HomeMy WebLinkAboutSustainable Communities Board 2006eir THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #1/06
April 7, 2006
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #1/06, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 7, 2006. The Chair Michael Di Biase, called
the meeting to order at 11:06 a.m..
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
David Gurin Member
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Colleen Jordan Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Linda Pabst Member
John Sprovieri Member
ABSENT
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Pamela Gough Member
Norm Kelly Member
Glenn Mason Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #E1 /06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Linda Pabst
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/05, held on December 2, 2005, be approved.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E2 /06 - SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2005 Achievements and 2006 Priorities. Summary of the Sustainability
Management System - 2005 year end report and recommendations of
priorities for 2006.
1
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Sustainable Management
System 2006 priorities be the areas of facility energy use, fleet management and
promotion of sustainable operations procedures.
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/99, held on October 29, 1999, Resolution #A278/99 was approved as
follows:
THAT the proposed corporate Environmental Policy Statement be adopted;
AND FURTHER THAT the proposed framework for implementing an Environmental
Management System be approved.
Extensive staff consultation, research and planning following this resolution resulted in an initial
set of environmental management targets and objectives These were finalized in 2002.
Initially, under the Environmental Management System (EMS), only environmental targets were
set. The program was expanded in 2004 to include social and economic targets and renamed
Sustainability Management System in order to better manage Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) organizational movement toward sustainability.
The Sustainability Management System (SMS) enables TRCA managers to continually review,
consult on, monitor, report, revise and improve TRCA's environmental performance in selected
areas where internal operations have significant impact on the environment. These areas are
called 'significant aspects' under ISO 14000 terminology, one global standard for environmental
management systems.
2005 HIGHLIGHTS
SMS enables TRCA to track indicators of operational sustainability and report to our
stakeholders. SMS measures TRCA's progress toward environmental, social and economic
sustainability.
2005 was a significant year in the evolution of a more sustainable TRCA. As part of the
corporate reorganization, responsibility for SMS was moved to the Finance and Business
Services division, to create a stronger focus for organizational sustainability. A number of
groundbreaking efforts with implications for TRCA's future sustainability leadership began in
2005:
• TRCA educational facilities (field centres, Kortright and Black Creek Pioneer Village) took
the first step to becoming certified EcoSchools.
2
• TRCA embarked on an aggressive corporate approach to addressing one of the biggest
contributors to corporate environmental footprint - energy and water use at TRCA buildings
and facilities. To address this, a corporate Energy Management Plan was launched. This
plan enables staff to gather, assess and report on detailed energy usage information at
facilities and to use this data to target problem areas and make energy saving retrofits and
operational changes.
• Initiated development and design for a TRCA Sustainability Station to be displayed at all
TRCA staff locations. This was done with the help of Smart Commute of North Toronto. At
these stations, staff members will be able to find out such things as how to access transit
information, print double -sided or schedule and conduct successful meetings by
conference call.
Other highlights from 2005 include:
• Design for Restoration Services Centre, a Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) certified 'green' building, was completed.
• Completed draft list of social indicators to add to the SMS.
• Implemented new policies on purchases, including:
• using Audubon or other green certified hotels when away on TRCA business;
• requiring outside print jobs to solicit bids from at least one EcoLogo green certified
printing company;
• Began branding TRCA staff as "Champions of Sustainability" in the Inside Tracks employee
newsletter, on a banner produced and displayed at Head Office and on pay stubs.
• Turn off computer' and 'turn off lights' reminder stickers were produced and posted at
various facilities.
• Continued work on upgrading /decommissioning underground oil tanks.
• The Kortright Centre for Conservation moved to using 100% green energy.
• Approval of TRCA Purchasing Policy with greater focus on green /sustainable procurement.
• Continued retrofit of above ground fuel stations.
• Ran pilot test on bio- diesel for equipment.
• Composters installed at Downsview (including vermi composter).
2006 SMS Priorities
SMS efforts in 2006 will prioritize action in the following areas:
• Renewing green fleet policy and working toward greater greening of TRCA's vehicle fleet.
• Pursuing an energy management plan for data monitoring and energy retrofit of existing
facilities - preparation of a request for proposal (RFP) for energy management services and
initiation of contract.
• Improve communications with TRCA staff on sustainable operations (through newsletters
and Sustainability Station at all work locations).
• Improve SMS data system to incorporate weather normalized data and improve staff
access to ongoing performance information.
Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
Date: March 27, 2006
3
RES. #E3/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CITY OF TORONTO CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL CITY
Status on the City of Toronto's Clean and Beautiful City Program
Suzan Hall
David Gurin
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has initiated a Clean and Beautiful City initiative and has
just completed their 2005 annual review and accomplishments report;
WHEREAS many of the directions of the Clean and Beautiful City initiative complement
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) The Living City initiatives in areas
of site restoration and naturalization, parks and waterfront development, and
neighbourhood "backyard" stewardship programs;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT TRCA support the principles and action plans of the Clean and
Beautiful City initiative through incorporating some in TRCA initiatives within the City of
Toronto's boundary;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with Toronto staff to explore options to
partner on projects that support the directions of this city -wide movement and advance a
healthy environment component of this strong direction for city building.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
During the Listening to Toronto consultation sessions that the City of Toronto ran, a clear
message was conveyed that residents wanted a cleaner and more attractive city. The
fundamental premise was that a clean and beautiful Toronto encourages neighbourhood pride
and urban vitality, enhances business and tourist investment in the city, and preserves a high
quality of life for all. Residents were distressed that their city's appearance was in decline, and
that the parks and streetscapes were suffering and in distress.
In March 2004, City of Toronto Council adopted Mayor David Miller's report entitled The Clean
and Beautiful City Agenda". The agenda outlined a 2 phased approach to achieve a Clean and
Beautiful City, and reinforced the city's commitment to the public realm. Although the initial
phase focused on a program of clean -up and streetscape furniture coordination, Council
moved to the notion that the city encourage the participation of individuals, community groups
and the private sector to clean and beautify parks, boulevards and other city spaces. City staff
advocate that day -to -day operations and planning decisions need to be 'filtered' through a
'Beauty Lens' to determine how things get implemented in the most beautiful manner.
There are four key steps to achieve city goals:
• enhance urban design and architectural elements of all development;
• forge key partnerships and strategic alliances with public and private partners on public
realm initiatives;
• work with the development industry to ensure that an appropriate level of public amenity is
met; and
• beautify public parks, local parks, ravines and other civic spaces through landscaping,
parks design and public art.
4
A five -point action plan guides the program that moves from clean -up basics to the ultimate
goal of an architecturally splendid city to be proud of. The five points include: SWEEP IT,
DESIGN IT, BUILD IT, GROW IT and CELEBRATE IT.
RATIONALE
Responsibility rests with many groups and organizations as well as the individual to implement
the action plan. Residents, businesses, community organizations, City Council, city
employees and the Mayor's Round Table on a Beautiful City all have a part to play together.
The action plan includes many program opportunities and facets for participation. Key
program examples are as follows:
SWEEP IT CLEANING and maintaining our city by:
• 20 Minute Makeover each spring.
• Increased litter and debris clean -up.
• Conducting annual litter audits to measure reduction goals.
• Removing graffiti and creating murals.
• Upkeep of public buildings, structures, streetscapes and spaces.
• Increased grass cutting and weeding.
• More rigorous bylaw enforcement.
• Encouraging the public to reduce, reuse, recycle at home, work and in public places.
DESIGN IT DESIGNING the best for our city by:
• Promoting high quality architecture and urban design through new design guidelines,
review processes and workshops.
• Reviewing Nathan Phillips Square.
• Promoting design competitions for public buildings and spaces.
• Beautifying prominent gateway locations in the city.
• Avenue studies to encourage design excellence in growth areas.
• Preserving buildings and neighbourhoods of architectural and heritage significance.
• Developing environmental sustainability standards.
• Setting streetscape and engineering standards.
• Implementing a system of high quality, unified street furniture
GROW IT GREENING our city by:
• Enhancing and preserving 1,463 parks, 8,000 hectares of green space and 3 million trees.
• Planting new flower beds.
• Developing innovative horticultural displays in highly visible sites.
• Promoting the health and growth of Toronto's tree canopy and urban forest.
• Caring for existing parks.
• Restoring city ravines to their natural beauty.
BUILD IT BUILDING our city to last by:
• Promoting high quality construction in all civic buildings.
