand reimagining of what this place could be. This might be the last chance to do so.
Sincerely,
Devin Tepleski
Toronto, ON, M6P2K1
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
66
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/LocaUTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web8733.htm 20/03/2018
Item 6.30
Work Creak and WO RookcriHe Court
Jessaca
00 Shc :: kS"1kS 03+]0/"_01606^_0 PM
. - Jwersa odsal.'�
kstraMakiltrea.an ca
Dear Members of The Toronto Regional Conservation Authority:
In September 2017, my husband and I purchased a house in the Black Creek/Mount Dennis community and have
been living happily for the past few months. I am currently 5 months pregnant, and we look forward 10 raising our
family in this part of Toronto.
Since we have moved, we have been lucky to have access to a variety of community organizations, including the
Black Creek Alliance. In October 2017, 1 attended a community event, and walked aroundthe Black Creek Park area
and truly enjoyed meeting our new neighbours and political affiliates.
However, I was dismayed to see the state of the Black Creek and other features of our communities natural
environment. Atter walking through the parkway, it became apparent that this area, especially the Black Creek itself,
has been widely neglected, such as the sewage runoff and flood zone. In addition to this, I became aware that a
proposal to build an industrial parking lot and/or warehouse along the pathway was in the works, which would bring a
lot more trucks to an already very industrialised community. This proposal in combination with the current state of the
Creek was a very dismal reality and is a deep concern for my husband and I, especially as we grow our family.
My husband and I understand the importance of community industry and how it helps generate and build our
economy. We believe and welcome rejuvination and change. However, the type of change that respects our overall
health, well being, and the natural environment.. My husband and I are concerned citizens that want a healthier,
greener, more accessible Mount Dennis/Black Creek Area that help attract and build economic growth in our
emerging community.
We both hope you listen to our plea, and make decisions according to the citizens concerns.
Please do not hesitate to call me at:
Sincerely,
Jessica Del Sole and Matthew Ouellette
67
Item 6.31
March 19, 2018
Please circulate to all members of TRCA board present for the March 23, 2018 meeting. I will be in
attendance to deliver this deputation.
Good morning,
My name is Tanya Connors and I am a resident of Rockcliffe- Symthe and a founding member of Black
Creek Alliance, a community group that formed as 3 neighbors joined together, disheartened by an
article that appeared in Toronto Star in October 2016, listing our section of Black Creek the ugliest and
most polluted of Toronto ravines. (See attached)
https://www.thesta r. com/news/ins ight/2416/10/15/th e-ugliest-side-of-torontos-ravi nes. htm I
We made a commitment to restore and revitalize the green space, primarily along the Black Creek Site
East. We want to foster a sense of community engagement and stewardship of the abandoned and
neglected green space in our Neighborhood Improvement Area.
I tell you this because 200 Rockcliffe Court is part of the flood plain that is known as Black Creek Site
East. Encompassed by not one but 3 school zones, this property greatly impacts future flood mitigation,
the environmental integrity, restoration and naturalization of this community corner.
In the catastrophic flood in July of 2013, when the water in Black Creek Channel rose above the channel,
causing millions of dollars in damage, the water level in the Toronto Parks and Recreation Work Yard
rose to 4 feet high. City staff scrambled in fear, city trucks and equipment were destroyed, and staff had
to stand on cabinets and desks, waiting to be rescued. This yard is less than 200 meters south of the 200
Rockcliffe court.
Yet somehow, decades ago, 200 Rockcliffe was deemed as a "prestige employment area'. Likely this
claim was made without the insight, wisdom and knowledge we have today about water management
and preservation of floodplains. Back when we poured cement into gullies and thought making a cement
channel for a river, would prevent flooding. It could also have been the result of a technicality, an over
site, back in the days of amalgamation, when all the details and land zoning designations for the former
city of York where not properly updated or applied as part of the City of Toronto.
Who really knows how this came to be, yet here where are today at the 11th hour and the community is
begging the TRCA for a rethink. We urge you for future forward, environmentally sound best practice
thinking, and as you are mandated to provide, flood protection.
In the not so distance past the M6N postal code, which Rockcliffe- Symthe is part of, was known as one
of the poorest and most industrialized areas of Toronto. Considered to be at the edge of the city limits,
the neighborhood has been home to a multitude of factories for decades. Most noteworthy the large
area known as the meat packing district, the stockyards.
R�
Therefore, when 200 Rockcliffe Court was deemed surplus, industrial use employment land, back in the
early 2000 it was an understandable mistake. The city had forgotten it was a floodplain, and the area
was historically home to many factories.
The city did not have the vision or the foresight to predict the growth and transformation of Toronto's
West End. It did not expect the housing market to boom and Rockcliffe-Smythe to be branded as one of
the most affordable neighborhoods for families to buy a home.
A LOT has changed in our area, especially in the last 5 years.
• The vast majority of the meat packaging plants and factories have closed or will be closing in
the near future as they have chosen not to renew leases.
• We have the Stock Village Shopping area with Nations as its anchor built on the former site of
Canada Packers.
• A new condo development scheduled to be built on a former Porter factory site on St. Clair Ave
by the stockyards
• The beautiful and unbelievable restoration of the Symes Garbage Incinerator Plant has
transformed into The Grand Symes Event Space. It is just 1 km away overlooking the valley
known as 200 Rockcliffe Court.
• The opening of the Ale Yards, 3 local craft breweries that have set up shop in reclaimed
warehouse space on Symes road. They have become a destination location for craft beer
enthusiast near and abroad.
• The revitalization of Gaffney Park, again less that a1/2 km away it runs parallel to the north
side of Rockcliffe Court. The trail is undergoing $350,000 of improvements as residents
successfully applied and secured city funding. A part of the former Western Beltline railway the
trail has the potential to provide a magnificent view of the valley below.
• The improvement of green space, and trails along several kilometers of the Hydro corridor that
skirts around and a long side 200 Rockcliffe court. Hydro is upgrading the power transformer
station in our area, and have committed to partner with the community NIA table to help
improve the green space.
• The Lavender Creek Trail initiative. This trail begins at the base of the eastern corner of the 200
Rockcliffe site, and has been scheduled to become a revitalized trail known as a "pollinator
e s
highway". Black Creek Alliance has recently applied for funding to host a pollinator festival
along this corridor.
I tell you about these changes because I truly feel they will be in jeopardy or significantly
comprimised if you allow 200 Rockcliffe court, a flood plain to become a 55,000 sq foot
industrial facility for the meat packing industry to store and freeze their products.
This parcel of land has the potential to become a trail connector, flood mitigater, wet lands
nautralizer, and wild life, habitat incubator that would serve the west end of Toronto for
generations to come.
I urge the members of the board today, to remember mandate of the TRCA. You have been
tasked with:
• preservation and to ensure that Ontario's rivers, lakes and streams are properly safeguarded,
managed and restored
• to protect, manage and restore Ontario's woodlands, wetlands and natural habitat
• to develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such
as flooding and erosion
• to provide opportunities for the public to enjoy, learn from and respect Ontario's natural
environment
Therefor the TRCA must stop the severance of this land, and complete the remaining
environmental assessments required for flood mitigation along the Black Creek Channel. 200
Rockcliffe Court will clearly be seen as a vital part of the solution for future flood mitigation
planning.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Tanya Connors
Director Black Creek Alliance
Resident
https://www.th esta r. co m/news/insight/2016/10/ 15/the-ugl iest-s ide-of-torontos-ravi nes. html
http://benefitsh u b. ca/entry/turning-brownfie Ids -i nto-green-space-i n-th e-city-of-toronto/
70
Western Beltline
Trail System
ti r-11 `
1'
301 Rockcliffe nature hub,
cornmuriily green houses,
Artisan sheds, fannerk market
«r����v
n �
I Trail along either side of the Black
r 1 i Creek, exit onto Alliance with
- — footbridge over Lavender creek.
N
Alto
N
°�
°
A brick wall to enclose the
industrial area from the
surrounding green space. -
Skating rink for kids during the
winter along the hydro trail.
"Maple Leaf look out" at
the top of the hill. "Corbett
Commons" on corner of the
site. Both have benches and
linhtina.
Play area improved with
another.
71 9iJ
i1mm-IMP
D 0 "
0
� r~
9 4
V
r s
Signagelplaque to mark the
oldest Willow tree along the
Symes Trail.
n
Terry Dr. - Gaffney Park
71
N
Make Lavender Creek a
Pollinator Highway.
a
Extend the Gaffney trail to the
Q,,-- cirl.—Re
p,
� rp
r� 11
�3 �l
V u i7
r,
Add lighting and improve 1
existing lighting along all
pathways and trails.
All playgrounds should be of
equal quality and upkeep as
Maple Claire.
WE
Q
d
m
lU
Ch
n
CD
rte+
CL
I
�C
lU
N
13
s
n
Terry Dr. - Gaffney Park
71
N
Make Lavender Creek a
Pollinator Highway.
a
Extend the Gaffney trail to the
Q,,-- cirl.—Re
p,
� rp
r� 11
�3 �l
V u i7
r,
Add lighting and improve 1
existing lighting along all
pathways and trails.
All playgrounds should be of
equal quality and upkeep as
Maple Claire.
WE
Q
d
m
lU
Ch
n
CD
rte+
CL
I
�C
lU
N
13
Item 6.32
that bit of land to be severed on Rockliffe
Dorian
Douma Wednesday, March 21, 2018 08:33AM
From: Dorian Douma
> Wednesday, March 21, 2018 08:33AM
7o: councillor augimerl@toronto.ca, johnhballinger@gmail.com, colleen.jordan@ajax.ca,
councillor_ crisanti@toronto.ca, councillor _debaeremaeker@toronto.ca, kstranks@trcaon.ca, Councillor
Mammoliti <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>, councillor fletcher@toronto.ca., councillor_mford@toronto.ca,
councillor karygiannis@toronto.ca, Anthony Perruzza <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>,
chrislonseca@mississauga.ca, jennifer.innis@caledon.ca, matt.mahoney@mississauga.ca,
michael.palleschi@brampton.ca, johns roverampton.ca, brenda.ho g@richmondhill.ca, Ipabsi@king.ca,
gino.rosati@vaughan.ca, jenn.drak mik�
Hi, I live right around the corner from where Rockliffe crosses the
black creek. I really urge you to not let this severance go through. I
know we already have lots of greenspace in the area, but that's not a
good excuse to put an industrial worksite on this parcel of land. It
shouldn't even be zoned for "prestige employment" activities. It's a
greenspace in a flood plane. I'm on the high ground; I don't live down
in the flooding area but I really feel for the people who do. I know
that they're still in a flooding area either way, but every bit of
absorbent land makes a difference. Building industrial stuff in
floodplanes has caused us enough trouble... it's not something we
should persist with.
The area also has a lot of potential as a wilderness space, or
parkland, or whatever we can do with it. I want it to be wilderness
space. It's right next to several massive buildings, so there's
thousands of people living right there who need a place to unwind. The
Black Creek Site West right next to it is great, but it's a small
forest and it'd be so much better with this other property added to
it, not subtracted from it.
This bunch of wilderness along the black creek was one of the reasons
I chose to move to this area a couple of years ago. Forests and
grassland really are an attraction to the area, just as much as jobs.
I can understand it's convenient to make this sale, because it gets
the city a bit of quick money and hands the contamination off to
someone else. But that's just sweeping a mess under the rug, and
permanently losing a valuable asset. I wish I could do something to
get everyone on the board to see this piece of land that way. Maybe
stop by the area before the meeting if you have the chance.
72
200 Alliance Avenue
Kathryn
Slade
From: Kath n Slade
To: kstranksB@trca.on.ca
To Whom it May Concern
Item 6.33
Wednesday, March 21, 2018 04:08PM
Wednesday, March 21, 2018 04:08PM
I am a 15 year resident of Rockcliffe Boulevard a Rockcliffe Blvd) who is very concerned and
surprised at the sale of 200 Alliance Boulevard to Quality Meats. I noticed about two years ago,
the City of Toronto create a bike lane along this route and planted dozens of trees along
Rockcliffe and Terry Drive last year. A few years prior to that, the city went to great expense to
install new signs on the small parks surrounding the space. This led me to me believe that at last
residents of the area were being respected with the provision of some green space and land used
for recreational purposes rather industrial space.
We, the residents of the area, want to see this land saved and improved as green space. We are
tired of being treated as disposable citizens as the open sewer of Black Creek runs through our
neighbourhood. It is time to take steps to improve this situation rather than deflect your
responsibility by allowing this land to be paved over and further contaminated by industrial use.
I hope that the safety and quality of life of our families and children are finally considered in
your decisions on land use in our neighbourhood.
Best Regards
Kathryn Slade
.Rockcliffe Blvd
M6N4R1
73
Item 6.34
LAURA ALBANESE, MPP
York South -Weston
March 21, 2018
Toronto, ON
Toronto Region Conservation Authority
101 Exchange Avenue
Concord, ON
L4K 5R6
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to you today in support of the concerns raised by my residents of York South—
Weston, the Black Creek Alliance Association, and our local Ward 11 City Councillor Frances
Nunziata, in regards to the potential sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court.
This property is located in the "Rockcliffe Park — Black Creek flood plain Special Policy area, as
mapped in the City of Toronto Official Plan and has been vacant for many years.
With the effects of climate change being felt systematically across the world and in our own
neighbourhoods, proper planning to manage our natural heritage water systems is particularly
important.
This neighbourhood, as TRCA is well aware, is highly vulnerable to flooding. In 2013, resident
properties and the surrounding area were subject to severe damage. This fact is clearly
acknowledged in the TRCA's own report which states:
"Since 2008, the Rockcliffe area has been ranked among the top
five priority areas for riverine flood risk within TRCA's
jurisdictional area and is currently ranked the second highest
priority area for riverine flood risk within Toronto. Rockcliffe was
the first flood risk priority area selected by TRCA to commence an
EA study to investigate riverine flooding and recommend
solutions."
Accordingly, we know that this has led both the TRCA and the City of Toronto to undertake
three separate Environmental Assessments to find solutions in order to mitigate future flooding.
My understanding is that further detailed studies and mitigation strategies have not yet been
completed for all of the environmental assessments and that updates to flood mapping will be
required.
Constituency Office
99A Ingram Drive, Toronto, ON M6M 2L7
Tel 416-243-7984 1 Fax 416-243-0327��il lalbanese.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
www.lauraalb .onmpp.ca
For these reasons alone, I strongly feel that it is premature to make decisions in regards the
approval of any further urban development on the lands known as 200 Rockcliffe Court.
In addition, the property in question is located in close proximity to three different schools.
Several families living in Rockcliffe-Smythe have expressed worry about increased traffic of
heavy vehicles, noise and congestion in the vicinity—which young people and children utilize
regularly to access community spaces for recreation.
This neighbourhood has undergone major change in the last 20 years. This once highly
industrialized area which hosted municipal infrastructure, and much of the meat -packing industry
in the City of Toronto, has witnessed a significant conversion through the years. Rockcliffe—
Smythe is now home to a vibrant outdoor shopping mall, microbreweries, innovative businesses,
and lively residential streets well-connected to public transit. All of this has transpired while
residents have made a concerted effort to retain a close connection to the surrounding natural
settings. In the words of a Toronto Life article published in October 2017: "The 'hood's best -
kept secret is its gorgeous ravine system, with multi -use trails that feel like a trip to Middle
Earth."
Community groups such as the Black Creek Alliance and other members of the community have
been active in bringing more public awareness of the natural features of the area and have been
working with their local elected representatives, the City of Toronto, and Hydro One, to
revitalize and bring new life to the green spaces situated south of the subject property. My
residents, our City Councillor, and I as their local Member of Provincial Parliament are
formally requesting that the TRCA put a freeze on the process concerning the proposed
sale and development of 200 Rockcliffe Court, until appropriate detailed environmental
floodplain studies are completed, and viable alternatives can be reviewed that will preserve
and protect the lands for the safety and wellbeing of our citizens.
In summary, before deliberating on the future of 200 Rockcliffe Court, I trust that the TRCA
board will give due consideration to the issues and concerns that have been expressed by the
residents of York South—Weston, as well as those I have illustrated in this letter.