• Neighbourhood Beautification projects to renew and maintain neglected spaces.
• Beautifying streetscapes with Civic Improvement Projects and in Business Improvement
Areas.
• Restoring existing heritage buildings and other structures.
5
CELEBRATE IT CELEBRATING and promoting our city's accomplishments at:
• Doors Open Toronto.
• Architecture and Urban Design Awards
• Festival of Architecture and Design (FAD).
• Public art installations in both public and private development projects.
• Clean and Beautiful City Appreciation Awards.
• Live with Culture Celebration.
• Trees Across Toronto.
• City festivals and celebrations.
When the Clean and Beautiful City Five -Point Action Plan was approved by City Council at the
November /December meetings in 2004, $8.6 million in new capital funds and $13.8 million in
new operating funds over the period of 2005 -2007 was also approved for implementation
purposes (Attachment 1). This funding supports 48 projects across the city divisions.
The Clean and Beautiful City Initiative has been underway for just over one year, and an
impressive 2005 Annual Review of Accomplishments has just been issued. A wide variety of
projects and programs were included and a new public awareness has been achieved. Private
funds have been leveraged, in -kind donations and many hours of volunteer effort have all
contributed to the success of the initiatives for 2005. The report also highlights the efforts of
individuals, groups and companies who have been recognized in an Appreciation Award
program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The city should be congratulated for its excellent efforts in establishing this thoughtful initiative
towards improving the public realm of our city, and encouraging the partnerships that reinforce
its success. Many projects and partnership initiatives that TRCA has been historically
committed to or those that we are currently developing fit well within the city's Clean and
Beautiful program directions. A few may include stream /ravine restoration projects, habitat
creation and healthy backyards programs, TRCA clean -up coinciding with the Mayor's 20
Minute Makeover. Staff will explore those opportunities which best fit within the programs and
will continue our dialogue about operation and capital partnerships with city staff where
environmental and open space benefits can be identified to meet the immediate goals of the
Clean and Beautiful Initiative and TRCA's The Living City Strategic Plan.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Date: March 22, 2006
Attachments: 1
6
Attachment 1
111 TORONTO
CITY CLERK
Consolidated Clause in Policy and Finance Committee Report 9, which was considered
by City Council on November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004.
Clean and Beautiful City - Five -Point City Action Plan to Make Toronto
a Clean and Beautiful City - All Wards
City Council on November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004, amended this Clause •
(1)
to provide that •
(a) all parks receive an extra grass cutting in 2005, subject to the normal budget
approval process;
(b) all boulevards receive one extra cut in 2005, subject to the normal budget
approval process, and
(c) the funds that are allocated for 2005 and beyond for the Action Plan for a
Beautiful City, be equally distributed across all 44 Wards in the City of Toronto;
and
(2) by adding the following..
"That.
(a) the Postering By -law be considered by the Planning and Transportation
Committee at its first meeting in January 2005,
(b) the Budget Advisory Committee be requested to consider giving the Toronto
Police Service additional funding to deal with graffiti enforcement;
(c) the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services look at ways to hire
extra students, at student rates, for litter picking, and report to the Works
Committee in January 2005; and
(d) the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to
report to the Works Committee in two months on operational changes to ensure
streets are clean."
This Clause, as amended, was adopted by City Council.
7
Council also considered additional material which is noted al the end of this Clause.
The Policy and Finance Committee recommends that:
(I) City Council adopt the staff recommendations in the Recommendations Section of
the report (November 22, 2004) from the Commissioner of Urban Development
Services, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and
the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
(II) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to
explore ways of ensuring that Hydro One is included in the Tree By -law and that
the amendments address:
(1) how the clear- cutting policy in hydro right -of -ways will be:
(a) reviewed with Urban Forestry and the Tree Advocate;
(b) reviewed with the Local community; and
(2) the tools that will be available for enforcement;
and submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in the first
half of 2005;
Action taken by the Committee
The Policy and Finance Committee referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Urban
Development Services, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and
the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for consideration:
Moved by Councillor Cowbourne:
"That Gateways to the City be identified for beautification, including Port Union and
Kingston Road, and they be referred to staff and to the Roundtable for a Beautiful City for
consideration."
The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following report (November 22, 2004) from
the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the Commissioner of Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism, and the Acting Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To outline a five -point City action plan to make Toronto a clean and beautiful city and to provide
a status report on initiatives undertaken to date.
8
Financial Implications and Impact Statement
The Clean and Beautiful City initiatives described in this report will require an operating budget of
$4.326 million in 2005, with an incremental operating budget impact of $5.656 million in 2006
and $3.825 million in 2007. These funds are part of the recommended 2005 Operating Budget
requests of the affected departments, which include Urban Development Services (UDS), Works
and Emergency Services (WES) and Economic Development Culture and Tounsm (EDCT) and
are summarized and detailed in Appendix 1.
In addition, the recommended 2005 Capital Budget submissions of departments include $4.688
million for Clean and Beautiful City initiatives with $915 thousand to be funded from
development charges and $3.773 million to be funded from debt. The future year capital budget
requests are $2.310 million in 2006, with $530 thousand to be funded from development charges
and $1.780 million to be funded from debt, and $1.618 million in 2007, with $530 thousand to be
funded from development charges and $1.088 million to be funded from debt. The future year
operating impacts of the 2005 Capital Budget may not be fully outlined in this report and will be
reporting on prior to the finalization of the 2005 budget.
The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial
impact statement.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
(1) the service enhancements to support the Clean and Beautiful City initiative as described in
Attachment 1, be approved in principle subject to final approval in the 2005 Operating and
Capital Budgets;
(2) this report be forwarded to the Roundtable on the Clean and Beautiful City;
(3)
this report be forwarded to the appropriate Standing Committees, including Budget
Advisory Committee for consideration with the 2005 budget; and
(4) that the Commissioners of UDS, WES and EDCT report back to the Budget Advisory
Committee in January 2005, on the operating impact of the 2005 Capital Budget.
1.0 Background:
The City of Toronto has embarked on an ambitious program to make Toronto a clean and
beautiful city as one of nine Council priorities for the 2003 to 2006 term. At its meeting of March
1 to 3, 2004, City Council unanimously approved a two -stage approach to achieving this priority,
as outlined in Mayor David Miller's report "The Clean and Beautiful City Agenda."
9
Stage 1 of the program focused on cleaning up the city and was the subject of a number of
reports, including an April 30, 2004, report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services and the Chief Administrative Officer that set out an implementation and operational plan
for both clean and beautiful city actions over the next two years. In 2004, Council allocated a
S2.6 million Operating Budget solely for clean city initiatives.
Stage 2 of the program, led by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, continues the
clean city initiatives and introduces actions to beautify Toronto with the participation and
assistance of the public and private sector.
Implementation of the 10 steps to a coordinated and sustainable program of cleanliness began in
early 2004. The main steps included a 20- minute Toronto makeover, community and ward
cleanup, litter and recycling collection improvements, street sweeping and flushing improvements,
graffiti removal and prevention enhancements, bylaw enforcement improvements and actions to
reduce illegal dumping. Postering, consolidation of litter, waste, long grass and weeds bylaws, a
review of the harmonized placement of newspaper vending boxes and city -wide graffiti abatement
activities were later added.
Stage 2 set out the following four steps to achieve beautiful city goals:
(i) enhancing urban design and architectural elements of all development;
(ii) forging key partnerships and strategic alliances with public and private partners on public
realm initiatives.
(iii) working closely with the development industry to ensure the City's urban design standards
are met and provide a high level of public amenity; and
(iv) beautifying public parks, local parks, ravines and other civic open spaces through
landscaping, parks design and public art.
Roundtable on the Beautiful City:
In 2004, City Council approved the establishment of a number of citizen advisory roundtables to
champion Council's priorities. Members of the Roundtable on the Beautiful City are highly
respected individuals with expertise in fields related to a variety of City- building initiatives. They
will advise the Mayor and Council, through the City's standing committees, on strategies and
actions to implement a variety of Beautiful City related actions, on ways to form partnerships, to
find and leverage resources and to build public awareness. The first meeting of this Roundtable
will take place on November 29, 2004.
10
2.0 Comments: Shift in Thinking:
During Listening to Toronto sessions, residents expressed their desire for a cleaner and more
attractive city. This view underscores Toronto's own Official Plan policies for creating a city that
is both functional and beautiful. A clean and beautiful Toronto encourages neighbourhood pride
and urban vitality, enhances business and tourist investment in Toronto and preserves a high
quality of life for all. This report proposes a five -point action plan to clean and beautify Toronto
that encourages individuals, community groups and the private sector as well as all city
departments to take responsibility for achieving Council's prionty.
While articulating a clear action plan for City programs is a good first step to achieving a more
Clean and Beautiful City, a paradigm shift in thinking will be key to fully realizing Toronto's
potential. City Council, City departments and the public will all need to look at how their
day -to -day decisions and activities affect Toronto's image. This will mean filtering normal
operations and planning decisions through a "Beauty Lens," to identify how to do things
differently within the same program and budget and achieve a better outcome. The City's
partners such as its agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs), school boards, and senior levels of
government must also embrace this approach.
Five -Point Action Plan:
A five -point action plan, depicted on Attachment 1, organizes an evolving list of Clean and
Beautiful City initiatives into five key actions: Sweep It, Design It, Grow It, Build It, Celebrate It.
The plan includes approximately 48 initiatives, 13 of which are new proposals, and highlights a
number of programs which already contribute to the Beautiful City agenda.
The action plan represents an ongoing cycle of activities in which the City and its residents are
engaged at any given moment. For example, while great buildings and streetscapes need to be
built, they must also be maintained, and trees must be planted to thrive, not just survive. Slippage
in any of the links in the cycle will undermine the whole.
Sweep It — These actions are primarily directed at achieving a Clean City. Programs include
roadway and roadside cleaning, litter removal, graffiti management and sustainable maintenance.
Design It - These activities are about getting projects ready for delivery. It includes designing and
fundraising for projects and implementing them.
Grow It — These activities are about restoring and enhancing the system of parks, gardens, ravines
and trees that make Toronto green and healthy and act as an effective barometer of urban health
and well- being.
Build It - This refers to the actual bncks and mortar construction phase of projects.
11
Celebrate It - Celebration recognizes the collective achievements of the Toronto Public Service,
the community and the private sector in beautifying Toronto. This includes events such as the
Architecture and Urban Design Awards, Doors Open Toronto, ribbon- cutting to celebrate new
public art, lectures and symposia.
What Has Been Implemented:
The following activities are a sampling of the numerous City programs and activities underway to
help make Toronto a Clean and Beautiful City. Concerted effort and coordination has shown that
visible success is achievable. Many of the programs implemented in the Clean City stage of the
program will continue in 2005 and in subsequent years. They are included in the 2005 to 2007
plan set out in Attachment 1.
A number of initiatives that will result in beautification enhancements, such as those on St. Clair
Avenue West and the waterfront for example, are not discussed in this action plan. In addition,
day -to -day operations of City Parks, City Planning, the Culture Division, Facilities and Real
Estate and Works and Emergency Services support Clean and Beautiful City objectives. These
and the considerable efforts of the private sector — including developers, community groups and
private individuals — to clean, enhance and beautify the City are likewise not mentioned in this
plan.
The 20- Minute Toronto Makeover — More than 44,000 people participated in the April 2004,
initiative, supported by seven private companies.
39 -Clean — A primary point of public contact was created in Access Toronto for general inquiries
about the Clean and Beautiful City: 39 -Clean (392 - 5326).
Enhanced Litter Collection and Roadside Cleaning — The July 2004 litter audit revealed 16
percent reduction in litter on city streets over a two -year period, significantly advancing Council's
goal of a 50 percent litter reduction over five years. Ongoing activities led by WES and Parks to
improve access to litter /recycling bins in public spaces include:
(i) six -month trial of EUCAN litter /recycling bins;
(ii) placement of more than 500 new litter /recycling bins and 100 deep -waste across the city
in;
Phase 1 of a three -year plan to site more than 1,500 bins and 300 deep -waste containers in
Parks;
(iii) October 2004 Council adoption of a Publication Box Strategy as the first stage of the
unified street furniture program;
(iv) improved frequency and efficiency of litter collection and street cleaning; and
12
(v) the creation of a Clean Streets Reference Group.
Private Tree Bylaw — In September 2004, Council adopted a bylaw to help maintain and extend
Toronto's tree canopy through the regulation of tree removal on private property.
Harmonized Enforcement — A new initiative was formally launched on December 1, 2004,
integrating litter, dumping, waste, graffiti, postering, a -frame and mobile sign enforcement. MLS
(UDS) and Solid Waste, Transportation (WES) and Parks Enforcement officers are involved.
The integrated enforcement team will deal with jurisdictional matters on public, private and park
properties. Follow -up clean up requests, outcomes, and legal proceedings will be tracked.
Focus is on ten Priority Locations with the most chronic and persistent problem areas in the City,
such as Rouge Valley and the Dundas Street West and Spadina Avenue area.
Bylaw Harmonizations — Urban Development Services has led a process to consolidate and
harmonize former municipal bylaws administered by UDS, WES and EDCT that relate to
Littering and Dumping of Refuse and Long Grass and Weeds. Additional bylaws to require
businesses and property owners to clean in front of their properties and on adjacent public lands
are being explored.
Council's recent approval of a city-wide harmonized Parks Bylaw and revised fine structure will
come into effect in 2005.
3.0 Spring /Summer 2005 Activities:
To have a discernible and timely impact on the beauty of Toronto, a number of initiatives drawn
from all five actions have been scheduled for the spnng and summer of 2005.
(i)
the 20- Minute Makeover (Sweep It) is planned for April 22, 2005. This program
demonstrates that everyone working together can create change, good will and civic pride
in a short time;
(ii) Design Competition for Nathan Phillips Square (Design It) — City Council is sponsoring a
design competition to update and improve Nathan Phillips Square to coincide with its 40th
anniversary. The competition which is planned for 2005, will send an important signal to
the public and the design community about the City's commitment to beautifying its
outdoor civic spaces;
(iii) Request for Proposals (RFP) for a coordinated street furniture program (Design It) — An
RFP for a consolidated street furniture program will be prepared in 2005 and issued in
2006. The intent is to achieve a coordinated street furniture and advertising program,
such as those in Paris, Chicago and Vancouver, in which all elements placed within the
public realm are designed with beauty, safety and efficiency of use and movement in mind;
13
(iv) Gateways: City-wide Civic Beautification Projects (Design It) — Four significant public
beautification projects will be designed in the city at prominent gateway locations.
Projects will be designed in 2005 and built in 2006. There will be considerable public
focus around each of these places;
(v) Orphan Spaces (Build It) — Adoption and renewal of neglected public spaces across all
wards of the city, targeted for "beautification" in early summer 2005. Selected sites will
first be cleaned up, then spruced up through local community and business efforts, and
maintained through a long -term maintenance program;
(vi) Parks Renaissance Project (Grow It) - The first step in an integrated plan approved by
Council to restore and enhance Toronto's parks to the level the public expects;
(vii) the first priority is increased grass cutting, combined with improved litter collection and
recycling in parks. A Parks litter audit will be undertaken in January 2005;
(viii) enhanced horticulture and floral displays across the city that use creative and unique plant
materials and bed design will have an immediate impact on the look of the city in
spring /summer 2005;
(ix) Urban Tree Project (Grow It) — Develop and implement new City standards for street
tree - planting to ensure that every tree in the public right -of -way has a chance to thrive;
and
(x) enhanced Architecture and Urban Design Awards planned for May 2005, (Celebrate It) —
The action plan proposes funding to reinvigorate the awards program and to increase both
the number and the quality of design submissions. The program will involve a gala event
that will attract a large audience as well as media attention. The City has engaged a
number of partners to help with this effort, including the Toronto Society of Architects,
the Toronto Board of Trade, the Ontario Association of Architects, the Ontario
Association of Landscape Architects and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.
This biennial awards program has been shifted to May, so it can be supported by other activities
that month such as the potential declaration of the Festival of Architecture and Design in the City,
and the successful Doors Open Toronto program.
4.0 Clean and Beautiful City Initiatives — Fall 2005 to 2007:
The following other Clean and Beautiful City initiatives from all five key actions will take place
from 2005 to 2007. These initiatives represent new as well as ongoing programs and are in
addition to the Spring/Summer 2005 activities mentioned above.
4.1 Sweep It (See Attachment 1 — Section 1):
14
(i) Clean City initiatives such as the harmonized enforcement approach and the 20- Minute
Makeover will continue into 2007.