Respectfully,
aura Alba ese, MPP
York South—Weston
cc: Frances Nunziata
Councillor, Ward 11
Constituency Office
99A Ingram Drive, Toronto, ON M6M 2L7
Tel 416-243-7984 1 Fax 416-243-0324 Lanail lalbanese.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
www.lauraa se.onmpp.ca
Item 6.35
March 22, 2018
RE: SALE of 200 ROCKCLIFFE COURT
Dear Members of the Board at the Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA),
I write this letter to you on behalf of concerned residents in Ward 11. Over the past years, the City
of Toronto via (former) BUILD TORONTO has been trying to sell surplus land: the sale of 301
Rockcliffe Boulevard has already had a direct and negative effect on the community. Trees were
cut to make room and our green space and wildlife is disappearing. The decision to sell the City's
surplus land has affected our ability to enjoy the green space in our front yard as well the public
space in Lavender Creek Trail, ,which is adjacent to the surplus land.
Now, the sale of 200 Rockcliffe Court will further exasperates the current situation, we cannot
simply accept, what we regards as, irresponsible behaviour and general disregard for the
environment and its community.
Building any large (and paved) industrial facility on a flood plain is short sighted and will
significantly increase the risk of flooding: some of our basements have already suffered from
floods. Although the surplus land may be zoned as industrial, the community has been using it as
a green space and it should be naturalized so our diverse community of young families with
children and seniors can continue to enjoy this public space.
As a conununity, we are so very proud of our green space: TorontoLife has described it as "middle
earth, with its gorgeous ravine system with multi -arse traits". Why would any reasonable person
want to destroy that? We implore TRCA to halt the sale of 200 Rockcliffe or any of the surplus
land in our community. Please help us protect, restore and enhance this space, and naturalizing
200 Rockcliffe Court would be an excellent flood remediation measure.
I am writing this letter on behalf of the residents of 41, 41 A & 42 Terry Drive and I can be reached
at -
Yours very incerely,
Dhars a Qui tero, Bsc. MHRM, CHRL
76
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.36
200 Rockcliffe Park - opposition to meat packing facility
Nation Rising
ef to:
kstranks@trca.on.ca
22/03/2018 12:16 PM
Hide Details
From: Nation Rising <info@nationrising.ca>
To: "kstranks@trca.on.ca" <kstranks@trca.on.ca>
March 21, 2018
kstranks @trca.on.ca
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am unable to attend the Friday, March 23rd, 2018 meeting to give submissions regarding 200
Rockcliffe Court, so I wondered if you would be so kind as to instead accept and read into the
record this correspondence as our "vote" in favour of turning this lot into greenspace (perhaps allotting
a section to serve as a community garden) and opposing converting it to a slaughterhouse and/or meat
packing operation?
I am writing to you on behalf of NATION RISING, a grassroots political advocacy group that's bringing
together individuals and organizations to pressure the Canadian government to end the multi -BILLION -
dollar subsidies that go towards animal agriculture (including slaughterhouses). As you may know, this
industry is unnecessarily cruel, ecologically damaging, and a hazard to human health.
Our group is demanding that the government stop using our tax dollars to fund food that hurts
animals, destroys our planet, and makes us sick; to make healthy food affordable, particularly for
Indigenous and low-income communities; and to assist farmers in transitioning to plant -based farming.
The Canadian government subsidizes animal agriculture to the tune of billions of dollars. And to what
end? Paying a lower price at the checkout counter at the expense of animal suffering, human health,
and environmental degradation.
There is also a huge impact on slaughterhouse workers. Killing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of
animals a day, and then processing and packaging them after the fact, takes a psychological toll, with
many of them suffering from a variety of disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and
perpetration -induced traumatic stress. This work has been connected to an increase in crime rates,
including higher incidents of domestic abuse, along with alcohol and drug abuse, anxiety, panic,
depression, etc. Their work is likened to child soldiers or executioners, forced into a conflict situation
in which they have to commit horrific acts of violence. Please refer to the following links.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-
traumatised-7175087/
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/slaughterhouse-workers-have-ptsd-from-killing
The World Health Organization places processed meats (such as hot dogs, deli slices, sausages, etc.) in
the same category as cigarettes and asbestos, Group 1, meaning it's carcinogenic to humans. Red
meat (all mammalian muscle meat) falls under the Group 2A banner, meaning it's probably
77
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web7l23.htm 22/03/2018
Page 2 of 2
carcinogenic to humans, but more evidence is being gathered.
I believe that Toronto is an inclusive, forward -thinking, progressive city which prioritizes the wellbeing
of its citizens, the environment, and animal welfare over company profits and those with financial
vested interests. The current trend is towards plant -based milks and meat alternatives, attracting
noteworthy investors like Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Municipalities and countries recognizing
these trends and being early adopters will allow them to position themselves firmly as leaders in this
arena, assist them in meeting their climate change reduction targets, improve public health, reduce
healthcare expenditures, and prevent animal suffering.
Animal agriculture/slaughterhouse operations are dying industries... in every sense of the word.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely yours,
Sue Spahr
NATION RISING
Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
78
file:///C:/Users/kathy.stranks/AppData/Local/Temp/notes5D3EFE/—web7123.htm 22/03/2018
To: Councillor Nunziata <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>,
kstranks@trca.on.ca, Sonia Aguilar Valencia
<Sonia.AguilarValencia@
Juan
From: Juan -Carlos Berna
Date: 03/22/2018 05:39
Subject: WE WOULD LIKE
Item 6.37
Good day all,
OUR GREEN SPACE BACK
As a concerned constituency and resident of Terry Drive, but more importantly, I write
this email as a concerned individual about the environment. Over the past two years, we
have noticed the industrialization of Terry Dr. and the roads adjacent to it with no proper
consultation to the parent residents affected by it; meetings were held but the days and
times were inconvenient, no proper notice which resulted in low turn out. These
city initiatives require proper consultation and transparency and we feel that decisions
are being made behind closed doors. The majority of residents in the surroundings of
200 Rockcliffe are not happy with their green space turned into an industrial swamp.
The majority of residents have been the original residents and we used to enjoy our
green space, full of vegetations where our kids used to play and be physically active.
Recently, we have seen the new residents in the area; they have not been
good neighbours, the two new electrical towers; created a big mess that killed the grass
underneath and now they are trying to add another facility that will get rid of more green
space; this is detrimental to the environment. This will create more pollution, more
wastage, more traffic than there already is, but more alarming; we will witness the
deforestation right before our eyes in today's days.
TRCA's mission statement clearly makes it its objective to ensure that both Nature and
People are interconnected - the health of one directly impacts the health of the other.
For once, I couldn't agree more and I welcome TRCA to consider how the proposed
plan is in line with the mission statement and core values. TRCA is committed to
protecting, restoring and enhancing nature and we would like them to honour their
commitment.
I would also question the date, time and place to vote or consult this important matter
that will impact the local residents for the rest of their lives. This is an important decision
and the time, date and place should be easily accessible; it is no wonder the low turn
out in previous meetings.
Yours truly,
The residents of Terry drive
79
[moi it4191
From: andrew roy <andrew@ediblelandscaping.ca>
To: kstranks@trca.on.ca
Cc: Gillian Leitch >, Helen Mills >, Tanya
Connors >
Date: 03/22/20
Subject: 200 rockcliffe urban green space blue green infrastructure based economic development -
Greetings !
Love to be able to submit in writing and speak at tomorrows meeting.
We are for a more green approach to stewardship of the land vs. "grey" infrastructure that is
currently being proposed
We are for maintaining permeable green area in a flood plain in soon to be an eco -
neighbourhood. That means saying no to severing the land and permitting further development
of the space until Best use has been determined by all relevant public stakeholders!
Having a strong urban plan for the green spaces in the area will help citizens become better
stewards of our watersheds.
The precious land should be able improving wellness and quality of life and the health of our
ecosystem as measured by the health of the soil and the water in this area.
There is currently a performance deficit in this watershed as per all the of the regional
metrics.
We can improve this performance Partnering with developers and business folk, residents and
agencies to analyze the permeable and imperable surfaces in the neighbourhood and see how
black creek can restore water quality.. We can also have a more integrated design approach to
(green) infrastructure projects going on in the area.
200 Rockeliffe can be known as a community hub for green innovation in watershed restoration
and green economic development in terms of remediation of soils and watersheds using
biological based human scale technologies.
Please let me know what I need to do to provide input.
Thanks,
Andrew
Mel
Page 1 of 2
Item 6.39
FW: Proposed sale of land at 200 Rockcliffe Court
Virginia
to:
kstranks
22/03/2018 10:58 PM
Cc:
Councillor Nunziata, "L. Albanese"
Hide Details
From: Virginia >
To: <kstranks ,trca.on.ca>
Cc: Councillor Nunziata <Councillor_NunziataL7@toronto.ca>, "L. Albanese"
<lalbanese.mpp.co@liberal.ola_org>
ATTENTION TRCA,
I am writing this email today to in regards to the the sale of land at 200 Rockeliffe Court.
I have lived in this area for the last 55 years and I am very concerned about the sale of the land and my
husband and I are vehemently opposed to it.
Preserving green space in this community is immensely important to us_ We have had to endure Canada
Packers for many years and the subsequent sale of the contaminated land took years to clean up. As our
world is besieged by concrete jungles that are mining our green spaces we must make a stand for nature
and our community. There will be precious little left if we do not take care of our environment. I
understand that your mission statement is "Protecting, restoring and enhancing nature." How do you
propose to do that by selling it off to any manufacturing establishment? How do you also prevent them
from contaminating the land and having that seep into Black Creek and putting people in danger?
Our community needs the green space that the area provides as there is so little in our community and
city that is not being encroached upon. I can't understand how the sale of this land is even a
consideration as the issues of flooding have long been a concern. Approximately 3 years ago the whole
area became flooded. My husband has a studio at 501 Alliance and the entire underground parking
garage was flooded, it was costly to fix_ Environment Canada had to come in with Hazmat suits to clear
parts of it up. We need to leave this area alone and not interfere with mother nature.
It is ironic that you are considering a sale while also looking at flood remediation measures in the area.
Knowing there is a problem and going through with a sale is contraindicated.
As this was only brought to our attention recently there has been very little time to mobilize our
neighbours and there has been minimal consultation with the community_ There are many unhappy
residents who have been unable to speak up in time.
Thank you for your time.
John and *Vr.
inia Presseault
oronT to, M6N 3Y6
Karen Jenson
Toronto
81
file:///C:/Use.is/kathy.strauks/AppData/LocaPTemp/notes5D3EFE/—web9550.htm 23/03/2018
Item 6.40
March 23, 2017
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
101 Exchange Avenue
Concord, Ontario
L4K 5116
Dear Members of the Board of the TRCA,
Good morning. My name is Leah Harrison. I am the co-chair of the Stockyards
Residents Association, representing roughly 400 homes in the area. I am also here
as a resident and a new mom.
Rockcliffe Court is less then 500 meters from our home. I am opposed to developing
on this parcel of land, as I believe that the land has greater potential. In particular,
the conditional sale of this land for industrial purpose is completely opposite to the
area's growth and our resident's interests.
In the past 5 years I have seen significant changes in the neighborhood:
• Canada Packers is now the site of the Stock Yards mall
• The Symes Destructor has been beautifully restored and now home to an
event center and Junction Craft Brewery
• 2 two additional craft brewers, Shacklands and Rainhard have opened in
adjacent buildings, earning the area the nickname of "The Aleyards"
• 100 Symes is also home to Morgan Solar, a growing solar energy company
and the Monkey Vault, the first parkour gym in Toronto
• Behind my home was the New York Pork abattoir, which has a development
proposal for an 11 storey mixed-use condo.
I am excited to be part of the neighbourhood during such an important stage of its
transition - a transition away from its industrial heritage to that of a modern,
family -friendly area.
With all of this development, the one thing lacking is parkland. The city is listening.
There are plans to revitalize Gaffney Trail, which overlooks the Rockcliffe site. There
are community meetings underway to discuss improvements to the nearby Hydro
corridor. The city invested in Maple Claire Park by installing a splashpad and plans
to install a soccer field in 2018. In the winter, local volunteers have used the field to
build a hockey rink using materials and hoses donated by the city.
While these city and volunteer initiatives are improving quality of life and genuine
community feel, there remains a stark contrast to the nearby industry. Less than 50
meters from the splashpad is the main St Helen's facility. This facility is the source of
many resident complaints and also one of the conditional buyers of the Rockcliffe
site. Stockyards residents often have to navigate around transport trucks idling,
blocking lanes on Gunns or Glenn Scarlett Road. These trucks often carry livestock
in for slaughter, or others are being loaded with carcasses unsuitable for
processing. In 2015, B1ogTO rated Glenn Scarlett as one of the ugliest roads in
Toronto and unfortunately little has changed. Aside from St Helens, there is still an
operating Tannery, a Towing Depot, Incinerator and other industrial buildings lining
these short few blocks.
An afternoon at the splashpad is less enjoyable with the background noise of trucks,
livestock and their wafting smells on a humid day.
I share these unpleasant details not to pick on the companies that have operated in
the area for decades, but to add character to what the Stockyards currently is and
the inevitable trajectory away from its industrial history. Our neighbours in
Rockcliffe-Smythe and Mt Dennis have seen similar decades of change and
revitalization of lands that were once far different than they are now. We have a
responsibility to advocate for our family and environmental interests over that of
the commercial interests of our industrial neighbours.
I support my neighbors in the Blackcreek Alliance and agree that we need to make
better use of the land at Rockcliffe Court. Regardless of the past decisions that led us
here today, we have a unique opportunity to repurpose a sizable amount of land in
the middle of a growing residential area. This is land that can be an asset to the
neighbourhood and become a reason for families to move to the area, or one that
acts against the area's interest. A decision to sell this land to industrial interest will
stall the area's residential development for decades.
As a new parent, I share the same desires as I'm sure many of you have for your
children. I want my son to grow up in a vibrant, safe neighbourhood. l want him to
climb trees, run around and explore the beauty of this city. I want him to build
friendships and make memories. I hope that he has the opportunity to do so at
Rockcliffe court, rather than pass by a lost opportunity, ringed in chainlink fencing.
Thank you,
Leah Harrison
Co -Chair, The Stockyards Residents Association
ME
Ih� TORONTO Item 6.41 `� _ .�
�..
Councillor Frances Nunziata
Council SReaRer
Wald 11 York South—Weston
Mach 23. 201
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
101 Exchange Avenue
Vaughan, ON
L4K 5R6
Re: Item 7.1 Greenlands Acqu;ak;on P. eject fot 2016-2020 - CreateTU and
Item 7.2 Black Creek (Rockcliffe) Flood Re ... Windom Environmental Assessment
Deal Chair and Members of the Authority,
Today, you will consider two matters of grave concern to the residents of Wa.d 1 I Yutk South—Weston,
matters with groat ;n,pl;cat;V-„s to the Rockcliffe area in particular.
G. eertlaotda Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 - Createl u
To my surprise, on December 15,_ 2017 thr Exeeuteve Committee recommended the acquisition of a
conservation easement containing Lul acres of land from 200 Rockcliffe Court fron, Build Tmo,do Inc.
Having subsequently bee„ alerted to thio, at the Authority meeting of January 5, 2018, an Authority
Member, with my support asked that the item be deterred to a futu.c ,ueetius to allow for further
discos,ian auanigat Build Toronto, City staff, and myself "with the goal of ensuring that the high risk
ttoodplain is protected and that the natural heritage syteu, ;a ntaa;,,,ized." Despite the Authority's
detection to work towards me goal of -ensuring that the high risk flood plain is protected and that the
natural heritage system is max;m;�ed," thu Fccotttttte„dation before you today is su, prisingly the same as
that originally proposed (but for minor changes to one of the proposed easement zipulateons).
Un March /, 2U18 a public meeting was held to update the co,tu„uldty o„ the Black creek (Rockcliffe)
Re ve, etre Flood Management class Environmental Assessment (EA), the Basement Flooding EA; and the
Combined Sewer Overflow Control EA. Folluw;,,g that portion of the meeting, create 1 U provided a
presentation on the severance and sale of the lands at 200 Rockcliffe Court. It wan cxplae,ted that a
condition of appro.al lot the :,eve,attce was the protection or the 35U -year storm area.
While these has been differing opinion as to now much of the land at 20u Rockclitte Court should be
protected, all those who have contacted my off uu and thane who attended the community meeting held on
March t, ZUI 8 conveyed the same message: the proposed conservation easement of 1.01 ac,e of laud is
unacceptable. It is through eug;uee, 6tg and alta ing the topography of me site that a portion of ZUU
Kocfcclitte court is proposed to be raised out of the 35U year storm flood plaeu. Under current conditions,
a largo coube, vaticru easement would be required.