4.2 Design It (See Attachment 1 — Section 2):
(i) Design Review Panels in Toronto:
UDS is proposing to set up a one -day seminar on design review panels with participants
from Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa (National Capital Commission) and Birmingham,
Michigan. This information will be used to assist staff, local practitioners and the
Beautiful City Roundtable on how to develop a made -in- Toronto solution, consistent with
our regulatory approach and processes.
Design review panels consist of professionals (architects, landscape architects, and
developers) who provide advice to the Mayor and Council on specific development
projects. In cities such as Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa, they help to raise the bar on
design, and the process can provide an additional level of expertise and review to improve
specific aspects of developments.
(ii) City Building Projects: Lead by Example:
This action plan proposes that the City lead urban design in all areas of its business
activities, including the management of its social infrastructure through:
(a) high- quality design and production of City buildings;
(b) high - quality design and construction of the public realm;
(c) procurement policies that give greater weight to design quality; and
(d) environmental sustainability standards for new construction.
Toronto has a good record of leading urban design. The Humber River Pedestrian- Bicycle
Bridge, Robertson House, Yonge Hearts Child Care Centre, Cloud Garden, the Eatonville
Public Library, New City Hall/Nathan Phillips Square and the RC Harris Filtration Plant,
show the range of buildings and public infrastructure contracted for by the city, and are all
fine examples. The City must continue to build to the highest urban design standards in
order to encourage the public, design and development industries to produce the highest
quality buildings and streetscapes. Design decisions for each new public building project —
whether it is a public building (fire station, library, police station, community centre, home
for the aged), streetscape, street -sign, park, bridge or underpass — should feature the best
design, architecture, materials and construction methods possible.
The City's partners in the agencies, boards and commissions, must join in the Clean and
Beautiful City initiative to make it successful. Agencies such as the Toronto Transit
Commission (TTC), the Toronto Parking Authority and the utility companies for example,
have a tremendous impact on the final "look" of the city. Engaging them in the Clean and
Beautiful discussion is part of the 2005 work program.
15
(iii) New and Enhanced Civic Improvements Projects:
This action plan recommends a budget increase of $1 million to increase the number and
quality of civic improvement projects in Toronto and to implement the new urban tree
standards that call for larger tree pits and greater soil volumes.
With its current modest budget of $1.5 million (compared to $6 million in the former
Toronto and $20 million in Chicago), the Civic Improvement Project is able to upgrade a
few blocks of about six to eight streets each year with decorative pavers, street trees and
lighting fixtures, and to leverage $20 from private development for every dollar it spends.
(iv) Beautiful Places Private Funding Campaign:
This plan recommends securing expertise in 2005 on soliciting pnvate- sector contributions
for actions such as the Gateway Beautification projects.
The Official Plan identified the need and the opportunity to direct private funds to civic
enhancement projects around the City. In the same way that a private donor acted as the
seed funder for the revitalization of St. George Street in 1996, the Beautiful Places
program offers the opportunity to formally seek private funds to expand and enhance City
projects.
(v) Development Infrastructure Policy and Standards (DIPS):
As part of this action plan, WES is leading an interdepartmental team to prepare a range
of design criteria and engineering standards for new city streets for presentation to
Council in 2005. In a city as mature and diverse as Toronto, a range of street standards
rather than a one - size - fits -all approach is required. DIPS is intended to ensure that the
right standards are achieved in the right places and that human scale is not sacrificed.
(vi) Avenue Studies:
A minimum of two avenue studies will be included in 2005, including Dundas Avenue
West from Royal York to the Humber Valley, and Danforth Avenue from Victoria Park to
Warden. The Avenues Program (which is part of the City's Official Plan) is the City's
vision for intensifying development along existing arterials with the transit and public
infrastructure to accommodate growth.
(vii) Urban Design Tools:
This action plan recommends a more aggressive use in 2006 and 2007 of the "tools" that
planners and urban designers use to engage the public and achieve the best and most
appropriate design. These include design workshops and charrettes, design guidelines,
policy studies and design competitions, as well as statutory design review..
16
Design Workshops and Charrettes:
A number of charrettes are planned for 2005. Design workshops and charrettes ensure
that all stakeholders, including community residents, business owners, and city staff from
all relevant departments, jointly develop the best project design. Recent successful
examples include the Toronto Waterfront Design Initiative, the Shuter Street Area Design
Initiative, the Fort York Neighbourhood, the Sheridan Nursery site on Evans Ave in the
West District, Highland Creek in the East District, and the Avenues Study Charrettes for
portions of Wilson Avenue, Lakeshore Boulevard and College Street.
Urban Design Guidelines:
This plan proposes updating existing design guidelines and creating new area -wide and
specific guidelines for such conditions as gas bars, drive - throughs, parking lots and big
box retail. Design guidelines provide a consistent and rational approach to dealing with
development on any particular site, street or area.
Urban Design Studies: King West District:
UDS is proposing a study in 2005 to review the built form and licensing policies of the
King West area east of Spadina Avenue in the context of increasing development.
Complex urban design issues can often be resolved by undertaking independently led
studies that deal with major, city -wide and area - specific design issues.
(viii) Green Development Guidelines:
UDS proposes a two -part study to analyze municipal cost benefits of green design to
understand measurable benefits to the city, and the development of guidelines for green
design to provide clear and concise information for developers and planners.
(ix) Heritage Conservation District Studies:
Twelve potential candidates for heritage conservation districts are under consideration.
The required background studies are paid for entirely by the communities under study.
A city's cultural and heritage infrastructure are key to the quality of life of residents and to
neighbourhood identity. The work of Heritage Preservation Services under the Ontario
Heritage Act has included the designation of eight Heritage Conservation Districts which
ensures that changes to existing buildings and new construction maintain or enhance the
design intent and existing character of the area.
17
(x) District Planning Models: Repair and Ongoing Maintenance:
In 2005, model builders will repair, paint and update the physical planning models located
in the four district City Halls /Civic Centres. The existing planning models are in various
states of disrepair and do not reflect city development over the past decade. A significant
number of the public, including tourists, view these models. Planners and other City staff
use models extensively to test alternative development proposals and to explain design and
development ideas to the public.
4.3 Grow It (See Attachment 1 — Section 3):
(i) Urban Forestry:
Toronto's trees are one of the urban forest's most visible and troubled resources. This
plan recommends a significant change in the waiting time for forestry service, increasing
tree inspections and bylaw enforcement, decreasing tree removal and replacement times,
enhancing the tree - watering program and implementing and enforcing the ravine and
private tree bylaws. In the two -year phasing of the program, this initiative is targeted for
2006.
(ii) Parks Renaissance Project:
This is the first step in an integrated plan approved by Council to restore and enhance
Toronto's parks to the level the public expects. Phase Two of enhanced turf management
includes increased grass cutting, combined with improved litter collection and recycling in
parks. In 2007, additional resources will be added to rejuvenate existing planting beds and
develop new public gardens, supported by improved shrub and perennial garden
maintenance.
In addition, a further step in the plan to restore Toronto parks involves planting 16,000
more street trees a year, improving the management of naturalized areas, cleaning up litter
and replacing invasive species with appropriate alternatives.
4.4 Build It (See Attachment I — Section 4):
(i)
F.G. Gardiner Expressway Underside Restoration and Cleanup — Bay to Bathurst Streets:
This plan involves modest restoration of the underside of the elevated F.G. Gardiner
Expressway through the use of additional trees and plantings, lighting and fencing and
limited paving, to improve general pedestrian amenity in the vicinity of pedestrian
crossings.
18
(ii) BIA Streetscape Improvement Program:
Continuation of this program which is cost - shared with business is an important
component of the action plan. Funds are provided for improvements to the physical
condition of public open spaces in order to develop a desired identity and to make
shopping districts more competitive, safe and attractive. Capital improvements to public
property include new and enhanced sidewalks, decorative pedestrian lighting, landscaping,
tree lighting and decorations, signage, public art and street furnishings.
(iii) Employment Revitalization Program:
The Employment Revitalization Program which funds capital improvements to enhance
the appearance, function and public safety of employment areas is another example of a
program which forms part of this plan. Many of Toronto's Employment districts need
capital investment to ensure that they are desirable, attractive and safe locations for
employers to locate and invest.
(iv) Facade Improvement Program:
The Facade Improvement Program provides grants to owners of commercial buildings
within targeted districts to renovate their facades. Cumulatively, the facade renovations
within a district provide a new image for the street, attracting new businesses. The Facade
Improvement Program is also a key investment incentive, leveraging $7 of private
investment for every $1 of public funds.