In the same staff report wherein it is being recommended that the Authority move forward with ar.yue,;ttg
the 1.01 acre conservation easeuteuc the used to, at, update to the Special Policy Area (SPA) boundaries
and polices "in order to bring them up to today's practice and to reflect new i,ttvrrnateo,t" is noted. If the
very polices that allow to, this site within the flood plain to be severed and developed are outdated, that
alone is grounds not to proceed. Making a decision to aeeapt the 1.01. ac,e conservation easement today
would be premature in the absence of discussion with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs around updatutg
these policies.
- _i',tG L'.y n,;.i, -i,„' Queen Street i,ti'FS_. t .�� ^,[� Gi I oronto, Ontario i i iS LNG
Tel: 416-392-4091 Fax: 416-392-4118 Email councillor-nonriataCoutoronto.ca ® (a)FrancesNunziata
Sign up for Word 11 eNews Opda'84 .. w.cou„Cillo,,,unzioto.com
DATGRQW Councillor Frances Nfanzidta
crcatcTV s property at 200 RocKcllttc court is comprised of approximately 14 acres of land, S acres of
Wh;ch I,.,,c beer, vazuid fo, accada,. If thr accouuAer,dat;Ol,a as p,oposed by TRCA st.,ffate adaptea
today, the Authority will have missed a unique opportunity in the city of I oronto to restore land to its
Oiiginal. u.duralizud state.
The community has made it clear by way of seoding letter,, ,igning petitions, acrd calling
MY office that they do not support the recommendations Before you. l support Me
community's wishes and ask that you do not approve this l:reenlanas Acquisition rruject
in its current f-orm.
Bleck (;,vck fltreke7iffe) F7aod Rcmed;ertivn As;c;;,,rc„r
The Black Creek (Kockclifle) Kiverine Flood Management Class EA was completes in 2014.
Despite the area's ranking by the TRCA as uue of the top five flood risk priority areas within its
jurisdictional area, it has taken nearly 4 years fur this report to Cume forward. As if that isn't
fi ustratinb enough, the report speaks to the need of another study to further pursue the upgrades
to the Jane Street crossing; the single measure that will have the most 5ignittcant impact on
removing properties out otthe regulatory tlaodplain. Without these upgrades, implementing the
recommended alternatives ttom Toronto Water's 13asement Flooding Study EA, also completed
in 2014, would nut reduce the risk of basement fluoding in any way. The ropurt from TRCA staff
notes that Trarrspurtatiun Serviocs has suggested that it will be 30 to 40 years before the Jatre
Street culvert comes up for State of Bova Kepair replacement work so it would be at that time
that the upgrades to the Jane Street crossing would be undertaken which is unacceptable. A
community should not have to wait 30 to 40 years for tlooding to be addressed.
I support the n eCtlummudaLvu to unOve fon ward w;th feu ;b;hty and conceptual dew;go >tudy far the
upgrades to the Jane Street crossing in 2019; however, I request that the recommendation before
the Autho,;ty be atnerrded to r emove all refetence to unplement;ng the tueasu, es when the Jane
Street culvert is identified for State of hood Repair replacement work.
I ask that you please take all of the above concerns into consideration and hope that the community of
Ward 11 can count on your support on these two very important issues.
Sincerely,
cuuncillur Frances tvunziata
Wara l I, York Suuth—Weston
Item 6.42
From_ Jung Kim-
To- Coundlor Nunmats cGounallor Nunnata(&oronto_ca>, fnfo(),createto_ca, dloafeCo7createto ca, ksiranksCa)jrca_on ca
Nate. 7210312010 00.45 AM
Su*CL 200 Rmki ffe Court Concen s
To the parties involved,
I was made aware of the sale for 200 Rockliffe Court through a neighbor recently.
Why were the residents of this area not aware of this news until recently?
I noticed you guys are holding a meeting for vote this friday during working hours quite far away
from home as well? Which I assume most of us cannot attend.
I would like to voice my concerns as I live and own a home on Humber Blvd N_
First off there are 3 schools within the route to this land you guys are trying to sell off to
industries.
We dont need more freight trucks 18wheel trucks going through our streets shaking our house
foundations, let me add most cars and trucks speed and dont obey 40km zones.
A young pedestrian on Humber Blvd was struck by a car last July in critical condition.
The children attending the 3 schools do not need added hacks driving through and speeding on
our streets.
The land is well known to any educated and non educated people that it is essential to have green
space to offset the flood potentials in the area.
Rockliffe is in a transition heading in the right direction of more green space/ safer areal new rec
centre/ new LRT lines.
Why are we heading in a backwards direction?
Meat packing plant in the middle of a neighborhood and schools?
Please people, I am sure you dont live in this area nor your children attend schools here.
The sad reality that poor people keep getting marginalized needs to stop continuing here.
Go ahead and start developing meat packing plants in Rosedale/ Forrest Hill/ and other "areas"
within our city and see what type of response you will get from the people there.
Give the people here a break/ a chance to change and develop here in the neighborhood-
-Jung Kim
Resident
Section I — Items for Authority Action
CALL THE QUESTION
RES.#A16/18
Moved by: Michael Palleschi
Seconded by: Matt Mahoney
THAT the Chair Call the Question on item 7.1 — Greenlands Acquisition Project for
2016-2020, CreateTO.
CARRIED
RES.#A17/18 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
CreateTO (formerly Build Toronto Inc.), CFN 55477. Update on
discussion with CreateTO, City of Toronto staff and the local Councillor
regarding the acquisition of a conservation easement located east of
Jane Street and north of St. Clair Avenue West— 200 Rockcliffe Court,
in the City of Toronto, Etobicoke York Community Council Area, under
the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020," Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Gino Rosati
THAT a conservation easement for the protection of the 350 year storm flood plain,
containing 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Jane
Street and north of St. Clair Avenue West — 200 Rockcliffe Court, said land being Part of
Lot 37, Concession 3, FTB, designated as Part 28 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by
Rouse Surveyors Inc., under their Reference No. 17-767-2, dated November 14, 2017, in
the City of Toronto, Etobicoke York Community Council Area, be purchased from Build
Toronto Inc.;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the conservation
easement 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 by TRCA;
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.
Maria Augimeri
Paul Ainslie
Jack Ballinger
Ronald Chopowick
DOE
Nay
Yea
Yea
Yea
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Nay
Jennifer Drake
Nay
Paula Fletcher
Yea
Jack Heath
Yea
Jennifer Innis
Yea
Colleen Jordan
Yea
Jim Karygiannis
Yea
Maria Kelleher
Yea
Matt Mahoney
Yea
Giorgio Mammoliti
Yea
Glenn Mason
Yea
Mike Mattos
Nay
Michael Palleschi
Yea
Anthony Perruzza
Nay
Gino Rosati
Yea
John Sprovieri
Yea
THE MAIN MOTION IS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Resolution #B110/17 that is the above recommendation was recommended by the Executive
Committee at Meeting #10/17, held on December 15, 2017, for consideration of the Authority at
Meeting #10/17 held on January 5, 2018. However, Resolution #A237/17 was instead adopted
as follows:
THAT item 10.1.3- Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2022, Build Toronto Inc., be
deferred to Authority Meeting #11/17, scheduled to be held on January 26, 2018,
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work in cooperation with Build Toronto Inc.,
City of Toronto staff and the local Councillor with the goal of ensuring that the high risk
floodplain is protected and that the natural heritage system is maximized.
Subsequently, in January 2018, CreateTO (formerly Build Toronto) requested that the item be
deferred to the March 23, 2018 Authority meeting in order to allow for public engagement as
requested by the local Councillor.
On March 7, 2018 a public information meeting was held by Councillor Nunziata at 99 Humber
Boulevard, at which TRCA staff presented and was available to answer questions. This meeting
included an update on the Black Creek (Rockcliffe Area) Riverine Flood Management Class
Environmental Assessment, completed by TRCA in 2014, and the Basement Flooding Study Area
4 and Combined Sewer Overflow Control Environmental Assessment, completed by the City of
Toronto on August 2014. A separate presentation by CreateTO staff on the potential severance
and sale of lands at 200 Rockcliffe Court followed, and a question and answer session was held.
CreateTO stated that the property is designated for employment uses in the City of Toronto
Official Plan, is zoned for employment uses, and a severance is permitted under the current
Special Policy Area policies which require flood proofing to a minimum of the 350 Year Storm
event. They also stated that decisions were made by the City of Toronto in 2006 and 2008 to
declare the lands surplus to the City's needs and be transfered to Build Toronto. The property is
part of a fully serviced Plan of Subdivision for an industrial park which was registered on June 22, 1998.
Create TO has received its approvals from the MOECC including an approved Certificate of Property
Use (CPU) and an approved Record of Site Condition (RSC) allowing development to proceed safely
within the property. CreateTO has negotiated conditional sales to three corporations who will purchase
and occupy the 200 Rockcliffe lands. Residents raised the issue of flooding, as well as other issues
unrelated to TRCA's mandate including land contamination (regulated by the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change), and noise, smells, waste and traffic (to be reviewed by the
City of Toronto through a future Site Plan Control application). Answers to residents' questions
were provided by CreateTO and Toronto Water staff, and consultants. Residents continue to
raise these concerns with TRCA staff through correspondence and deputation requests.
TRCA staff has worked in cooperation with CreateTO, City of Toronto staff and the local
Councillor with the goal of ensuring that the high risk floodplain is protected and that the natural
heritage system is maximized. The public engagement arranged by the Councillor's office is now
complete, and CreateTO wishes to proceed with the easement with a change to one of the
easement stipulations as follows:
• The 350 -year storm area will eitheFbe planted with native, low growing shrubs and
grasses or seededisedded with gFass and,','^ e°' a will be maintained in a -
naturalized state in perpetuity by the landowner and all future owners, successors,
assigns, etc.
The proposed easement over the 350 Year Flood lands on the subject property meets the
minimum requirements of the in -force Special Policy Area policies. TRCA staff will continue to
work with City of Toronto staff during the review of any future Site Plan Control application, and
will continue to encourage the City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to proceed with the
comprehensive update to the Special Policy Area boundaries and policies in order to bring them
up to today's practice and to reflect new information.
The main concern from the public relating to the granting of this easement by CreateTO to TRCA
is the resultant sale of the severed lot to St. Helen's. The concerns relating to the sale are flooding
in general and in particular higher risk of basement flooding; loss of greenspace; reduction in
house values and the proposed future use of the site.
Resolution #A161/15 at Authority Meeting #8/15, held on September 25, 2015, approved the
Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020.
Negotiations have been conducted with Mr. Michael Whelan, Vice President, Development, Build
Toronto Inc.
Attached is a sketch illustrating the location of the subject lands.
RATIONALE
The subject lands fall within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Humber River
watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020. Through
the review of Consent Application No. 80092/16EYK for commercial development, TRCA staff
established the limits of the conservation easement lands (i.e. Part 1 o draft Plan of Survey)
which are comprised of the 350 -year storm flood plain within the Rockcliffe Special Policy Area
(SPA).
M-6 6
The northern portion of the site is located within the 350 -year storm flood plain and is unsuitable
for development as stipulated in the Rockcliffe SPA policies. The SPA recognizes the existing
commercial and residential development within the Regulatory (i.e. Regional Storm) flood plain
and allows new development/redevelopment in the area outside the 350 -year storm flood plain,
subject to new structures being adequately flood proofed to above the Regional Storm flood
elevation.
CreateTO has obtained consent from the Committee of Adjustments to sever its land holdings at
200 Rockcliffe Court and is currently in the process of selling a severed lot to a commercial
business. As described above, the northern portion of the severed lot is undevelopable and, due
to its close proximity to the Black Creek flood control channel, the area of the 350 -year storm must
be kept free and clear of obstructions. As part of the conditions of the consent application and
prior to the sale of the subject lot, staff requires that CreateTO register a conservation easement
on title to the subject lands stipulating that:
• No development, parking or outside storage will be permitted within the 350 -year storm
flood plain;
• The 350 -year storm area will either be planted with native, low growing shrubs and
grasses or seeded/sodded with grass and, in either case, will be maintained in perpetuity
by the landowner and all future owners, successors, assigns, etc.;
• The 350 -year storm area will be kept clean of waste in perpetuity by the landowner and all
future owners, successors, assigns, etc.; and
• TRCA will have the ability to enter and use the 350 -year storm area for inspection and
flood control purposes, including any development or infrastructure required for flood
control.
Based on correspondence with Committee of Adjustment senior staff, the decision of the
Committee of Adjustment is now final and binding, and there is no opportunity to appeal the
decision of the Committee. If the TRCA does not inform the Committee of Adjustment that this
condition is satisfied within one year, the consent will lapse and CreateTO would be required to
submit a new application.
TAXES AND MAINTENANCE
The lands subject to the conservation easement will be transferred into private ownership. As
such, the new owner will be responsible for taxes and maintenance.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds for the costs related to this purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital
account.
Report prepared by: George Leja, extension 5342, Steve Heuchert, extension 5311
Emails: aleiaC&trca.on.ca, sheuchertC&trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311, Mike Ferning, extension 5223
Emails: sheuchert@trca.on.ca, mfenning aetrca.on.ca
Date: March 9, 2018
Attachments: 1
M1
RES.#A18/18 - BLACK CREEK (ROCKCLIFFE) FLOOD REMEDIATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Flood Remediation Measures in the Rockcliffe Area. Next steps in pursuing
flood remediation measures in the Rockcliffe area, an area along Black
Creek that is a highly flood vulnerable area, and has experienced both
riverine and urban basement flooding during severe storms.
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in consultation with City of
Toronto, undertake feasibility and conceptual design studies in 2019, which will refine
cost estimates and benefits, confirm construction feasibility, and identify design
considerations and other implementation requirements for the TRCA Environmental
Assessment (EA) recommended flood protection berms and channel widening and
naturalization;
THAT TRCA, in consultation with City of Toronto, undertake a feasibility and conceptual
design study in 2019 for the TRCA EA recommended flood protection measures for the
Jane Street crossing so that these recommended measures can be considered by the City
of Toronto at such a time in the future that the Jane Street culvert is identified for State of
Good Repair replacement works;
THAT TRCA make a funding request for 2019 to the City of Toronto, and for matching
funds to the National Disaster Mitigation Program, to undertake the above-mentioned
studies;
THAT TRCA report back upon completion of the feasibility and conceptual design studies;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised.
AMENDMENT
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza
THAT the City of Toronto be requested to retain any City -owned lands within the existing
regional floodline of the Black Creek (Rockcliffe) study area in public ownership for flood
protection and conservation purposes.
THE AMENDMENT WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER BY THE CHAIR
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza
THAT the Chair be challenged on her ruling.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
THE MAIN MOTION WAS
92
NOT CARRIED
NOT VOTED ON
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Rockcliffe area is located in Ward 11 (York South -Weston) and within the regulatory
floodplain of Black Creek. It is an area with a high concentration of Flood Vulnerable Structures in
the regulatory floodplain, and thus is one of TRCA's previously identified Flood Vulnerable
Clusters and also a Special Policy Area. There are 413 buildings located within the regulatory
floodplain, which corresponds to 622 properties because some of the residential buildings are
semi-detached homes. Many of these properties have experienced surface and basement
flooding during severe storms due to both riverine flooding and/or overloading of the City's sewer
systems.
TRCA and the City of Toronto have been coordinating efforts to reduce flooding risks in the
Rockcliffe area. In 2014, the TRCA and the City completed two separate EA studies that
examined options to reduce riverine and sewer system related flooding, respectively. These EA
studies are:
1) Black Creek (Rockcliffe Area) Riverine Flood Management Class Environmental Assessment,
completed in 2014 by Amec Foster Wheeler — this TRCA EA study investigated riverine
flooding and recommended riverine flood remediation measures; and,
2) Basement Flooding Study Area 4 and Combined Sewer Overflow Control Environmental
Assessment, completed August 2014 by XCG — this City of Toronto EA study investigated
sewer system flooding and recommended sewer system improvements to reduce basement
and flooding.
Since the completion of the EA studies, TRCA and Toronto Water have identified next steps and
implementation considerations, which are summarized as follows:
History of Riverine Flooding in Rockcliffe
Factors that contribute to the flooding of Black Creek in the Rockcliffe area relate to alterations to
the Black Creek channel and residential development over the past 70 years. Residential urban
development in this area and the corresponding alterations to Black Creek occurred primarily
during and after the 1940s. Channelization of Black Creek as early as 1942 occurred along
Humber Boulevard, parallel to Cordella Avenue. These early alterations to Black Creek predate
1954's Hurricane Hazel event and were not intended to be flood control measures. Following the
substantial flooding caused by Hurricane Hazel, several mitigation measures were proposed in
the Black Creek Flood Control Plan and the 1959 Plan for Flood Control by the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
The Black Creek Flood Control Plan outlined additional alterations to Black Creek to provide for
riverine flood protection, including the construction of a flow attenuation dam north of Wilson
Avenue, and further channelization of Black Creek between Weston Road and its confluence with
the main Humber River.