(v) Toronto Heritage Grant Fund:
In order to put in place a long -term funding strategy, a restructuring plan for the program
is being prepared that includes a funding increase, to be drawn from a separate Toronto
Heritage Grant Fund reserve account.
The Toronto Heritage Grant Fund provides matching grant funding to property owners of
designated heritage structures for eligible restoration initiatives. Since 1986, the program
has been funded by the interest generated by a modest reserve account, which has been
limited to about $55,000 for the entire city, far below the grants available in other
Canadian and American cities. It is also the only financial incentive for heritage property
owners made available by the City.
(iv) Banner and Mural Program:
The Banner and Mural Program provides grants to community and business associations
for wall mural or street banner projects. Since 1999, 33 Banner and Mural Projects have
been completed across the city.
19
4.5 Celebrate It (See Attachment I — Section 5):
(i) Doors Open Toronto and May Festival of Architecture and Design:
This plan recommends that the Mayor proclaim the Festival of Architecture and Design in
the City during May. This program will provide the public and design communities a
range of lectures, displays and events intended to educate and celebrate architecture in the
city. Doors Open provides free access to inspiring spaces throughout the city during the
last weekend in May, many of which are not normally open to the public. Open forums
about architecture and urban design lead up to the weekend itself. The program is
currently supported by federal and provincial grants, as well as by a number of
sponsorships and private donations.
(ii) Private Developer Public Art Program:
This action plan recommends expansion of Toronto's Private Developer Public Art
Program across the city. During the fall of 2004, the Public Art Commission will be
broadened to include members from across Toronto.
The program has been extremely successful in securing millions of dollars for art to
enhance public spaces or in public areas of major developments, at no cost to the City. In
2003, the Public Art Commission and City Council approved public art plans in the order
of $3.475 million. That same year, ten projects with a value of $6.4 million were under
construction and four projects with a value of $2.2 million were completed.
(iii) Art in Public Places:
This action plan calls for a public art contribution in the amount of one percent of the
construction value of major new public buildings and structures.
Toronto's public art collection includes more than 200 works of art dating from the 1880s
to the present. The collection represents an important expression of community
aspirations, achievements and civic pride. The management of this collection benefits
from the advice of the Art Committee for Public Places.
(iv) Celebration of Creativity — 2006:
Toronto is at the threshold of a cultural renaissance created by an unprecedented number
of iconic cultural facilities, designed by internationally renowned architects, that include
the Art Gallery of Ontario by Frank Gehry; the Royal Ontario Museum by Daniel
Libeskind; the Ontario College of Art and Design by Will Alsop; the Four Seasons Centre
for the Performing arts by Diamond and Schmitt Architects; and the Royal Conservatory
of Music and the Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art by KPMB. Toronto will showcase its
new cultural buildings in the year 2006 which has been proclaimed a national year of
celebration of creativity in Canada.
20
Costs related to the Celebration are a separate request and are not included in the chart.
(v) Public Paper and Lectures:
This action plan calls for the Toronto Public Service, the business community and
professional organizations to pursue lecture events and opportunities to advance
excellence in urban design in the public realm.
In December 2003, The Toronto Board of Trade issued a paper entitled "Building a
Successful City — Fostering Excellence in Urban Design and Architecture" which
outlined the importance of high quality urban design and architecture to the quality of life
of the city.
The Toronto Society of Architects (TSA) has issued "Towards a Clean and Beautiful
Initiative — 10 Suggestions" with clear ideas for advancing related programs. Additionally
the TSA, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA),
and UDS have together initiated a series of public lectures on achieving Toronto's
Beautiful City agenda.
(iv) Walk of Fame:
This action plan calls for improving the current Walk of Fame installation on King Street
West, between John and Simcoe Streets. The private sector will contribute half of the
costs of enhancing the streetscape and urban design of this prominent neighbourhood,
which attract a large number of residents and tourists each year.
Conclusion
With enthusiasm and hard work on the part of Toronto's residents and business communities, as
well as the full engagement of all City Departments, Agencies, Boards, Commissions and their
private and public sector partners, our collective desire to make Toronto more clean and beautiful
can become a reality.
Staff will continue to develop initiatives to report through the appropriate Standing Committees
to Council with recommendations on necessary changes to programs, policies, bylaws, procedures
or funding and to pursue innovative ways to maintain and enhance the city's appearance.
Contact:
Elyse Parker, Manager, Special Projects, Tel: (416) 338 -2432; Fax (416) 392 -8115
Email: eparker @toronto.ca
21
The Commissioner of Urban Development Services gave a presentation to the Policy and Finance
Committee respecting this matter.
(A copy of Attachment 1 - Clean and Beautiful City - 3 Year Program - Enhancements, attached
to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the November 23, 2004,
agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the
City Clerk, City Hall.)
City Council — November 30, December 1 and 2, 2004
Council also considered a communication (November 30, 2004) from Deputy Mayor Sandra
Bussin, Chair, Roundtable on a Beautiful City, forwarding the following communication
(November 30, 2004) from the Roundtable on a Beautiful City:
Subject • Clean and Beautiful City — Five point City action Plan to Make Toronto a Clean
and Beautiful City (All Wards)
The Roundtable on a Beautiful City on November 29, 2004, requested the Chair to forward the
following recommendation to City Council at its meeting on November 30, 2004, for
consideration together with Clause 3 of Policy and Finance Committee Report No. 9:
That City Council be advised that the Roundtable on a Beautiful City endorses the report
(November 22, 2004) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Acting
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, outlining a five point City action plan
to make Toronto a clean and beautiful city and to provide a status report on initiatives
undertaken to date.
The Roundtable on a Beautiful City also requested the Chair to forward the following
recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting
on January 4, 2005:
(a) That the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the
Roundtable on a Beautiful City on the development and adoption of sustainable design
principles and standards; and
(b) That the proposed billboard policy /by -law be referred to the Roundtable on a Beautiful
City for review and comment
22
Background
The Roundtable on a Beautiful City on November 29, 2004, heard a presentation from the
Commissioner of Urban Development Services on the City's Five -Point Action Plan for the
Clean and Beautiful City Program — Proposal for 2005/2006/2007.
The Roundtable on a Beautiful City also considered a report (November 22, 2004) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the Commissioner of Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism, and the Acting Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
23
RES. #E4/06 - STORMWATER ASSESSMENT MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE
(SWAMP) PROGRAM
Synthesis of SWAMP Study Findings. Final report synthesizing findings
from stormwater facility evaluation studies conducted under the SWAMP
program
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Colleen Jordan
John Sprovieri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled `Synthesis of
Monitoring Studies Conducted under the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and
Performance Program' be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to disseminate study findings to municipal staff,
the development industry, and other agencies through technology transfer seminars and
a posting on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program website.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program was formed in 1995 as an
initiative of Environment Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Municipal Engineers
Association, along with host municipalities and other owner /operators. The program's
objectives were to:
• monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of conventional or innovative stormwater
management technologies; and
• disseminate study results and recommendations within the stormwater management
community.
Between 1995 and 2002, a number of different types of stormwater management facilities were
monitored and evaluated. Technologies evaluated include stormwater ponds, stormwater
pond retrofits, constructed wetlands, perforated pipe exfiltration systems, oil grit separators,
underground tanks and a Flow Balancing System.
Other products of the SWAMP program include an investigation of the storage and transport of
chloride (a major constituent of road salt) in stormwater ponds, a discussion paper on
fundamental concepts of pond systems, a stormwater management (SWM) sediment
maintenance guide and the proceedings of three major conferences.
The purpose of the SWAMP synthesis, prepared by TRCA and Marshall Macklin Monaghan,
was to compile and analyze information obtained from individual studies as a means of:
• assessing the overall effectiveness and limitations of stormwater management practices
evaluated under the program;
• gaining insights into patterns or relationships in datasets for like technologies that may not
be evident from individual facility assessments;
• documenting requirements for ongoing maintenance; and
• providing direction for future monitoring programs.
24
The report also contains a selective literature review that places the SWAMP studies within the
larger context of stormwater best management practices (BMP) monitoring in North America
and provides a useful supplement to SWAMP study results, especially for practices not
monitored under the program
Some key findings from the SWAMP studies include the following:
• The ponds, wetlands and conveyance facilities evaluated under the SWAMP program were
very effective in trapping suspended sediments and associated contaminants. Seasonal
load -based removal rates for total suspended solids (TSS) ranged between 81 and 92%
By contrast, phosphorus removal efficiencies ranged between 42 and 87 %.
• The two exfiltration systems evaluated provided on -site water budget control by infiltrating
over 85% of the stormwater entering the facilities.
• Roughly 65 to 85% of effluent TSS particles in ponds and wetland facilities fell within the
clay sized range ( <4 microns). Since these particles do not readily settle over the range of
detention periods provided by stormwater facilities, further reductions in effluent TSS
concentrations may not be practically achievable by simply increasing the volume of
storage in the facilities.
• Mean effluent concentrations of several stormwater pollutants (e.g. copper, zinc, E.coli,
phosphorus) exceeded receiving water objectives, despite significant reductions in TSS.
Meeting stringent receiving water quality objectives for these pollutants is clearly not an '
achievable' goal for facilities that depend primarily on passive settling for water quality
treatment.
• Oil grit separators exhibited lower and more variable performance relative to other facilities.
Seasonal load based removal efficiencies for TSS were between 50 and 60%
• Performance of end -of -pipe facilities during the cold season was typically poorer than
during warm weather. A reduction in efficiency of at least 5 to 10% during the winter was
common for many water quality variables. The lower cold season performance levels may
be attributed to reduced permanent pool storage due to ice build -up and the inhibiting
effect of cold temperatures and de -icing salts on particle settling processes.
• A comparison of ponds and wetlands showed that, in a very general sense, those with
greater permanent pool storage, longer drawdown times and better length -to -width ratios
exhibited improved overall performance as measured by load based removal efficiencies
and effluent concentration means and ranges.
• Road salts accumulate in ponds and wetlands over the winter and spring, creating toxic
conditions for aquatic organisms living in the facilities and possibly contributing to reduced
winter performance levels.
25
• Up to 70% of TSS loads captured by ponds and wetlands settle out in the forebay of the
facility. The finding highlights the importance of including forebays designed for maximum
sediment capture with features such as drying areas that facilitate sediment clean -out
• Water temperatures are invariably increased by storage facilities, but bottom draw outlet
structures can help to mitigate thermal impacts on downstream aquatic communities.
Maximum summer water temperatures from bottom draw outlets were on average 5 °C less
than from top draw outlets.
Overall, the SWAMP program has contributed to a substantial increase in the body of
knowledge regarding the performance of various SWM technologies in Ontario. Since the
program was initiated, study results have been used to re- evaluate existing stormwater facility
design guidelines, model the watershed wide benefits of stormwater BMPs, define 'achievable'
levels of effluent quality or load reductions, assess maintenance requirements and provide
insights into the value of different functional components of facilities (e.g. outlet structures,
forebays).
There is still, however, much to be learned. Studies conducted under SWAMP addressed only
a very small subset of the many different types of practices currently used to manage
stormwater. More research on source and conveyance controls in particular is needed. In
addition, there is little known about the direct impact of stormwater controls on the health of
aquatic life or the geomorphic integrity of downstream channels. Studies of end -of -pipe
facilities clearly demonstrate that effluent quality is better and catchment flows are more
controlled than would have been the case if stormwater facilities had not been constructed
However, the increase in flow volumes and water temperature from pre - development
conditions (among other factors) may still be contributing to degradation of downstream
aquatic ecosystems. More research linking stormwater BMPs directly to the health of receiving
waters is required to determine whether or not stormwater practices currently in use are
providing the environmental benefits so often attributed to them.
These and other issues were discussed at a workshop on the future of SWAMP hosted by the
Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRA) in 2003. The workshop was attended by
stormwater industry representatives from government agencies, universities, conservation
authorities, consultant firms and other groups. The participants generally expressed strong
support for the continued existence of a program like SWAMP, but offered several
recommendations on how the program could be re- structured and re- focused to provide the
information needed to support better protection of the environment.
Building upon workshop recommendations, a new program led by TRCA was formed in 2005,
called the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP). The program will evaluate
technologies in the broad areas of water /land, air and energy. A discussion paper, finalized in
September 2005, summarizes the objectives, operating principles and organizational structure
of the water component of this new program.
Copies of the Synthesis of Monitoring Studies Conducted under the Stormwater Assessment
Monitoring and Performance Program will be available at the meeting.
26
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of this project was $25,000. Financial contributions were provided by the
Government of Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund ($10,000) and the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment ($15,000). These funds paid for TRCA services and the consultant hired to
help with the study.
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Date: March 17, 2006
RES. #E5/06 - PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AND BIORETENTION SWALE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Preliminary results from the permeable pavement and bioretention swale
demonstration project at Seneca College, King Campus.
Moved by
Seconded by:
John Sproveri
Suzan Hall
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the interim report on the
permeable pavement /bioretention swale project be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back on study results after completion of
the study.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Several initiatives currently underway in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) support the use of
infiltration technologies as a means of reducing the adverse impacts of stormwater on the
environment. These include the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, the Toronto Wet Weather flow Management Master Plan and
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA's) The Living City strategy. To help
provide a basis for wider adoption of these technologies, TRCA's Sustainable Technologies
Evaluation Program (STEP), in partnership with Seneca College, initiated a project in the spring
of 2004 to monitor and assess the effectiveness and limitations of two stormwater infiltration
technologies: permeable pavement and a bio- retention swale.
Permeable pavement refers to a group of technologies designed to allow natural infiltration
through typically impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and driveways. Such technologies
include porous asphalt, porous concrete, plastic grid systems and interlocking stones. This
STEP project evaluates a specific block paver design (manufactured by Unilock) as a
representative example of a type of permeable pavement that has shown promise under cold
weather conditions.
27
Bio- retention swales have also been applied to parking lots or road boulevards to improve
infiltration and help remove contaminants from road runoff Bio- retention swales typically
consist of small excavated depressions at the curbside that allow runoff from paved surfaces to
pond and infiltrate. The swale vegetation, mulch and soils in the swale are specially selected to
enhance infiltration, as well as retain and filter contaminants in the upper soil layers before
water passes through the system into the groundwater or underground drainage system.
Bio- retention swales provide a useful complement to permeable pavement where tight soils
limit infiltration rates under the pavement itself.
The STEP study is being conducted on a parking lot at Seneca College in King City, Ontario on
the Oak Ridges Moraine. The area is within the Humber River watershed, and drains to a
tributary of the East Humber River. Permeameter testing in July 2004, prior to reconstruction of
the parking lot, indicated that the field saturated hydraulic conductivity was in the order of 10 -6
cm /s to 10 -7 m /s, which roughly corresponds to the permeability of silty clay.
The parking lot for this study was reconstructed and specially designed in the summer and fall
of 2004 to facilitate evaluation of the various benefits and limitations of the two technologies.
The parking lot is divided into three equal sized sections for the permeable pavement, bioswale
and a conventional asphalt control area. Parking lot runoff is being collected both at the road
surface level and as leachate from the native soil approximately 1.5 meters beneath the
permeable pavement and bioswale. The permeable pavement and bioswale areas are lined
with impermeable plastic membrane overlaid with weeping tile to allow for monitoring of water
passing through the soils. All monitoring equipment is located underground in a large sampling
vault and is powered by a combination of a wind turbine and three solar panels (installed in the
summer of 2005).
The first interim report for this project, prepared in March 2005, includes a review of literature
on permeable pavement and bioswales and describes the overall study design. The second
interim report completed in March 2006, discusses preliminary results from monitoring over a
four month period in the late summer, fall and early winter of 2005. The main study findings
were as follows:
• No surface runoff from the permeable pavement was measured, even during relatively high
intensity storm events with over 30 mm of total rainfall.
• The bioretention swale infiltrated most of the surface runoff, but overflowed during large (>
25 mm) or high intensity events.
• Bio -swale runoff volumes from the underdrain were less than the permeable pavement site
even when the swale did not overflow because some runoff is held in the root zone and
released to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration.
• The permeable pavement and bioretention swale reduced peak flow rates by over 95%
relative to the control pavement area. Runoff was stored and released over a period of
several days after each rain event.
28
• Although only 8 events were sampled in 2005, the water quality monitoring data generally
indicated that the two infiltration practices were effective in removing most contaminants
typically associated with parking lot runoff Concentrations of TSS, nutrients, hydrocarbons
and most metals in effluent from the permeable pavement underdrain met provincial
objectives or other guidelines for the protection of receiving waters Copper concentrations
were slightly elevated, possibly due to leaching from the native soils or drainage materials.