93
Similar to other post -Hurricane Hazel flood control plans, not every measure identified in the
Black Creek Flood Control Plan was implemented. Two key riverine flood control measures that
were implemented included the expansion of the Black Creek channel (constructed in 1959), and
the Black Creek flow attenuation dam (completed in the 1960s). These flood control measures
were designed based on the available methods and information at that time and without the
availability of streamflow records. In addition, land use assumptions at the time were different
from how the upstream areas actually developed in subsequent years. Thus, these flood
protection measures on Black Creek, while providing some riverine flood mitigation benefits, were
not designed to fully protect the area from riverine flooding.
With a highly urbanized and altered drainage area, together with the many engineered channel
sections, Black Creek is today an extremely flashy watercourse with floodwaters that quickly
accumulate into and pass through the system. With the historic development in the most
low-lying areas of the floodplain, many of the 622 properties in the regulatory floodplain are at
high risk of riverine flooding during more frequent events. In some reaches, the flow capacity of
the Black Creek channel is exceeded during the 5 and 10 year storm events.
Water levels in the Black Creek channel can impact the performance of City of Toronto's sewer
systems and contribute to the basement flooding of homes within and outside of the regulatory
floodplain limits of the Rockcliffe area. During storm events, water in the Black Creek can rise to a
level that restricts the ability of storm sewers to discharge stormwater into the creek. This situation
contributes to the surcharge of storm sewers. When water levels in Black Creek rise over the river
banks and spill onto roads, significant volumes of water from Black Creek can enter the storm and
combined sewer systems through catch basins, maintenance hole covers, as well as from
plumbing systems on private properties, which can contribute to overloading these sewer
systems.
Flood Risk Management Activities in Rockcliffe
TRCA identifies and ranks areas at risk of riverine flooding (i.e., flood vulnerable clusters) through
a Flood Risk Assessment process that considers flood damages and costs. Currently, 43 Flood
Vulnerable Area clusters have been identified across TRCA's jurisdiction as priority areas. Since
2008, the Rockcliffe area has been ranked among the top five priority areas for riverine flood risk
within TRCA's jurisdictional area and is currently ranked the second highest priority area for
riverine flood risk within Toronto. Rockcliffe was the first flood risk priority area selected by TRCA
to commence an EA study to investigate riverine flooding and recommend solutions.
TRCA activities in flood risk management extend beyond capital works and land -use planning,
and include emergency management planning with partner municipalities, flood forecasting and
warning, and education and outreach. In addition to the TRCA EA study, actions taken by TRCA
to support mitigation of riverine flood risks in the Rockcliffe area include:
• Identifying the Rockcliffe area as a priority area for risk communications and flood education
programs;
• Installation of a dedicated real-time monitoring water level gauge at Black Creek, downstream
of Alliance Avenue in 2016, which assists in flood forecasting and warning, as well as
emergency preparedness;
• Development of an updated two-dimensional hydraulic model (21D model), which provides
enhanced riverine flood risk information (i.e., flood depth, velocity, risk to life parameters) and
will be utilized as a basis for feasibility/conceptual design studies and simulations for the
TRCA EA recommended riverine flood reduction projects (e.g. refine costing, benefiting
properties, etc.);
• Continued investments for the operation and maintenance of flood infrastructure along Black
Creek, namely:
• Black Creek Dam Safety Review (2017);
• Black Creek Reservoir Dredging and Maintenance Project (2017);
• Black Creek Channel Restoration (2013 - 2016);
• Black Creek Channel Guardrail Installation (2016).
Black Creek (Rockcliffe) Riverine Flood Management Class EA (TRCA EA)
TRCA initiated the Black Creek (Rockcliffe Area) Flood Management Class EA in 2008 to
investigate options to reduce or remove the risk of riverine flooding to people and properties in this
high-risk area. The study was completed in 2014.
The TRCA EA identified 413 buildings, which corresponds to 622 properties at risk of riverine
flooding (i.e., in the regulatory floodplain). As noted previously, the number of properties is greater
than the number of buildings because some of the buildings are semi-detached homes.
The recommended remediation measures from the TRCA EA to reduce riverine flooding are
shown in Attachment 1 and include the following:
• Jane Street Crossing upgrade (referred to as the Jane Street Bridge Upgrade in the 2014
TRCA EA) and valley wall reshaping;
• Flood protection berms for Rockcliffe Middle School, Hilldale Road, and Black Creek Drive;
• Channel widening and naturalization - Rockcliffe Boulveard to Alliance Avenue.
A summary of the TRCA EA recommended riverine flood remediation measure, the number of
buildings and properties that would have a flood reduction benefit by being removed from the
regulatory floodplain and the TRCA EA estimated costs of the flood remediation measures are
presented in Table 1. A key implementation consideration is that the EA cost estimates included
only capital construction costs and did not include design and implementation costs such as
possible easements or property acquisition costs, sewer and utility relocations that may be
required to accommodate the berm solutions, and longer term operating expenses associated
with maintaining new assets. More details on the recommended measures and their
implementation are provided after Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: TRCA EA Recommended Remediation Measures, Benefitting Buildings and
Properties, and Estimated Costs
95
Number of
Number of
Preliminary
Recommended
Level of
Buildings
Properties
Estimated
Measures
Protection
Removed from the
Removed from
Capital Costs
Regulatory
Regulatory
from 2014 TRCA
Floodplain
Floodplain
EA
Jane Street
Regulatory
115 homes,
$25,000,000 to
Crossing Upgrade
(Regional)
1 school and
170 properties
$30,000,000
Storm
8 businesses
Rockcliffe Middle
Regulatory
School Flood
(Regional)
$400,000
Protection Berm
Storm with the
Jane St.
1 school,
90 buildings
86 properties
Hilldale Road Flood
Crossing
*
$900,000
Protection Berm
Upgrade
95
* Without the Jane St. Crossing Upgrade, the berms would provide a level of protection up to the 100
year storm event.
The regulatory floodplain is TRCA's standard for riverine flood protection. The implementation of
all of the TRCA EA's recommended remediation measures would remove 256 of the 622
properties from the regulatory floodplain of Black Creek. Table 2 highlights that the greatest
riverine flooding risk reduction would be achieved with the implementation of all of the TRCA EA's
recommended measures.
Table 2: Reduction of Riverine Flooding Risks in Black Creek with the Implementation of
TRCA EA Recommended Measures
Number of Properties At Risk of Riverine Flooding
Number of
Number of
Preliminary
Recommended
Level of
Buildings
Properties
Estimated
Measures
Protection
Removed from the
Removed from
Capital Costs
322
452
Regulatory
Regulatory
from 2014 TRCA
All TRCA EA Recommended
187
Floodplain
Floodplain
EA
Black Creek Drive
Flood Protection
$465,000
Berm
Channel Widening
Creek
Creek
and Naturalization -
10 year storm
naturalization and
naturalization and
$1,600,000
Rockcliffe Blvd. to
improved flood
improved flood
Alliance Avenue
storage
storage
Totals
215 buildings
256 properties
$26,365,000 to
$33,365,000
* Without the Jane St. Crossing Upgrade, the berms would provide a level of protection up to the 100
year storm event.
The regulatory floodplain is TRCA's standard for riverine flood protection. The implementation of
all of the TRCA EA's recommended remediation measures would remove 256 of the 622
properties from the regulatory floodplain of Black Creek. Table 2 highlights that the greatest
riverine flooding risk reduction would be achieved with the implementation of all of the TRCA EA's
recommended measures.
Table 2: Reduction of Riverine Flooding Risks in Black Creek with the Implementation of
TRCA EA Recommended Measures
Jane Street Crossing Upgrade and Valley Wall Reshaping
The TRCA EA recommended an upgrade to the existing Jane Street crossing, which would
involve replacing the existing arch culvert and road on top of the culvert with a higher capacity
bridge structure. The Black Creek Valley adjacent to the crossing would also need to be widened
to allow for construction of an approximately 200 metre span bridge structure.
• e
Number of Properties At Risk of Riverine Flooding
Implementation Scenario
100 Year Floodplain
Regulatory Floodplain
(100 year storm)
(Regional Storm)
Existing Conditions - No measures
382
622
implemented
Jane Street Crossing Upgrade
322
452
Implemented Only
All TRCA EA Recommended
187
366
Measures Implemented
Jane Street Crossing Upgrade and Valley Wall Reshaping
The TRCA EA recommended an upgrade to the existing Jane Street crossing, which would
involve replacing the existing arch culvert and road on top of the culvert with a higher capacity
bridge structure. The Black Creek Valley adjacent to the crossing would also need to be widened
to allow for construction of an approximately 200 metre span bridge structure.
• e
The Jane Street Crossing Upgrade would have the most significant impact in reducing riverine
flooding in the Rockcliffe area, both in terms of removing properties directly upstream from the
regulatory floodplain, but also in terms of reducing Black Creek flood elevations within the creek
itself. This, in turn, would reduce the impact of Black Creek on the performance of the City's sewer
system in this area, which is important to reduce the risk of basement flooding. The estimated
capital construction cost of the Jane Street Bridge Upgrade was $25 to $30 million at the time of
the EA, however this estimate was not based on a detailed design. Furthermore, this estimate
does not include design costs, easement costs, or property acquisition costs (if easements and
property acquisitions are necessary). Therefore, it is not possible to provide an accurate
estimation of the total cost without undertaking the proposed feasibility analysis and conceptual
design studies.
The Jane Street crossing is an asset of the City of Toronto Transportation Services. A key
implementation challenge for the recommended flood protection measures is that Transportation
Services has advised that the replacement of the Jane Street culvert is not anticipated for
approximately 30 to 40 years based on the culvert's current state of good repair replacement
needs.
While recognizing that the Jane Street culvert may not require state of good repair replacement
works for 30 to 40 years, given the significant benefit of the Jane Street Crossing Upgrade in
reducing flooding in the Rockcliffe area, TRCA is recommending to undertake a feasibility and
conceptual design study in 2019, in consultation with appropriate City divisions, so that this
recommended flood protection measures can be considered by the City of Toronto at such time
that the Jane Street culvert is identified for State of Good Repair replacement works.
Flood Protection Berms for Rockcliffe Middle School, Hilldale Road and Black Creek Drive
The Rockcliffe Middle School, Hilldale Road and Black Creek flood protection berms are identified
in the EA as recommendations that would prevent overland flow on the floodplain from coming in
contact with homes and other buildings. In the short-term (without any upgrades to the Jane
Street crossing), they would isolate flows for up to the 100 -year event. The implementation of the
three berms (together with the Jane Street Bridge Upgrade) would remove 90 homes and the
Rockcliffe Middle School from the regulatory floodplain. The estimated cost of the three berms is
approximately $1.75 million (as shown in Table 1).
Key challenges in implementing the berms include the following:
• Need for easements on private property, and/or property acquisitions where private properties
are too small to accommodate berms. Acquiring easements and/or properties is a lengthy
process whose feasibility and costs have not been included in the EA cost estimates;
• The EA did not recommend the exact location of where the berms could be constructed and
made assumptions about the dimensions of each berm (i.e. height and width);
• Storm sewers may compromise the effectiveness of the berms by providing a hydrologic
pathway for flood waters to reach homes. A new system of backflow valves on the storm
sewer outlet and potentially other measures would be needed to prevent flood waters from
flowing underneath the berms to homes and this has not yet been evaluated.
97
In order to advance the implementation of the berms, a feasibility study and conceptual design is
required to establish where the berms could be located (especially on private property), determine
more precise dimensions (i.e. height and width) of each berm, and to identify the need for other
potential measures to prevent flood water from flowing underneath the berms to homes. Staff
recommends that TRCA undertake a study, in consultation with appropriate City divisions, using
updated 2D modelling, which will refine cost estimates and benefits, confirm construction
feasibility, and identify conceptual design considerations and other implementation requirements.
Channel Widening and Naturalization - Rockcliffe Boulevard to Alliance Avenue
The naturalization and widening of Black Creek between Rockcliffe Boulevard and Alliance
Avenue was identified by the TRCA EA as a longer term solution as it would involve considerably
more effort to implement than other recommendations (e.g. berms).
The channel widening and naturalization would involve natural channel design to provide
in -stream aquatic habitat benefits and keep more creek flow within the watercourse. With
respect to reducing riverine flood risks, this measure may somewhat reduce the likelihood of
flooding for a number of properties along Humber Boulevard, Cordella Avenue, Cliff Street,
Langden Avenue and Louvain Street. However, it is likely that the channel would still provide
conveyance capacity only up to the 10 -year storm event.
Similar to the recommended berm solutions, a feasibility study and conceptual design is required
to confirm the riverine flood reduction benefits for the naturalization and widening of Black Creek.
The feasibility study will also refine cost estimates, confirm construction feasibility, identify
required easement and/or property acquisitions to accommodate the flood protection measures,
and identify design considerations and other implementation requirements for the channel
widening and naturalization.
Non -Structural Options for Reducing Flooding
As noted previously, the implementation of all the TRCA EA recommended remediation
measures would provide significant riverine flood reduction benefits for the Rockcliffe area, by
lowering levels in Black Creek, which in turn optimizes the ability for the City to implement
basement flooding protection measures, and by removing 256 properties from the regulatory
floodplain.
Conversely, 366 properties would remain in the regulatory floodplain at continued risk of riverine
flooding, of which 187 properties would remain within the 100 -year floodplain. The majority of the
properties that would remain in the floodplain are residential homes in the Cordella
Avenue/Humber Boulevard North area that experienced surface and basement flooding on July 8,
2013.
As infrastructure solutions cannot reduce riverine flooding risks for all of the properties in the
floodplain, the potential for property acquisition was re -considered. In 2017, Amec Foster
Wheeler (Amec) completed a follow-up study to the 2014 TRCA EA that used property value data
provided by the City of Toronto to estimate the costs associated with property acquisition in the
Rockcliffe area as an alternative flood remediation option.
The 2017 follow-up study determined that property acquisition as a method of reducing flood risk
is cost -prohibitive. The cost of acquiring all of the 622 properties in the regulatory floodplain
(assuming none of the TRCA EA recommended measures are implemented) was estimated at
approximately $540 million. The estimated capital cost of implementing all of the EA
recommended solutions to remove 256 properties from the regulatory floodplain is in the range of
$28-33 million, though this cost will be re -assessed through the feasibility studies. Purchasing the
remaining 366 properties in the regulatory floodplain would cost $326 million. Furthermore,
property acquisition typically only occurs via conveyance through the planning process, or via
arms -length transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller. With so many small parcels
and owners, property acquisition would be a lengthy, piecemeal and fragmented process with
negative impacts on the community. Based on these impacts and the cost comparison above,
property acquisition is not a preferred measure to reduce flooding risks in the Rockcliffe area.
RATIONALE
The Rockcliffe area is located in the regulatory floodplain of Black Creek and has experienced
surface and basement flooding during severe storms due to riverine flooding and overloading of
the City's sewer systems. The reduction of riverine flooding in the regulatory floodplain is difficult
due to modifications to Black Creek and development in the flood plain in the decades preceding
floodplain regulation. The implementation of infrastructure solutions will reduce flooding risks, to
varying degrees, for many, but not all, of the properties in the Rockcliffe area.
Preferred measures from the TRCA EA to reduce riverine flooding in the Rockcliffe area include
the Jane Street Bridge Upgrade, flood protection berms, and Black Creek channel widening and
naturalization. There are challenges to implementing these projects and the recommended next
step is to undertake feasibility and conceptual design studies to confirm cost estimates,
benefitting properties, construction feasibility, and to identify design considerations and other
implementation requirements.
With respect to recommended sewer system upgrades from the City of Toronto's Basement
Flooding Area 4 EA, Toronto Water has advised that they intend to report back to City Council on
sewer system related flooding in the Rockcliffe area and the implementation of the Basement
Flooding Area 4 EA recommended measures in the first quarter of 2018.
The Rockcliffe area has been identified by TRCA as one of the highest priority flood vulnerable
areas and the reduction of flooding risks in this area is a long-term endeavor. TRCA is committed
to continuing to work together with the City of Toronto to reduce flooding in this area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The estimated cost to complete the proposed feasibility and conceptual design studies is
$500,000. This type of study is eligible for funding under the National Disaster Mitigation Program.
Funding for 50 percent of this project ($250,000) will be pursued through the National Disaster
Mitigation Program. For the remaining 50 percent, TRCA will make a special funding request to
the City of Toronto for 2019.
Report prepared by: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220
Emails: rralabali(�Mrca.on.ca
For Information contact: Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350
Emails: sdhallaCcDtrca.on.ca
Date: December 19, 2017
Attachments: 1
• •
1t,
Attachment 1
�a•
P LEGEND:
€
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
e
WATERCOURSE
FLOOD PROTECTION BERM
VALLEY WALL RESHAPING
JANE STREET BRIDGE
0
NATURALIZED / WIDEN
=
CHANNEL
t•—
—
nde
WES RD
0
/I
,mom
RES.#A19/18 - BOLTON SPECIAL POLICY AREA
Comprehensive Policy and Boundary Update, Town of Caledon.
Endorsement of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment that will implement the updated Special Policy Area policies
and boundary of the Bolton Special Policy Area based upon a
comprehensive flood risk management and planning analysis in
accordance with provincial guidelines.
Moved by: Jennifer Drake
Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie
WHEREAS the Town of Caledon, in collaboration with Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA), has undertaken a comprehensive review to update the policies of the
Bolton Special Policy Area (SPA) in accordance with provincial guidelines for amending
the policies and boundaries of existing SPAS;
AND WHEREAS the Town of Caledon has proposed amendments to the policies and
mapping in their Official Plan and Zoning By-law associated with the Bolton SPA, based
upon this comprehensive review;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff have reviewed the proposed amendments and support the
updates as proposed;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the request of the Town of Caledon to update
the policies and boundary of the Bolton Special Policy Area through the approval of an
Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be endorsed;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Caledon, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry be so advised by the CEO's Office.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A "Special Policy Area" designation is a planning mechanism provided by the Province of Ontario
to recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that existed within flood vulnerable
areas prior to the implementation of a provincial flood hazard planning policy and where it has
been demonstrated that the application of other provincial flood hazard planning management
approaches (One Zone or Two Zone) would not allow for the continued social and economic
viability and revitalization of these areas. New SPAS and any amendments to the policies, land
use designations or boundaries of existing SPAS must be approved by both the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry because they allow for
reductions to provincially prescribed floodproofing standards within these areas, where this is
deemed appropriate. As stated in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), SPAs are not intended
to allow for new or intensified development, if a community has feasible opportunities for
development outside the flood plain.
101
The proposal for a new SPA or modifications to the boundaries or policies of an existing
provincially approved SPA may only be initiated by lower -tier or single -tier municipalities as the
proponent. Such proposals must be undertaken in accordance with the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry Technical Guide, Appendix 5 — River and Stream Systems: Flooding
Hazard Limit, "Procedures for Approval of New Special Policy Areas (SPAs) and Modifications to
Existing SPAs Under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005), Policy 3.1.3 — Natural
Hazards — Special Policy Areas, dated January 2009". The policies and boundaries of an SPA
are determined through a consultative process between the municipality, TRCA, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs (MMA) and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and
implemented through policies and mapping in a municipality's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
These site specific SPA policies are used by TRCA staff to inform the standards applied within
these areas through TRCA's regulatory permitting responsibilities under Section 28(1) of the
Conservation Authorities Act.
The historic village core of Bolton, (intersection of King Street and Queen Street), in the Town of
Caledon is located within the valley corridor and flood plain of the Humber River. In 1986, the
Province of Ontario approved Official Plan Amendment (OPA) No. 57, which established the
policies and boundary of an SPA for the downtown area of Bolton (Attachment 1).
In 2012, Town of Caledon Council authorized staff, in partnership with TRCA, to undertake a
comprehensive review of the Bolton SPA in order to update the existing policies and mapping to
be consistent with the current PPS and reflect current flood plain information. The Town retained
the consulting services of WSP (formerly MMM Group) to conduct the update to the Bolton SPA.
The recommendations of this report are based on the outcome of the comprehensive SPA policy
and boundary review process that has now been completed.
RATIONALE
The proposed policy and boundary modifications to the Bolton SPA reflect a collaborative and
consultative effort between staff from the Town of Caledon and WSP, TRCA (policy, planning and
engineering staff), MMA and MNRF. This process was undertaken to ensure consistency with
the PPS, 2014 and informed by updated flood plain mapping for the area. The provincial approval
procedures require an endorsement of the proposed updated SPA policies and boundary by
Town Council as part of the Town's final submission package to the Province of Ontario. A
similar endorsement from the Authority is also required. On December 12, 2017, Town Council
supported the Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning By-law Amendment as detailed in
the Staff Report 2017-134 to the Committee of the Whole held on November 28, 2017.
Flood Risk within the Bolton SPA
A fundamental element of the comprehensive SPA review was to update the boundary of the SPA
based upon current flood plain mapping. Flood plain mapping for the Humber River was updated
in 2014 in accordance with the methodology and specifications for regulatory mapping prescribed
by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Technical Guide -River and Stream Systems:
Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002).
102
TRCA prepared a series of maps to illustrate the current technical flood plain information to inform
and assist the Town with the risk analysis, land use and emergency management components of
the SPA review. This included maps illustrating flood depths and velocities for both the
Regulatory (Regional/Hurricane Hazel) Flood event and the 1:500 year storm. Modelling shows
that flood depths during a Regulatory Flood will range from 0 to 3 metres, with the majority of the
SPA experiencing 1 to 2 metres depth of flooding. Under the 1:500 year storm (more frequent),
flood depths are for the most part within the 0 to 1 metre range, with depths up to 2 metres in the
eastern portion of the SPA.
In addition, TRCA generated a Regional Risk analysis map (Attachment 2) in accordance with
criteria set by MNRF to identify areas within the SPA where flood depths and velocities would be
considered low risk (safe for vehicular and pedestrian access/egress); medium risk (safe for
pedestrian access/egress only); and high risk (potentially unsafe for both). The risk assessment
determined that the majority of the SPA is within the high risk area.
Existing Flood Remedial Works
In the early 1980's, flood control remedial works were designed and constructed to alleviate flood
risk from the Humber River within the area of the Bolton SPA up to the 500 year flood event. The
flood control remedial works included:
• a diversion channel, parallel to King Street through the Humber Lea Road to convey
higher flows;
• a box culvert installed at the upstream end of the oxbow to restrict and maintain low flow
to the oxbow and a weir constructed at the upstream end of the diversion channel to allow
higher flows through the diversion channel;
• the Humber Lea Road bridge was constructed over the diversion channel and the
existing bridge by Old King Road was replaced; both bridges were designed to convey
the 500 year flow;
• a concrete crib wall installed upstream of King Street into the oxbow on the east bank;
and
• earth berms constructed along the south side of the Humber River from the bridge by Old
King Road to Queen Street.
Through the recent flood plain mapping update and comprehensive SPA review process, TRCA
identified the need to revisit and evaluate the performance of the existing flood remedial works.
TRCA has since initiated a Level of Service and Restoration Study, to assess the current risk
associated with existing remedial works and to determine potential recommendations for
improvements, if necessary. TRCA staff will be arranging a meeting this spring with staff from the
Town and Region of Peel to discuss the initial results of this study.
Emergency Management
Emergency management and planning plays an important role in minimizing the risk to public
health, safety and property damage within the Bolton SPA. The Town of Caledon and TRCA
work closely together to ensure that the most current flood risk information is shared to facilitate
the coordination of flood forecasting and emergency planning. TRCA operates a Flood
Forecasting and Warning System that monitors watershed and weather conditions daily in order
to issue timely warning of anticipated or actual flood conditions. Conditions during a flood event
are closely monitored by TRCA and communicated to the municipality. As with all emergencies,
municipalities have the primary responsibility for the welfare of residents and incorporate flood
emergency response into municipal emergency planning.
103
In addressing the provincial SPA guidelines, the Town's emergency management policies and
procedures, as outlined in Town of Caledon's Community Emergency Response Plan, were
reviewed. The Town's Fire Department has a Flood Contingency Plan prepared that guides and
operational izes an emergency response to a flood event in Bolton. Furthermore, some individual
buildings in Bolton, such as River's Edge at 60 Ann Street, have a site specific Flood Plain
Evacuation Plan. These individual plans are included in the Town's Flood Contingency Plan.
Special Policy Area Planning Justification
A comprehensive policy and land use planning analysis was undertaken in accordance with the
requirements of the provincial SPA guidelines. The findings of the technical analysis (flood plain
characterization, analysis of risk, flood plain remediation assessment and assessment of
emergency management) and the land use planning analysis (policy context, assessment of
existing conditions and land use vision established by the Official Plan) established the basis for
the recommended boundary revisions and policy modifications for the SPA.
Reconciling the new flood plain and risk mapping with the existing property fabric and existing
land use considerations resulted in a revised SPA boundary as illustrated in Attachment 1.
Overall, the revised SPA boundary results in a net decrease by approximately 5.9 ha. Lands
removed from the existing SPA included: the removal/or reduction in the flood plain area based on
the updated mapping; lands designated environmental protection area; Town -owned parkland;
TRCA-owned lands; and further adjustments to reflect the parcel fabric.
The Town's Intensification Study identified that suitable opportunities for intensification within the
Town exist outside the Bolton core and therefore intensification within the SPA has not been
contemplated. The existing Official Plan and Zoning By-law development permissions with
respect to extent and intensity of permissible development are to remain. However in
accordance with the PPS 2014, existing entitlements for non -permitted uses in the SPA (e.g.
institutional uses, emergency services, hazardous uses) will no longer be permitted through the
Town's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
All proposed development within the Bolton SPA will continue to be subject to the review and
approval by TRCA through the existing permitting process. The minimum 1:500 year
floodproofing standard remains to be the minimum acceptable level of flood protection where
flood proofing to the Regional flood level is not feasible. This existing standard has not proven to
place any undue hardships on lands within the Bolton SPA. Through the permitting process, all
efforts are made to achieve the highest level of flood protection.
The Town has prepared a draft Official Plan Amendment and draft Zoning By-law Amendment
(ZBA) to be consistent with current provincial legislation and implement the outcome of the
comprehensive SPA review. The following is a summary of changes:
• the Special Policy Area (Section 5.10.4.5.13.1) policies in the Official Plan have been
modified to reflect the policy language and requirements of the PPS, 2014;
• clarification that modifications to SPA boundaries, land use designations and/or policies
require the approval of the Ministers of MMA and MNRF;
• the Town will monitor growth within the SPA in relation to existing development
permissions and will not support OPAs that propose an increase in development beyond
that currently permitted in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
• clarification on the range of permitted and prohibited uses, technical/floodproofing
standards and safe access/egress requirements;
• new lot creation for development is prohibited;
104
• creation of a new secondary suite/apartment-in-house is prohibited;
• the Town is to maintain a Community Flood Contingency Plan;
• requiring the preparation of a Flood Contingency Plan for new multi -unit developments;
• amending the Zoning By-law with a new Section: 4.6 — Bolton SPA Floodplain Regulations
"SPA" suffix will be applied to all zones within the SPA to implement updated regulatory
standards associated with the SPA; and
• remove uses from existing zone categories that are not permitted within the SPA (e.g.
private home day care, day nursery, emergency service facility, etc.)
The comprehensive SPA review was subject to a public/landowner consultation process as per
the requirements of the provincial SPA guidelines and as prescribed under the Planning Act.
TRCA staff is satisfied that the Draft OPA and ZBA capture TRCA's planning and regulatory
interests, roles and responsibilities for development within the SPA. Staff recommends that the
draft amendments be supported.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The following is a summary of the concluding steps in the process to update the Bolton SPA
boundary and policies, in accordance with the provincial guidelines:
• Town Council resolution of support of the Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning
By-law Amendment (December 12, 2017);
• TRCA resolution of endorsement of the Draft OPA and ZBA;
• Council and TRCA resolutions forwarded to MMA and MNRF;
• Submission of final/formal documentation to the Province for approval;
• Ministers of MMA and MNRF issue a decision;
• Town Council adopts the OPA and enacts ZBA
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the flood plain modelling and mapping was provided by the Region of Peel under
account 129-19. Funding to support policy and planning input and GIS services for mapping
products was provided by the Region of Peel under accounts 120-12 and 120-19.
CONCLUSION
The Town of Caledon, in collaboration with TRCA, has undertaken a comprehensive review of the
Bolton Special Policy Area in accordance with provincial guidelines for amending the policies and
boundaries of existing SPAS. The SPA Planning Justification is based upon a flood risk
assessment using the most current flood plain management information for the Humber River to
inform land use and emergency planning. The development of the Town's submission, including
the SPA Justification Report, Draft OPA and ZBA, has been subject to extensive discussions with
MMA and MNRF staff to ensure that their comments have been addressed. On this basis, TRCA
staff recommends that the Authority support the proposed updates to the Bolton SPA boundary
and policies as outlined in this report in order to advance to the next steps of the provincial
approval process.
Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281
Emai Is: InelsonCd)trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281;
Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324
Emails: InelsonCratrca.on.ca, ohanchardAtrca.on.ca
Date: February 23, 2018
Attachments: 2
105
r T
Vi AI A," ♦ ^ �•� �� High Product of Depth and Velocity > 0.37 m sq/s or Depth > 0.8m or Velocity > 1.7 m/s
y
Moderate Depth and Velocity Pedestrian Access/Egress ress ONLY Available (Product DeP Y <0.37 m sc
k i .\ • • ; GL :�`" y9 k Depth < 0.8m and Velocity < 1.7 m/s
Low Vehicular and Pedestrian Access/Egress is Available (depth <0.3m)
r y o0o RD
P On
. ♦ mN r
r - r•.
O N
•••••.•�TERNE'ST
S m
M
�•a♦ Y
1
4
s�-y
•rr•
A ♦ 2 •♦�
D to - n •"�
pALTON sT mis Mimi&
••.♦ - Es i a v
_.. •�
♦ •••• $T • f\
kkk�"""" T W r\•♦ ' n 04
KIND S ♦..�...: a<x �s ` ♦ O
."b -ERT sT F� O
_ ,_ Z • 3 .. ALB
••, A m y •♦..• • • C
f .1..� O IO
O D NA m LOUIS�+••..• •. �y 7:'
W
, 2 Z G
4
ZL
Z _ 2 2.. V✓ -4 a M
m r
N
! 4� li . OSTN ••.• .•♦ • ••
Ir g E VICTORIA ST
92 Ir A
Z A m \ZP r u•... RRY LAN
.. \ • � -.. fir,. • ♦ • v
;..FF
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Legend:
}'Conservation
/br The Lida QU Special Policy Area •• •• Regional Flood Line (2014)
-BOLTON- HEC-Geol ASMalysis (GIS Modelling)
Regional Flood Plain - High, Moderate and Low Risk Conditions
November 2014 Metros
0 50 100 200 300 -JU
107
♦♦
,� ♦meq r•_•A•♦
�
f•
I` Y A
� N� F
-
•
� HICKMAN,ST.•
r
�Z
r'
•'• \
IF
<
♦44�'
1"p.
a
�•••.
♦. s�
•.\♦`C7..
r - r•.
O N
•••••.•�TERNE'ST
S m
M
�•a♦ Y
1
4
s�-y
•rr•
A ♦ 2 •♦�
D to - n •"�
pALTON sT mis Mimi&
••.♦ - Es i a v
_.. •�
♦ •••• $T • f\
kkk�"""" T W r\•♦ ' n 04
KIND S ♦..�...: a<x �s ` ♦ O
."b -ERT sT F� O
_ ,_ Z • 3 .. ALB
••, A m y •♦..• • • C
f .1..� O IO
O D NA m LOUIS�+••..• •. �y 7:'
W
, 2 Z G
4
ZL
Z _ 2 2.. V✓ -4 a M
m r
N
! 4� li . OSTN ••.• .•♦ • ••
Ir g E VICTORIA ST
92 Ir A
Z A m \ZP r u•... RRY LAN
.. \ • � -.. fir,. • ♦ • v
;..FF
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Legend:
}'Conservation
/br The Lida QU Special Policy Area •• •• Regional Flood Line (2014)
-BOLTON- HEC-Geol ASMalysis (GIS Modelling)
Regional Flood Plain - High, Moderate and Low Risk Conditions
November 2014 Metros
0 50 100 200 300 -JU
107
RESMA20/18 - WATERSHED PLANNING IN ONTARIO: GUIDANCE FOR
LAND USE PLANNING
TRCA Response to Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Registry Posting. Draft TRCA comments on the Ministry of
the Environment and Climate Change's draft Watershed Planning
Guidance document for Authority endorsement.
Moved by: Jennifer Drake
Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has a long history of
collaborating with municipal partners in the preparation of watershed plans to manage
human activities while protecting, restoring and enhancing watershed health;
AND WHEREAS recent changes to provincial policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe now require municipalities to complete watershed and subwatershed
planning to inform land use planning decisions, such as those related to settlement area
expansions, major developments and planning for municipal infrastructure;
AND WHEREAS in support of these policy changes, the Province of Ontario has released
Watershed Planning in Ontario: Guidance for Land -use Planning Authorities, to provide
detailed direction on how municipalities are to undertake watershed and subwatershed
planning to satisfy the policy requirements, for public review on the Environmental
Registry;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has been developing a "next generation" TRCA watershed
planning framework to adapt to changing science, policy and implementation contexts,
and has reviewed and commented on the Guidance document with the benefit of this
perspective;
AND WHEREAS staff has compiled comments on the Guidance and has outlined in this
report a summary of major comments and recommendations;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the proposed major comments be endorsed,
and that TRCA staff be directed to finalize a letter submission to the Environmental
Registry based on these comments with additional details, as needed;
THAT a copy of this report be circulated to appropriate provincial ministries, TRCA
partner municipalities and the Regional Watershed Alliance;
AND FURTHER THAT Authority Members be requested to submit comments on behalf of
their respective affiliations, particularly with regard to the role of conservation
authorities in watershed planning.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the Province began the Coordinated Land Use Planning Review, and established a
process for reviewing four provincial land use plans that work together to manage growth, build
complete communities, curb sprawl and protect the natural environment in the Greater Golden
Horseshoe. These plans included: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the
Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
Following this review, in May 2017, the Province released amended plans, which included
updated policies that considered the input of Ontario residents through an extensive
consultation process.
ME;
While there were many important policy amendments that resulted from this process, one of the
most notable areas of amendment requires municipalities to complete watershed and
subwatershed planning before decisions like planning for settlement area expansions,
infrastructure, or major developments that could affect those watersheds are made. This
change emphasized the importance of watershed and subwatershed planning in informing
municipal land use decisions, and provided a rationale for TRCA to review its watershed
planning program to better suit the emerging needs of its municipal partners.
In anticipation of these policy changes, TRCA staff has worked on a "next generation"
watershed planning framework. This framework examines how TRCA could evolve its
watershed planning program to adapt to changes to the science, policy and implementation
context since the last generation of TRCA watershed plans (circa 2007-2010). Staff has been
piloting some of this "next generation" approach in the development of a watershed plan for
Carruthers Creek in partnership with Durham Region. Updates to natural heritage system
planning to better consider climate vulnerabilities and ecological connectivity, and green
infrastructure planning for improved community resilience are a few examples of newer
concepts being considered.
Watershed Planning Guidance for Land Use Planning Authorities
On February 6, 2018, the Province released a watershed planning guidance document for a
60 -day review period on the Environmental Registry. Watershed Planning in Ontario:
Guidance for Land Use Planning Authorities (herein referred to as "the Guidance") is intended to
provide more detailed direction to municipalities and other land use planning authorities on how
watershed and subwatershed planning should be undertaken to satisfy the provincial policy
amendments.
To provide input to the development of the draft Guidance, the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC), in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
(MNRF) established a Watershed Engagement Group (WEG). WEG members consisted of
select municipal, non-government organization, and conservation authority representatives,
including TRCA staff. The WEG provided input on recommended updates, best practices, and
gaps in existing watershed planning guidance to the Province's consultants (Skelton Brumwell
and Greenland Consulting) through surveys and interviews. WEG members were also invited
to attend a workshop held by the Province and their consultants in September 2017 to provide
feedback on the draft Table of Contents for the Guidance. A draft version of the Guidance was
published to the Ontario Environmental Registry on February 6, 2018.
RATIONALE
TRCA applauds the Province for their recent updating of provincial plans to require watershed
planning as a precursor to creating healthy, sustainable, complete communities. Watershed
planning will bring a solid foundation of science to the management of water resources in the
context of development and infrastructure planning. TRCA is also very fortunate to have
supportive municipal partners who recognize the value of watershed planning in informing key
community planning issues. For example, watershed planning assists municipalities, their
partners and stakeholders to: identify and enhance natural heritage systems; provide guidance
to manage stormwater using green infrastructure and low impact development techniques; and,
manage the risk to property and infrastructure from natural hazards; and assess the impact of
potential future climate change; among others.
109
Staff has had the opportunity to review the draft Guidance and has a number of comments and
recommendations for improvements to its content and structure. TRCA provides these
comments from the position of a large conservation authority, managing watersheds
experiencing some of the greatest urban growth pressures in North America. However, TRCA
recognizes that not all areas of the Province are experiencing the same growth pressures; nor
do all municipalities and conservation authorities have the same relationships, resources and
capacity as those in the Greater Toronto Area. The proposed TRCA comments on the draft
Guidance reflect these realities accordingly.
TRCA's major comments are provided below for the information of the Authority. Subject to
Authority endorsement, these major comments will be augmented by staff with more specific
technical details and suggestions in TRCA's final submission to the Environmental Registry, due
by April 7, 2018. TRCA's major comments relate to the following issues:
1. Role of conservation authorities in watershed planning and partnership building;
2. Clarify the expected content and outputs of watershed and subwatershed planning;
3. Guidance for municipalities to achieving compliance through Municipal
Comprehensive Reviews and Official Plan updates currently underway;
4. Improving the level of technical guidance provided;
5. Importance of community engagement and governance in watershed planning;
6. Overall flow and structure of the Guidance.
An articulation of the issues relating to each of these areas is provided below.
1. Role of conservation authorities in watershed plannina and partnership buildina
The updated policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe state that
municipalities, who are required to undertake watershed planning to inform land use decisions,
should do so by "partnering with conservation authorities as appropriate". However, the
"Roles and Coordination" section of the Guidance does not refer to a role for Conservation
Authorities (CAs), although it contains sub -sections that describe both municipal and provincial
roles. Under the municipal role, the Guidance notes that CAs may be useful resources for
municipalities but there are no specific recommendations for how or when they should be
engaged. In the remainder of the document, CAs are omitted from the discussion or only
minimally mentioned, even in the discussion of watershed planning tasks that have traditionally
been the responsibility of CAs, such as floodplain mapping.
CAs have a long-established role in managing watersheds, and many CAs have local expertise
that they have acquired through on -the -ground work and/or extensive monitoring, data
collection, desktop analysis, and mapping of their watersheds. In addition to the historic role of
many CAs in leading the development of watershed plans, Conservation Authorities have roles
and responsibilities that would inform watershed planning led by municipalities and support
implementation. These include administration of Section 28 permitting authority under the
Conservation Authorities Act, provincially delegated responsibilities to represent provincial
interests regarding natural hazards under the Provincial Policy Statement (S3.1), and as a
public commenting body in accordance with the Planning Act. As well, conservation authorities
have the powers and duties of a Source Protection Authority for a source protection area
established under regulation of the Clean Water Act. The inclusion of Conservation
Authorities in the development of watershed plans will ensure that the findings and
recommendations of watershed planning anticipate and are consistent with how CAs will
execute the above roles and responsibilities. This will avoid surprise or unnecessary delay when
CAs are involved in later stages of planning and in development applications. It will also be
110
consistent with the expectations of the "Policies and Procedures for CA Plan Review and
Permitting Activities" (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2010), which seeks
to minimize delay and duplication.
Recommendations:
The Guidance should be amended to:
Add a new sub -section to the "Roles and Coordination" section of the document
outlining the roles and responsibilities of Conservation Authorities.
Strengthen wording in the Guidance to be consistent with the wording of the Growth Plan
policies that requires municipalities to undertake watershed and subwatershed planning,
"partnering with conservation authorities as appropriate". It should also be indicated
that an 'appropriate' way for municipalities to partner with CAs in the development of
watershed plans is to collaborate, or at minimum, consult with CAs, wherever they exist.
2. Clarify the expected content and outputs of watershed and subwatershed
planning
The Guidance could better assist municipalities and CAs by providing additional clarity on the
relationships between watershed and subwatershed planning and the content and level of detail
of the outputs that are needed to inform municipal land use planning decisions. At present, the
Guidance provides very general direction on the watershed planning process, without explicitly
describing how intended outputs of watershed planning are intended to be used as inputs to
specific planning decisions. It is also not clear which types of watershed and subwatershed
systems should be assessed. Further, some systems that have traditionally been included in
watershed and subwatershed planning, including the natural heritage system, fisheries, and
aquatic ecosystems have not been discussed in the Guidance as clear elements of scope. In
addition, the degree of expected watershed or subwatershed protection that should be reflected
in the goals of individual watershed and subwatershed planning exercises has not been
discussed, even though there are many existing provincial policies, regulations and guidelines,
such as the Provincial Policy Statement and Ontario Water Resources Act that would inform
these goals. Further, there is no discussion in the document of whether and how municipalities
can contact the appropriate provincial ministries for advice to ensure that the scope and
products of their watershed and subwatershed planning efforts are adequate. Additional clarity
in this regard would assist municipalities and their partner CAs in ensuring that watershed and
subwatershed planning produces the outputs that are necessary for municipalities to move
forward with the next stages of planning.
Recommendations:
The Guidance should be amended to:
• Indicate how appropriate provincial ministries can be engaged by municipalities and
their conservation authority partners during watershed and subwatershed planning to
ensure outputs can be used to inform planning and infrastructure decisions in order to
avoid potential later conflicts and delays.
• Include clear and comprehensive direction on the types of watershed systems and
components that should be assessed through watershed and subwatershed planning to
inform municipal decisions for which the watershed planning exercise was triggered.
• Provide clear direction on how the goals of watershed and subwatershed planning
should relate to existing provincial or other legislation, policies and guidelines for
watershed and environmental protection.
111
3. Guidance for municipalities to achieving compliance through Municipal
Comprehensive Reviews and Official Plan updates currently underway
The amended provincial land use planning policies for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH)
indicate that major municipal land use planning decisions, such as urban boundary expansions,
must be informed by watershed planning. However, at many municipalities the Municipal
Comprehensive Review and Official Plan update processes that would include such decisions
were already underway when the new policies came into effect, making it difficult or impossible
for municipalities and their CA partners to develop comprehensive and up-to-date watershed
plans in time to inform these processes. TRCA and other CAs and municipalities had
previously communicated this challenge to the MOECC staff responsible for the guidance, and
strongly recommended that the Guidance provide direction for municipalities on how to use
existing watershed information and studies to inform these planning processes that are already
in progress. In many cases, it will not be possible to develop complete, updated watershed
planning in time to avoid delays during this transition period. However, the current draft
Guidance does not provide clear direction in this regard, and additional clarity regarding how
municipalities and their CA partners should evaluate whether existing watershed information
and older watershed plans can be used to inform municipal planning during this transition
period.
Recommendations:
The Guidance should be amended to:
Clarify how municipalities and their CA partners can use existing watershed plans or
other studies and information to achieve conformity during the transition period as
municipalities undertake municipal comprehensive reviews and Official Plan
updates.
Provide specific guidance for applications beyond the initial transition period, on how
municipalities and their CA partners can evaluate whether existing watershed and
subwatershed plans are sufficiently current and complete to satisfy the amended
provincial policies.
4. Technical auidance for develooina watershed and subwatershed plans
While the Guidance contains general discussion of some of the types of studies and analyses
that should be undertaken in watershed and subwatershed planning, there is little technical
guidance on the data, methodologies, tools and protocols that should be applied. In many
cases this guidance is altogether absent, while in others the approaches suggested are
inadequate, outdated or impractical to implement. In addition, other provincially -led processes
and programs for which some types of technical watershed studies and analyses have already
been completed, such as source protection planning, have not been adequately acknowledged.
If these are not considered and included in watershed and subwatershed planning there is a
significant potential for duplication and conflict with these other processes, which in addition to
being inefficient could also have implications for regulatory compliance. Lastly, while the
Guidance acknowledges that watershed and subwatershed planning should incorporate an
adaptive management framework, it lacks guidance on how municipalities and their CA partners
should design the processes and governance structures to support the implementation,
monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and updating that is integral to adaptive management
planning.
112
Recommendations:
The Guidance should be amended to:
Provide additional guidance on how municipalities and their CA partners should
determine the methodologies and tools (including financial tools) that should be used to
conduct studies and analysis in support of watershed and subwatershed planning. This
could include establishing a community of watershed and subwatershed planning
practitioners that could share information on best practices and implementation
strategies.
Clearly and more strongly reference existing sources of watershed information and
analysis derived from provincial or other programs.
Outline how watershed and subwatershed planning should include adaptive
management processes to implement, monitor, evaluate, report on and update
watershed plans overtime.
5. Importance of community enaaaement and aovernance in watershed plannina
Watershed planning as practiced in Ontario and elsewhere is a multi -stage, iterative exercise
where watershed partners and stakeholders collaborate to develop and implement a plan that is
based on a shared vision for the watershed. While the Guidance includes a section on
Engagement & Indigenous Perspectives that outlines some of these principles, it does not
reflect the complexity and importance of meaningful, well-designed community engagement in
ensuring that communities feel empowered and heard in watershed and land use planning
processes that affect their and wellbeing. Experience indicates that watershed planning that
does not engage and empower communities is much less likely to be successful, which can lead
to future conflict.
Recommendation:
The Guidance should be amended to:
• Strengthen the section on Engagement & Indigenous Perspectives to better reflect
a philosophy of community empowerment, and to provide additional guidance on
engaging communities in setting watershed planning vision and goals, and in
participating in implementation and evaluation.
6. Overall flow and structure of the Guidance
The flow and structure of the guidance is sometimes cumbersome and difficult to follow.
TRCA comments offer some suggestions for improving clarity and readability of the document.
Recommendations:
The Guidance should be amended to:
• Re -organize the document with general guidance, with a consistent level of detail
between sections, in the main body of the document, and more detailed technical
guidance provided in a series of appendices for each technical component.
• Review the overall content to ensure that clarity on terminology is provided, and that
content is relevant to guiding watershed or subwatershed planning.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Staff to submit final comments to the Environmental Registry posting prior to the
deadline of April 7, 2018;
113
• A copy of this report to be circulated to provincial ministries and other relevant
stakeholders as indicated in the report;
• Staff to continue to advocate for major changes to the Guidance through ongoing
consultations with the Province;
• Staff to continue to advocate on behalf of CAs in having a more substantial role in
watershed planning identified in the Guidance.
Report prepared by: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334
Emails: Idelaiudicea()trca.on.ca; rnessnatrca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334, Ryan Ness, extension 5615
Emails: IdelaiudiceCa)trca.on.ca; rnessCatrca.on.ca
Date: February 25, 2018
114
RES.#A21/18 - CONSERVATION ONTARIO WATERSHED REPORT CARDS
Launch of TRCA's 2018 Report Cards. Conservation Authorities are
launching watershed report cards to provide a check-up on watershed
conditions on World Water Day (March 22).
Moved by: Ronald Chopowick
Seconded by: Jennifer Innis
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) version of the Conservation
Ontario Watershed Report Cards for nine TRCA watersheds and waterfront be distributed
to TRCA partner municipalities, schools, libraries and partners as well to the broader
community through electronic media;
THAT a copy of this report be circulated to Regional Watershed Alliance members in
advance of their next meeting;
AND FURTHER THAT members of the Authority and Regional Watershed Alliance help
promote and distribute the report cards through their networks.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2013, Conservation Ontario worked with conservation authorities to launch a series of
standardized watershed report cards to promote consistency amongst and between watershed
report cards produced by conservation authorities. Intended to be released every five years,
these watershed report cards report on the health of natural resources in watersheds to provide a
better understanding of local environmental issues, focus actions where they are needed the
most, and track progress over time.
This year, 2018, marks the first five year follow up reporting cycle. In cooperation with
Conservation Ontario and other con servationaAuthorities throughout the Province of Ontario,
TRCA has produced nine new watershed report cards, along with one overall report card for the
TRCA jurisdiction, and one for the TRCA waterfront. The two main purposes of the Conservation
Ontario Watershed Report Cards are:
• To report on watershed health through the use of standardized environmental indicators,
and;
• To allow conservation authorities and other partners to better target programs and
measure environmental change.
Watershed report cards have proven to be a successful means of simplifying technical
information to communicate key watershed condition findings to watershed residents,
municipalities, and agencies.
Resolution #A127/17 approved at Authority Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, as follows, has
relevance to this report:
THAT a report on the state of each one of the nine watersheds and the waterfront in the
TRCA jurisdiction be presented by staff on a regular basis;
AND FURTHER THAT the scope, content and communication format of these reports, as
well as potential alignment with the mandate of the proposed Regional Watershed
Alliance, be developed by staff in consultation with a select group of Authority members
interested in this initiative.
115
A board report addressing the above -noted resolution, moved by board member Ron Chopowick,
will be submitted in the future. The Province has recently released a Watershed Planning
Guidance document that is intended to support municipalities in undertaking watershed planning,
that is now required by amended provincial policies, to inform municipal land use decisions. It is
anticipated that this guidance document may provide direction that could inform future watershed
reporting functions at TRCA as watershed reporting is part of the watershed planning process.
Once the specific provincial reporting requirements are known, then a framework for TRCA's
watershed reporting mechanisms, including how TRCA will report on watershed conditions to its
board will be developed for approval.
RATIONALE
For consistency across Ontario, the indicators chosen for the report cards were influenced by the
data available to the majority of conservation authorities, rather than the issues specific to each
watershed. These include groundwater quality, surface water quality, and forest conditions. There
is also an option for adding a fourth category, at the discretion of the conservation authority. For
this purpose, TRCA has used Land Cover as the fourth indicator.
Conservation Ontario has also established a standardized methodology and grading system
(based on overall all watershed conditions in Ontario). Letter grades (A, B, C, etc.), similar to
those used at schools, are used to score the watersheds based on a set of standard measures.
The overall score for the jurisdiction is a 'D' grade, which did not change since the last report card.
However, there were improvements in a few watersheds as shown with an upward arrow in Table
1 below. The Table also provides a comparison between surface water quality and forest
condition ratings for the 2013 and 2018 watershed report card grades.
Table 1. Watershed score comparisons (2013 vs. 2018) for surface water quality and forest
conditions indicators
Watershed
Surface Water Quality
Watershed Grade
2013 2018 Chane
Forest Conditions
Watershed Grade
2013 2018 Change
Etobicoke Creek
D
D
-
F
D
r
Mimico Creek
F
D
r
F
F
H
Humber River
C
C
.-.
D
D
Don River
F
D
r
D
D>
Highland Creek
D
D
D
D
<
Rouge River
C
C
D
D
H
Petticoat Creek
C
D
C
r
Duffins Creek
C
C
C
C
Carruthers Creek
D
C
H
D
D
>
TRCA Jurisdiction
D
D
H
D
D
Notes: Insufficient surface water quality data for Petticoat Creek for 2013 watershed report card; No watershed report card was produced for
Carruthers Creek or Petticoat Creek in 2013, but grades were calculated forth e watershed, where possible. For both 2013 and 2018, the overall
grade for the TRCA region does not include the Petticoat Creek watershed.
116
Reporting Categories
1. Groundwater
Concentrations of nitrates and chloride were measured at 17 monitoring wells across the
TRCA jurisdiction. Fertilizers (nitrogen) and road salt (chloride) are common sources of
contamination in groundwater. Watershed grades for groundwater quality were not assigned
by TRCA in 2013 because groundwater flow does not follow watershed boundaries. In 2018,
the Groundwater Technical Working Group, a conservation authority -led group tasked with
directing the design of this indicator, decided that groundwater quality would be graded at
each monitoring station, rather than at a watershed scale, following the same reasoning.
The results for the 2018 report card indicated that 16 of 17 wells received an 'A' grade for
nitrate. For chloride, 10 of 17 wells received an 'A' grade. There were 3 'B' grades, 1 'C'
grade, and 3 'F' grades. The wells that received 'F' grades were near major roads and were
likely influenced by contamination from road salt.
Surface water quality
Concentrations of phosphorus and Escherichia coli (E. coli bacteria) were measured at 22
stations across the TRCA jurisdiction. Benthic invertebrates (small aquatic animals living in
the sediment) were identified at 123 stations. The type and proportion of these animals are
indicators of water quality conditions. These indicators were combined to provide a grade for
the watershed.
Grades ranged from 'C' to 'D' in 2018 and the overall average for TRCA's jurisdiction was a'D'
grade. Most surface water quality grades did not change from 2013 to 2018. The surface
water quality grades for two watersheds, Mimico Creek and Don River, improved from an 'F' to
a 'D' from 2013 to 2018. Although this is a sign of improvement, the 2013 grades were close
to the threshold between a 'F' and 'D' grade (i.e. F'), so a relatively minor change in score
caused the grade to change.
Forest conditions
Forests help to clean our air and water, provide habitat and shade, improve water infiltration,
and help to reduce both erosion and flooding. The percentages of forest cover, forest interior,
and streamside cover were measured with Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Grades
ranged from 'C' to 'F' in 2018, with 'D' being the average grade for jurisdiction. Similar to the
surface water quality grades, the majority of grades did not change from 2013 to 2018. The
forest condition grades for one watershed, Etobicoke Creek, improved from an 'F' to a 'D'.
Land Cover
In addition to the three mandatory reporting categories, TRCA opted to report on the
proportion of the types of land cover (urban, rural and natural cover) within its watersheds.
Land cover is one of the main drivers of watershed health in urban areas and can be used to
help explain the findings for the other reporting categories. Urbanization can affect surface
and groundwater water quality through introduction of contaminants from roads and other
urban land uses, and it can also remove forest cover though land use conversion.
117
The proportion and distribution of natural cover within the region is also a useful metric as it
relates to human health and wellbeing, and TRCA introduces an innovative metric describing
the 'proximity to natural cover' as a component of this report card. There is a growing body of
evidence that demonstrates that both proximity and access to greenspace are linked to
human health and wellbeing outcomes. Calculating access to all forms of greenspace (i.e. the
actual walking distance to physical points of entry of a park) is a relatively complex and time
consuming exercise that will be undertaken in the future. In the meantime, TRCA provides
analysis of this preliminary proximity metric describing the percentage of the population that is
within 300 m (i.e. distance 'as the crow flies') of natural cover greater than 1 hectare in size.
The distance and size components of this metric were informed by a review of relevant
scientific studies.
For the TRCA jurisdiction, only half of the population (53%) are within 300 m of natural cover
greater than 1 ha. The Don River watershed has the lowest percentage (47%), and Petticoat
Creek has the highest percentage (95%) of population within 300 m to natural cover greater
than 1 ha.
Waterfront Report Card
TRCA also created a report card for the Lake Ontario waterfront within the TRCA jurisdiction.
Conservation Ontario does not provide any guidance or recommendations for the creation of
waterfront report cards, hence an innovative reporting format was used. The report card
examined biodiversity, recreation and beach water quality. Between 2008 and 2017, TRCA
recorded over 120 species: 94 birds, 18 mammals, six turtles, four snakes, five frogs/toads and
one salamander. Of particular interest was the increase in river otter sightings across the
waterfront; there were two observations reported at Tommy Thompson Parkin 2017. Annual
fish community monitoring in 2016 identified 51 fish species along the waterfront. Six recreation
nodes can be found on the waterfront. These areas provide safe access to the lake for urban
anglers and non -motorized watercraft (canoes, kayaks). In addition, during the 2012-2016
swimming seasons, waterfront beaches were considered safe for swimming 85% of time.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
TRCA staff involvement in the development of the watershed report cards has been funded
through TRCA capital account 416-40, which is funded by the City of Toronto, Peel Region and
York Region.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Conservation Ontario launches the release of the Watershed Report Cards on Thursday, March
22, which coincides with World Water Day. To view the TRCA version of the Watershed Report
Cards, visit https://reportcard.trca.ca/trca-report-cards/. The launch will include a press release
along with social media (Twitter and Facebook). To review Watershed Report Cards for
conservation authorities across the Province, go to http://watershedcheckup.ca/.
TRCA will conduct its own communications surrounding the report cards through various social
media platforms. Printed copies of the individual report cards will be available after the launch
through TRCA Watershed Specialists and will be distributed to stakeholders. Copies of report
cards will also be made available to the public throughout the year at various events.
Report prepared by: Angela Wallace, extension 5971
Emails: awallace(cDtrca.on.ca
For Information contact: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334; Ryan Ness, extension 5615
Emails: IdeIaIudice(a)trca.on.ca; rness(aDtrca.on.ca
Date: February 24, 2018
118
RES.#A22/18 - DOUBLE -CRESTED CORMORANTS
Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT item 7.6 — Double -crested Cormorants be deferred to Authority Meeting #3/18,
scheduled to be held on April 20, 2018, and that staff make a presentation on the item at
the meeting.
CARRIED
RES.#A23/18 - ENERLIFE CONSULTING INC. AGREEMENT
Business Partnership and Program Update. Renewal of business
agreement with Enerlife Consulting Inc. for the development and delivery of
Living City Building Energy Efficiency Programs.
Moved by: Jennifer Drake
Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie
THAT the agreement for the development and delivery of Living City Building Energy
Efficiency programs with Enerlife Consulting Inc. be renewed for the period, April 1, 2018
to March 31, 2019;
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
(Enerlife) in 2002 when the company was contracted to assist in the development of the vision
and sustainability related programs for The Living City Centre at Kortright. At that time TRCA staff,
and Enerlife Consulting undertook a broad stakeholder consultation to understand how TRCA
could best influence the sustainability of the city region.
The results of that consultation indicated that helping stakeholders reduce the energy use in their
buildings offered the best opportunity to achieve a measureable impact on the sustainability of the
city region. The reason for this conclusion was based on several ideas; reducing energy use in
buildings reduces operating costs and thus puts money back in the pockets of building owners
and managers making funds available for a variety of other activities; nearly everyone lives or
works in a building thus providing the opportunity to communicate with a large segment of the
population; and finally, addressing building energy efficiency was consistent with the green
building work that TRCA pioneered through the Kortright Centre for Conservation since the
1980's and more recently, the work with the Canada Green Building Council and Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
119
Between 2002 and 2007, TRCA staff worked closely with Enerlife Consulting to develop a new
approach to achieving deep savings in the design and operation of 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 Consulting. The focus of the partnership was to develop
and deliver sector based building energy efficiency programs. Over the years' staff worked with
Enerlife to develop and test many different concepts and programs including, Sustainability
Speaker Series, Green Community Design, The Home Energy Clinic, Mayors' Megawatt
Challenge, Greening Health Care and Sustainable Schools, to name a few. The latter three
proved to be most successful in the market and have continued to grow and achieve measurable
positive impacts on the region and the province.
Programs Update
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge (MMC) currently engages with 11 municipalities from across the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA), helping then achieve deep energy savings in their facilities. These
municipalities include; City of Toronto; Regional Municipality of Peel; City of Mississauga; City of
Brampton, Town of Caledon; City of Markham; Town of Richmond Hill; Township of King Oust
joined); City of Guelph; City of Barrie; and City of Oshawa. Most recently the City of San Jose in
California has expressed interest in the program and staff is in the process of benchmarking the
energy performance of their City Hall. Staff is actively promoting membership in the program to
municipalities across the GTA but primarily within the TRCA jurisdiction.
MMC has two active projects underway: the Town Hall Challenge and the Community Centre
Challenge. The Town Hall Challenge is designed to drive deep savings and thus high
performance in the flag ship building for each municipality. To date, two municipalities in the GTA
have reached or exceeded the energy target for their town or city hall; the City of Mississauga and
the Town of Richmond. Both organizations have been recognized for their achievement with the
Living City Energy Efficiency Leadership Award. The Community Centre Challenge was launched
in 2016 and will run until 2020. It will help municipalities drive deep savings and high energy
performance in these energy intensive facilities. Similar to the Town Hall ,Challenge TRCA will
recognize municipalities that achieve or exceed their building energy targets with the Living City
Energy Efficiency Leadership Award.
The MMC model has proven to be very successful over the years. Since inception (to the end of
2017), the program has documented cumulative year over year savings of: over $9 million in
operating costs; over 480,000 GJ of energy; over 370,000 m3 of water; and over 20,000 tonnes of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. Going forward staff believe that even greater
savings are possible as the program begins to focus more on the savings potential in community
centres.
Greening Health Care
Greening Health Care (GHC) currently engages with 56 hospitals, 42 in Ontario and 14 in Alberta.
Staff is also in discussions with Kaiser Permanente from California to benchmark and enroll some
of their facilities in the program. Of the 42 Ontario hospitals in the program, 26 are directly in
TRCA's jurisdiction and another eight fall with the GTA. Nearly half of the hospitals in the program
are directly in TRCA's jurisdiction and staff is actively engaging with the remaining hospitals to
join. The cumulative year over year savings the program has documented for hospitals in TRCA's
jurisdiction has been impressive. Since inception to the end of 2017 the program has documented
savings of: over $22 million in operating costs; over 1.1 million GJ's of energy; over 1.7 million m3
of water; and over 56,000 tonnes of GHG emissions reductions.
120
Sustainable Schools
The Sustainable Schools Program focuses on benchmarking and tracking the aggregate building
energy performance of school boards. Each year the program takes the utility data for the 5,000
school buildings in Ontario, publically available through Ontario Regulation 397/11, and reports
on performance and savings potential. The report, publically available on the Sustainable Schools
website (http://sustainableschools.ca/) is provided to each school board in Ontario along with
specific information on the savings potential within each board. In addition, each board is offered
a short one-on-one webinar to review the performance of their individual schools.
The program provides a highly cost effective mechanism for identifying and tracking savings
potential and overall energy performance of school boards and their facilities. The analysis
provides a high level strategic view of where to focus in order to optimize savings and resources.
For example, although there are 5,000 school related facilities (K to 12) in Ontario, nearly 80% of
identified cost savings can be found in only 1,500 facilities. Similar analysis can be used to identify
energy savings potential and GHG emissions reduction potential. Staff envision that the
Sustainable Schools program will be very valuable to municipalities as they develop and
implement their community GHG emissions reduction plans.
Performance Based Conservation Pilot Project
In addition to these three programs, TRCA staff and Enerlife are working on a three-year project
with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to test our energy conservation
approach with the commercial and institutional sectors in the western GTA. The project includes
the IESO, both gas utilities, three electric utilities and the water utilities in the regional
municipalities of Peel and Halton. So far the program has created energy assessment reports for
over 200 buildings and is in the process of conducting workshops with the participants and utilities
to drive energy saving projects. The results of the project will be compared to the traditional
energy savings approaches and the analysis will be included in the final report. This project is
expected to be completed at the end of 2018 or spring 2019 at the latest.
RATIONALE
Each year the business relationship with Enerlife is reviewed to determine alignment with TRCA's
Strategic Plan and value to TRCA and its member municipalities.
In terms of the alignment with the Strategic Plan. The programs enable members to reduce
energy use and operating costs and to reduce GHG emissions through a combination of
benchmarking, diagnostic analysis, peer to peer learning, case studies of new sustainable
technologies and practices and recognition of high performance. The operating savings and
promotion of new technologies and practices align with the Leadership Strategy #1, Green the
Toronto Region's economy. Peer learning and sharing of best practices and case studies align
with Enabling Strategy #8, Gather and share the best urban sustainability knowledge.
Benchmarking, analysis and recognition align with Enabling Strategy # 9, Measure performance
The programs also align with Enabling Strategy # 12, Facilitate a region -wide approach to
sustainability.
In terms of value to TRCA's member municipalities, the programs are helping municipalities
generate savings in the operation of their own facilities as well as hospitals in their respective
jurisdictions. The table below identifies the savings in GHG emissions, energy, water and cost for
each program in each regional municipality.
121
Mayors'Megawatt Challenge
PEEL
TORONTO
YORK
DURHAM
TOTAL in TRCA
TOTAL for Program
Green House Gas (tonnes)
9,201
4,348
2,623
3,954
20,126
24,549
Energy (GJ)
211,655
111,988
66,638
96,222
486,503
590,550
Water(m3)
221,675
85,870
2,923
68,788
379,256
672,794
Cost ($)
$3,398,367
$2,510,498
$1,419,097
$1,851,278
$9,179,240
11,019,339
Greening Health Care
PEEL
TORONTO
YORK
DURHAM
TOTALin TRCA
TOTALfor Program
Green House Gas (tonnes)
9,776
44,155
1,744
818
56,493
90,169
Energy (GJ)
200,526
887,522
42,965
18,608
1,149,621
1,626,807
Water (m3)
210,717
1,539,896
33,733
7,9771
1,792,323
2,469,873
cost ($)
$3,457,465
$17,703,435
$925,764
$312,1311
$22,398,795
31,245,208
TOTAL
PEEL
TORONTO
YORK
DURHAM
TOTAL in TRCA
TOTALfor Program
Green House Gas (tonnes)
18,977
48,503
4,367
4,772
76,619
114,718
Energy (GJ)
412,181
999,510
109,603
114,830
1,636,124
2,217,357
Water (m3)
432,392
1,625,766
36,656
76,765
2,171,579
3,142,667
Cost ($)
$6,855,832
$20,213,933
$2,344,861
$2,163,409
$31,578,035
42,264,547
These programs also provide value to local and regional municipalities for their corporate and
community GHG emissions reductions planning, implementation, tracking and reporting. In
addition to the current three targeted sectors the performance based conservation approach can
also be applied to commercial and multi residential sectors.
Overall, these programs align with TRCA's 10 -year Strategic Plan and provide value to TRCA's
local and regional municipalities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Revenues for the program are derived from membership fees and corporate sponsorships and
municipal capital levy. 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 external
program revenues received.
A portion of the external revenue is also allocated for TRCA staff costs and the remainder of staff
costs is offset with municipal levy. At this time the programs generate approximately $3 dollars of
external revenue for every $1 of municipal levy. As the programs grow and additional external
revenues are acquired, it is expected that the programs will become self-reliant in the future.
Programs
9
Total Enerlife
Billing
Total TRCA
Cost
External
Revenue
Municipal
Levy
Net
Greening Health Care
172,278
103,199
206,734
68,743
0
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
61,372
69,359
73,650
57,081
0
Sustainable Schools
8,333
29,333
20,000
17,665
0
PBC Pilot
147,673
25,850
158,201
15,322
0
TOTAL
389,656
227,740
458,585
158,811
0
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The current agreement expires on March 31, 2018. With Authority direction, staff will renew the
agreement for an additional year.
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Emails: bmcintvreCZDtrca.on.ca
Date: March 2, 2018
122
RES.#A24/18 - SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF CLOTHING 2018 — 2020
Award of Contract #10006296. Award of Contract #10006296 for the
Supply and Delivery of Clothing for Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority staff.
Moved by: Jennifer Drake
Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie
THAT Contract #10006296 for Supply and Delivery of Clothing for Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be awarded to Dufferin Apparel at an estimated cost
for two years of $304,000, plus HST, plus 10% contingency to be expended as authorized
by TRCA staff, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications;
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
TRCA'S Clothing Guidelines and Allocations states that:
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff is required to present
themselves to the public and co-workers in a professional manner of dress at all times,
appropriate to the work conditions.
As part of the TRCA Clothing Guidelines and Allocations, staff is required to be dressed in
standard TRCA uniform items while working in the field. Embroidered or screen printed logos are
printed on most clothing items and TRCA places uniform orders on a regular basis for
approximately 800 employees. The amount expended on staff clothing in 2017 was
approximately $130,000.00.
RATIONALE
Request for Quotation (RFQ #10006296) documentation was issued by TRCA and distributed on
November 15, 2017 via the public bidding website www.biddingo.com. TRCA identified product
numbers of items currently purchased in order to ensure that like quality items were priced.
Bidders were requested to quote on these products when possible, or a substitute close in quality
and specifications. In addition, the RFQ indicated a requirement to provide: custom embroidery
and screen printing; an on-line TRCA catalogue for ease and consistency in purchasing; samples
of frequently ordered uniform items to ensure conformance to the TRCA requirements; and
information on corporate social responsibility initiatives in order to assess the company's effects
on environmental and social wellbeing.
Quotations were evaluated based on a weighted scale as follows:
Criteria
Points
Corporate and Social Responsibility
5
Quality of Samples
20
Online Catalogue Ability
30
Cost of Services
45
Total
100
123
Quotations were opened by TRCA staff (Kathy Stranks, Lisa Moore and Anita Geier) on
December 18, 2017 and evaluated by the evaluation committee (Kathy Stranks, Lisa Moore and
Anita Geier) with the following results:
Bidder Total Weighted Score Estimated Annual Cost
Plus HST
Talbot Uniforms 84% 162,204.10
Dufferin Apparel 94% 151,112.50
Estimated costs above are based on average cost per item and on average annual quantities
purchased of each item.
TRCA staff followed up with several firms that downloaded the RFQ documents but did not submit
a quotation. Reasons for no participation included: inability to provide requested products or
equivalents; guarantee quantities; competitive pricing due to lack of volume orders; and
relationships with the required suppliers.
Dufferin Apparel and Talbot Uniforms both provided the requested samples of frequently ordered
uniform items. TRCA staff evaluated Dufferin Apparel's samples for appearance, quality and
durability in accordance to TRCA specifications. Dufferin Apparel has been TRCA's clothing
supplier for the past two years and has proven to be a reliable and professional company.
Therefore, based on the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for Supply and
Delivery of Clothing for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff be awarded to Dufferin
Apparel at an estimated cost of $304,000 for two years, plus 10% contingency, plus HST, it being
the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds for clothing will be identified within the various annual divisional operating and capital
budgets.
Report prepared by: Anita Geier, extension 5668
Emails: anita.geier(atrca.on.ca
For Information contact: Anita Geier, extension 5668
Emails: anita.geier(&trca.on.ca
Date: March 1, 2018
124
RES.#A25118 - REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Appointment of Member. To fill the Authority seat left on the Regional
Watershed Alliance by the passing of Councillor Jim Tovey.
Moved by: Jennifer Drake
Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie
THAT Councillor Matt Mahoney, City of Mississauga, be appointed to represent the
Authority on the Regional Watershed Alliance for the term 2017 — 2021, or until his
successor is appointed.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/17, held on October 27, 2017, appointment of five Authority members to
the Region Watershed Alliance was approved for the term of 2017 - 2021. One of these
positions became vacant due to the passing of Councillor Jim Tovey. Asa result of this vacancy
the Regional Watershed Alliance requests that the Authority approves the appointment of
Councillor Matt Mahoney until November 30, 2021.
Due to the change in membership, approval is needed at the March 23, 2018 meeting, to be
effective until November 30, 2021. As a result, staff is requesting that Matt Mahoney be duly
appointed to sit as an Authority Member on the Regional Watershed Alliance, effective March 26,
2018.
Report prepared by: Cindy Barr, extension 5569
Emails: cindy.barr(a)trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
Emails: Chandra.sharma(cDtrca.on.ca
Date: February 27, 2018
RES.#A26118 - 2018 AND 2019 BUDGET AND UNMET NEEDS UPDATE
Update on 2018 municipal budget approval, 2019 preliminary municipal
budget submissions, and the organization's 2019 unmet needs.
(Budget/Audit Res.#C2/18)
Moved by: Jack Ballinger
Seconded by: John Sprovieri
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2019 preliminary municipal
capital budget submissions for the regions of Durham, Peel and York, and the City of
Toronto be consistent with the targets identified for TRCA in the previous budget cycle;
THAT the list of unfunded municipal projects included in TRCA's Unmet Priorities —
Projects and Programs list outlined in Attachment 3 be submitted to TRCA's member
municipalities for their consideration in 2019;
125
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit the preliminary 2019 municipal
estimates and multi-year funding requests to the City of Toronto, the regional
municipalities of Durham, Peel and York, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio and Town of
Mono in accordance with their respective submission schedules.
CARRIED
RES.#A27/18 - YORK CAPITAL FUNDING CARRYFORWARD REALLOCATION
Approval to Request Reallocation. Approval to request reallocation of York
Region capital levy carryforward, in order to fund private property erosion
projects, as the original purpose for the carryforward will not be realized.
(Budget/Audit Res. #C3118)
Moved by: Jack Ballinger
Seconded by: John Sprovieri
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to request of
York Region the reallocation of York Region capital levy carryforward funds to a Private
Property Erosion Hazard Mitigation Program.
CARRIED
RES.#A28/18 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed
Castles of Caledon Corporation, CFN 59236. Acquisition of a conservation
easement located north of Walker Road West and east of Mountainview
Road, Caledon East, in the 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.#84/18)
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jennifer Innis
THAT a conservation easement, for the protection of environmental features, containing
0.32 hectares (0.80 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Walker Road West
and east of Mountainview Road, Caledon East, said land being Part of Lot 4, Concession 6
EHS, designated as Part 2 on draft Plan of Survey, prepared by Ted Van Lankveld, Ontario
Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 12-2045-3, dated November 10, 2017, in the Town of
Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be purchased from Castles of Caledon
Corporation;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the conservation
easement free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
126
THAT the firm Gowling WLG, 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 by TRCA;
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.#A29/18 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed
Totvel Enterprise Inc., CFN 59232. Acquisition of property located east of
Highway 48 and north of Millard Street, in the Town of
Whichurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, under the
"Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020," Flood Plain and
Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed.
(Executive Res.#85/18)
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jennifer Innis
THAT 0.046 hectares (0.113 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Highway
48 and north of Millard Street, said land being Part of Lot 2, Concession 8, designated as
Part 50 on draft M -Plan, prepared by Rady-Pentek & Edward Surveying Ltd. OLS, Job No.
15-155, in the Town of Whichurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased
from Totvel Enterprise 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 Gowling WLG, 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 by TRCA;
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
127
RES.#A30118 - BOLTON CAMP PHASE 1 REDEVELOPMENT
The Regional Municipality of Peel -Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Consulting Services Agreement. Approval to enter into an agreement with
The Regional Municipality of Peel for consulting services in support of
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements at Bolton Camp, Town
of Caledon, in the Regional Municipality of Peel.
(Executive Res.#86/18)
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jennifer Innis
THAT approval be granted to enter into a Services Agreement with The Regional
Municipality of Peel (the Region) for the design and implementation of water and
wastewater infrastructure in support of the Bolton Camp Redevelopment Project;
THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials and staff be
directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of
agreements, amendments or other legal documents deemed necessary to undertake the
Project;
THAT the Region provide all procurement services with the bid evaluations to be done in
conjunction with TRCA staff to recommend a qualified low bid contractor who in turn will
enter into a contract with TRCA;
THAT the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Authority be authorized to award the
construction contract for the installation of the water and wastewater services, if staff is
unable to report to the Executive Committee or Authority as per TRCA Purchasing Policy
due to timing constraints;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the next Authority as required after award of
contracts.
CARRIED
RES.#A31/18 - PROCUREMENT SUMMARY
2017 Annual Summary. Receipt of the 2017 summary of procurements
approved by the Chief Executive Officer or designate, Executive
Committee or the Authority.
(Executive Res.#87/18)
Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti
Seconded by: Jennifer Innis
THAT the summary of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) procurements
approved in excess of $10K in 2017 be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Procurement Summary report continue to be provided to the
Executive Committee, with a link to the full list of procurements available on the TRCA
website.
CARRIED
128
Section II — Items for Authority Information
RES.#A32/18 - SECTION II — ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Colleen Jordan
THAT Section II Items 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/18,
held on March 2, 2018, be received.
CARRIED
Section II — Items 9.1.1 — 9.1.2
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
(Executive Res.#B8/18)
GREY ABBEY RAVINE EMERGENCY MUNICIPAL STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
REPAIR AND SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT
(Executive Res.#B9/18)
129
Section III — Items for the Information of the Board
RES.#A33/18 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Summary of 2017 Requests. Provides a summary of requests under the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Michael Ford
THAT the report dated February 20, 2018, on 2017 freedom of information (FOI) requests,
be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is subject to the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). TRCA is also subject to the provisions of
the federal Personal information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
Requests under the Act are dealt with by the Clerk and Senior Manager, Corporate Records, who
is designated as TRCA's Information and Privacy Officer/FOI Head. Staff reports to the
Information and Privacy Commission annually on the number and type of applications received
each year.
Currently TRCA has five full time equivalent (FTE) staff dedicated to records management. Of
the records staff TRCA has an FOI coordinator who manages the program and guides all TRCA
staff in complying with FOI requests, and ensures other records staff are able to perform FOI
duties as required.
TRCA is legislated to respond to a written FOI within 30 calendar days. TRCA's ability to
respond within the required timeline relies on a strong records management program, staff
training and reliable infrastructure in order to maintain and retrieve responsive records in a timely
manner. Poor records management practices may result in records not being identified and
inefficient use of staff time to properly organize and locate information. In addition, continued
support and upgrades on TRCA's infrastructure plays an important role in maintaining integrity
and reliability of TRCA records and preventing data loss and corruption. Failure to comply with
MFIPPA can result in hefty fines and reputational damage to TRCA.
TRCA's Records Management and Freedom of Information and Privacy policies are available on
TRCA's website. The latter policy will be reviewed by staff this year as it is over 10 years old.
Additional procedures and guidelines are available to staff to assist with records management
and FOI.
The activity in 2017 is summarized below.
RATIONALE
In 2017 TRCA received 32 new requests for information under the Act, but staff completed 33
requests in 2017 due to carry over from 2016. One appeal from 2016 is still in the adjudication
stage, and five appeals from 2017 are still open, as further detailed below.
130
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
completed, 18 requests were from individuals/public, 14 from businesses and one from
government (all levels). These are designations prescribed for under MFIPPA.
Of the 33 requests completed in 2017, all were processed within the statutory time limits under
MFIPPA in the following breakdown: 19 were processed in 30 days or less, and 14 were
processed in 31-60 days due to third party notices, which are required if the information requested
affects a third party resulting in a duty to consult prior to release of records.
In response to the 33 requests, the following was disclosed:
• all information was disclosed in four cases;
• information was disclosed in part in 17 cases;
• no information was disclosed in five cases;
• no responsive records existed in one case;
• request was withdrawn, abandoned of non -jurisdictional in six cases.
As an example, the decision to not disclose information in one of the cases was due to a Third
Party request to withhold the information, a recommendation that was upheld by TRCA's
Information and Privacy Officer, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to:
• prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual
or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization;
• result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or
agency.
When partial information was disclosed, the exclusions used for non -disclosure were as follows,
and for the illustrated number of requests:
• Law Enforcement — 4
• Third Party Information —11
• Economic/Other Interests — 3
• Solicitor -Client Privilege - 1
• Personal Privacy (Third Party) —13
• Information soon to be published —1
Also, TRCA receives many requests concerning permit and planning applications which, once
approved by the Executive Committee, are a matter of public record.
The Act provides the requester and affected third party with the right to appeal TRCA's decisions
to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. There are three stages in an appeal:
Intake, Mediation and Adjudication. TRCA received six cases of appeal in 2017, one of which was
immediately resolved between TRCA and the FOI applicant during the Mediation stage.
Currently, one appeal has been transferred to the Adjudicator, three are in Mediation and one is
under Inactive appeal stage. The 2016 appeal is still open as it is in the Adjudication stage. An
appeal can have a quick resolution or can take several months to years to resolve depending on
the complexity of each case.
The Act requires that a $5 fee be included with each application. Also, the Act allows TRCA to
charge for activities including, but not limited to, photocopies, and search and preparation time.
In 2017, TRCA collected fees of $2,421.10, and $22.60 of fees were waived.
131
TRCA has more than 90,000 active records, both in hard copy onsite and offsite, in addition to the
records maintained in the electronic document management system TRCA utilizes (Laserfiche).
The majority of FOI applications pertain to planning and development matters. The files are
effectively managed through TRCA's records management program, but significant investment is
required in TRCA systems to improve performance and reduce staff workload in this regard.
Such investment is also required to better align other TRCA business units with records
management practices and FOI legislation. There are gaps in usage of the Records
Management program by some business units, which Records staff is trying address.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Currently Records Management staff is undergoing a business case analysis for infrastructure
and staffing requirements to provide a more inclusive records program and determine the level of
financial and human investment required. The costs will be developed through this business
case.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Angelica Dancel, extension 5757
Emails: kstranks(&trca.on.ca, adancel(&trca.on.ca
Date: February 20, 2018
RES.#A34/17 - REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Moved by: Paul Ainslie
Seconded by: Michael Ford
THAT Regional Watershed Alliance Minutes #1/17, held on November 15, 2017 and draft
Minutes #2/17, held on February 21, 2018, be received.
CARRIED
Section IV — Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended
RES.#A35/18 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED
Moved by: Jack Heath
Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti
THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.3, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #1/18, held on March 2, 2018, be received.
CARRIED
132
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 2:18 p.m., on Friday, March 23, 2018.
Maria Augimeri
Chair
/ks
133
John MacKenzie
Secretary -Treasurer