Phosphorus was elevated in samples from the bioswale underdrain because the soils used
in the swale contained some composted manure.
Cores were extracted from the soils beneath the permeable pavement and bioretention swale
in the late fall of 2005 and submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment laboratory in
Etobicoke for chemical analysis. Unfortunately, a complete set of laboratory reports were not
available when preparing the interim report. A discussion of soil quality data will be provided in
the next interim report. CD copies of the interim report on the permeable
pavement /bioretention swale project will be available the meeting.
Other components that will be added to the monitoring set -up in 2006 include. (i) surface
temperature measurements on the conventional asphalt and permeable pavement surfaces to
help assess whether or not interlocking stone helps to reduce the urban heat island effect; (ii)
two pressure transducers installed within the permeable pavement subgrade to measure
subgrade water level changes during rain events, and (iii) one pressure transducer in the swale
to measure surface water level changes and the duration of overflow during rain events.
As monitoring continues through 2006 and 2007, more will be learned about the performance
and maintenance requirements of the permeable pavement and bioretention swale. Findings
from the entire three years of monitoring will be used to evaluate their potential application on
other new and reconstructed parking lots. The final report will be disseminated through a
variety of sources (print, web, conferences), and results will also be incorporated into
watershed and sub - watershed planning studies.
Preliminary results of the permeable pavement and bioswale demonstration project will be
presented at a 'green technology' seminar hosted by TRCA in May 2006 at Seneca College in
King City Copies of the second interim report will be made available to board members upon
request.
29
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The following table shows the schedule of project activities:
Activity
Schedule
Status
Design Plan of Parking Lot and Study Area
August 2004
Complete
Construction of Permeable Pavement Parking
Lot and Bioswale
August /September 2004
Complete
Develop Monitoring Program
November /December
2004
Complete
Report of activities to date, monitoring design,
monitoring protocol, and activities for 2005.
March 2005
Complete
Monitoring
January to November
2005/2006/2007
On -going
Year end report
March 2005/2006/2007
two of three
completed
Final Report
March 2008
to be completed
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The following table lists project partners and proposed /approved funding for fiscal year
2006/07.
It is expected that a full year of monitoring, data analysis and interim report preparation will
cost approximately $100,000 in 2006/07, of which $20,000 will be in -kind contributions for lab
services from the Ministry of the Environment. An additional $10,000 will be needed to
fine -tune the experimental design and purchase additional monitoring instruments (as
proposed in the interim report).
The site was constructed in late 2004, at an approximate cost of $88,000 which included
labour, construction material purchases, machinery rental and landscaping. Approximately
$38,000 in donated materials was supplied by Unilock, Hanson Canada, Layfield Geotextiles
and EMCO Ltd. Seneca College provided the wind turbine, one solar panel and some of the
electrical supply materials (approximately $15,000).
30
2006/07 Contribution
($000)
Partner
Funding Status
Funding Type
Proposed
Approved
Toronto, York, Peel
Approved
cash
30
RAP MOU
(Environment
Canada, MOE)
Proposed
cash
35
The Ministry of the
Environment
Approved
laboratory
services
29
The Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
(Gov't of Canada)
Proposed
cash
20
Interlocking Concrete
Pavement Association
Approved
cash
5.5
Total
55
55.5
It is expected that a full year of monitoring, data analysis and interim report preparation will
cost approximately $100,000 in 2006/07, of which $20,000 will be in -kind contributions for lab
services from the Ministry of the Environment. An additional $10,000 will be needed to
fine -tune the experimental design and purchase additional monitoring instruments (as
proposed in the interim report).
The site was constructed in late 2004, at an approximate cost of $88,000 which included
labour, construction material purchases, machinery rental and landscaping. Approximately
$38,000 in donated materials was supplied by Unilock, Hanson Canada, Layfield Geotextiles
and EMCO Ltd. Seneca College provided the wind turbine, one solar panel and some of the
electrical supply materials (approximately $15,000).
30
Funding contributions in earlier years were received from the Pat and John McCutcheon
Foundation ($20,000), the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation ($25,000) Wal Mart ($10,000), the
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund ($25,000), Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of
Understanding ($30,000), City of Toronto ($10,000), Region of Peel ($5,000) and Region of
York ($5,000).
TRCA continues to seek new partners willing to contribute cash or in -kind materials or services
to the project for the remaining years of the project.
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Date: March 17, 2006
RES. #E6/06 - GREENING RETAIL
A New Program of The Living City. Recommendation that staff develop
partnerships for the development and implementation of the Greening
Retail program.
Moved by
Seconded by:
David Gurin
Linda Pabst
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff pursue funding and
partnership opportunities in order to develop and implement a new program of The
Living City that engages the retail sector in the application of sustainable practices and
technologies.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The retail sector has the potential to effect significant change in society in a way that no other
industry can because of its broad reach. Retailers can define environmentally oriented
purchasing requirements. At the store level, they can educate consumers. Retailers control
and act as the gatekeeper for the goods and services consumers are offered. As such,
retailers have the ability to influence behaviour and
consumption patterns.
• One in every eight workers in Canada is employed in retail.
• There are 1.2 million retail and service business locations in Canada.
• Retail occupies 350 million sq.ft. of shopping centre space, 90 million sq.ft. in power
centres and 660 million sq.ft. of other retail space.
• There are 30sq ft. of retail space per person in Canada.
• In 2004, total Canadian retail trade was $346 billion.
• Ontario accounts for over 40% of Canadian retail space and sales.
31
The sheer scale of the retail sector points to the significant role it could play in building a
sustainable future. For example even small in -roads in the application of best practice across
the retail sector can have a significant impact. If 5% of retailers and their suppliers in Canada
were to participate in energy reduction programs and achieved energy savings of 10 %, the
estimated savings in year 1 would be:
• at retail locations 3.5 Pj (pica joules of energy)
• at related supply chain 8.0 Pj
• at related transportation 5.1 Pj
• Total 16.6 Pj
The magnitude of this potential savings is equivalent to the energy needs of 465,000 homes for
a year or taking 233,000 cars off the road for a year, and could reduce green house gas (GHG)
emissions by 1.3 million tonnes.
The goal in developing a Greening Retail program would be to provide retailers with specific
tools, strategies and programs to improve their energy efficiency and environmental
performance, and play a major part in the transformation of society towards improving the
environment. The project would demonstrate to retailers that undertaking these initiatives can
enhance their bottom line and thus makes good business sense.
Development of the Greening Retail program will be undertaken in three phases. Phase I,
which is underway focuses on secondary research and focus groups /meetings to identify
international benchmarks, tangible achievements and development of a framework of areas to
be targeted for primary research in Phase II; Phase II will consist of interviews and
documentation of best environmental practices of the leading retailers around the world, Phase
III will focus on developing and delivering programs, tools and other mechanisms to engage
the retail sector in adopting and implementing best practices. We would aim to work with three
to five retailers to implement programs to demonstrate processes and savings in Phase III.
The program would be developed in partnership with the Center for the Study of Commercial
Activity, Ryerson University, Retail Council of Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of
Economic Development and Trade, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, along with other
sector associations and major retailers
RATIONALE
The extent and influence of the retail sector and its suppliers makes their engagement in the
application of environmental best practices, key to achieving the sustainable community
objective under The Living City vision.
Development of strong working relationships with major retailers and their suppliers in the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA) may assist Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
with achieving other objectives of The Living City such as Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, and
Regional Biodiversity.
The Greening Retail program may also assist The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
with developing financial support for the work of TRCA.
32
FINANCIAL DETAILS
ACTIVITY
BUDGET
PHASE I
• Background Research
$17,000
• Meetings /Focus Groups
$9,000
• Phase I Report
$5,000
Sub -Total
$31,000
PHASE II
• Protocol Development and Meetings
with Best Practice Retailers
$127,000
• Reporting and Communications
$22,000
Sub -Total
$149,000
PHASE III
• To Be Determined
TOTAL
$180,000
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto has been successful in securing $31,000 in
support for Phase I. This includes $25,000 from Environment Canada and $6,000 in -kind from
the foundation through an international student.
The Phase I report will be finalized in late April once the meetings and focus groups with
retailers has been completed. The results of Phase I and feedback from retailers will provide
the basis for staff and the Conservation Foundation to pursue funding and partnerships in
support of Phases II and III.
Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: March 28, 2006
RES. #E7/06 - MAYORS' MEGAWATT CHALLENGE
Status of Membership. Participation in the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
by municipalities in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
jurisdiction.
Moved by:
Seconded by
Suzan Hall
Colleen Jordan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Members of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) whose municipalities are not participating in the Mayors'
Megawatt Challenge be requested to encourage them to join the program.
CARRIED
33
BACKGROUND
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge brings municipalities together to improve energy efficiency
and environmental management in their own buildings. Through the Mayors' Megawatt
Challenge municipalities demonstrate leadership, inspiring other organizations and individuals
to take action towards healthier, more sustainable communities.
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge program helps municipalities improve the energy efficiency of
their own facilities. The program provides:
• a web -based utilities management system;
• quarterly workshops to explore and assess benchmarking, action plans, best practices and
actual savings;
• on -line tools for analyzing and budgeting energy use;
• collaborative projects;
• best practices checklists; and
• newsletters, awards and media releases.
At Authority Meeting #8/05, held on October 28, 2005, Resolution #A239/05, in regards to the
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge, was approved as follows:
THAT Members of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) whose
municipalities are not participating in the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge be requested to
encourage them to join the program;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back with an update of the status of membership in the
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge at the Sustainable Communities Board meeting to be held
on December 2, 2005.
Since that board report, no additional municipalities have joined the program although staff at
the Town of Markham have requested additional information for consideration. Staff will be
presenting the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge at the Municipal Energy Summit being organized
by the Ontario Power Authority, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Region of
Peel, on March 29, 2006. This will be a significant opportunity to profile the program in front of
a large audience of municipalities. Municipalities currently participating in the program include:
• Toronto
• Richmond Hill
• Brampton
• Mississauga
• Ajax
• Milton
• Barrie
• Burlington
• Oshawa
• Guelph
• Kitchener
• Waterloo
• St. Catherines
34
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge program has continued to move forward, with additional
workshops on October 20, 2005 and February 1, 2006. The 13 municipalities participating in
the program have continued to add buildings to the on -line utility management system with
more than 150 municipal facilities in the on -line system. The on -line utility system is now able
to accept digital electricity data directly from a utility data hub providing an additional valuable
service to the participating municipalities. Fifty percent of the buildings enrolled in the program
have shown savings in the total energy used and thus reduced costs.
Where common opportunities are identified, the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge also organizes
collaborative projects to share resources and obtain economies of scale. The Arenas Project
is one such collaborative initiative. The goal of the Arenas Project is to achieve large -scale
energy and water use savings in arena facilities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, through
identification and implementation of comprehensive energy retrofit projects and operational
best practices. Previous work by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Hydro One has
indicated energy savings potential averaging 25 -40% in arena facilities, with paybacks in the
order of 5 years, and with cost savings in the order of $20,000 /year.
There are now 6 municipalities participating in the Arenas Project with nearly 20 arenas
enrolled to date. By collaborating through the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge, the participants
achieve an economy of scale that would normally only be achieved by the largest
municipalities. A proposal for funding to support this project has been submitted to the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and a proposal will be submitted to the Ontario Power
Authority next month. Staff are in negotiation with local distribution companies (LDC's) such as
Hydro One Networks to obtain additional project funding for municipalities in Hydro Ones' area
of service. The Arenas Project provides significant value to participating municipalities by
leveraging their monetary contributions 6 to 1.
RATIONALE
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge was one of the first new programs developed to support The
Living City vision and represents an important extension of TRCA's role in assisting
municipalities with embracing sustainability.
In 2006 the program will be working with participants to develop conservation action plans in
accordance with the proposed Provincial Conservation Leadership Legislation, which as
proposed will make these plans mandatory.
The value of the program is linked in part to the collaboration that it fosters. The more
participants, the more opportunity there is for sharing of knowledge, experience, peer learning
and economies of scale in collaborative projects.
35
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge is supported financially through participant fees, grants from
NRCan and contributions from LDC's. PowerStream Inc, a major partner with TRCA in
advancing The Living City has been a strong supporter of this program. Other LDC's involved
include Barrie Hydro, Hydro One Brampton and Enersource.
Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: March 23, 2006
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E8/06 - MARKHAM BYPASS CORRIDOR INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Transportation Improvements. Receipt of the staff report on
transportation improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor Individual
Environmental Assessment.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Dick O'Brien
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Individual Environmental Assessment
submitted by York Region for transportation improvements in the Markham Bypass
Corridor be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has completed its review of the
Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted by York Region for transportation
improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor dated December 2005, as well as
supplementary information prepared by York Region to the Ministry of Environment, dated
February 16, 2006. It is understood that this supplementary information has been added to the
EA for consideration by the Minister of Environment in her review of the EA. It is further
understood that concerns with this project have been raised by individuals, as well as the City
of Toronto. It is the Minister's responsibility to respond to these concerns, and TRCA staff
understand that this review is underway.
The preferred alignment for this road is option A3b Modified which will involve 4 new crossings
(Neilson Tributary, Morningside Tributary, Rouge River and Tributary B of the Little Rouge
Creek) of the Rouge River watershed within York Region and the City of Toronto. Should the
EA be approved by the Minister, funding options will need to be explored by the municipalities.
36
Staff has advised the Ministry of Environment that this project meets the programs and policies
of TRCA, and staff has no objection in principle to the needs assessment or preferred
alternative selected for this section of the Markham Bypass Corridor. This project has been
planned with regard to the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, the draft
TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, the TRCA Rouge River Fisheries
Management Plan, and the Rouge Park and Rouge Park North management plans
As a member of the technical advisory committee, TRCA worked with Region of York, City of
Toronto and Rouge Park staff to ensure that the selection and preliminary design of the
preferred alternative was done with the highest regard to the natural environment of the Rouge
River watershed. This project was planned to connect the two built sections of the bypass,
starting in the City of Toronto where Morningside Extension terminates, and ending at Highway
407 in York Region where Markham Bypass (north) has been built. This was done through site
investigations as well as the submission of detailed technical reports and preliminary design
details, as referenced in the EA and the supporting documentation. Through these meetings
and discussions, all TRCA staff concerns with respect to the EA have been addressed. As
such, staff concur with the selection of the alternative route chosen and the functional design
developed as the best approach to completing the Markham Bypass and are satisfied that the
Region of York has taken the necessary steps to minimize the potential for environmental
impact.
Should this project be approved by the Minister, TRCA has advised York Region and the City
of Toronto that permits in accordance with regulations made under the Conservation
Authorities Act will be required in order for this project to proceed. Preliminary requirements of
TRCA regarding the design of the road, stormwater management facilities and crossing
structures has been incorporated in the EA. At detailed design, staff requirements will be fully
detailed. As such, TRCA endorsement of the preliminary design for the structures are
conceptual only. This is recognized in the EA and supporting documentation, as commitment
has been made to addressing all concerns related to the detailed design of this project through
the TRCA permitting process.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: March 27, 2005
Attachments: 1
37
Attachment 1
RC; 'f1
ORES
oir
LvERN.
,tNATiON
1TE
o . • 500■11 �^
: >.•ornot,c s,201; 1 ,
TR, NSPORLVTION IMPROVL;,YL:N1S
THE MARKHAM BYPASS CORRIDOR
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 407
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT
STUDY AREA
1 -1
38
RES. #E9/06 -
Moved by
Seconded by
SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATION PROGRAM
Launch of the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) and
outline of future work to be completed.
John Sprovieri
Colleen Jordan
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation
Program (STEP) be received.
BACKGROUND
The idea for a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) led program that evaluates
environmental technologies originated from an earlier multi- agency program in which TRCA
was a partner, the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program.
The SWAMP program operated from 1995 to 2003 out of the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment offices in Etobicoke. In 2003, as the SWAMP program neared the end of its
mandate, a workshop hosted by the Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRA) was
convened to review the program objectives and explore how the program could be improved
or re- organized to better serve the evolving needs of the stormwater management community.
The workshop was attended by stormwater industry representatives from government
agencies, universities, conservation authorities, consultant firms and other groups. The
participants generally expressed strong support for the continued existence of a program like
SWAMP However, participants thought that the original mandate should be broadened to
include greater focus on stormwater pollution prevention, source controls, construction phase
measures, cost factors, maintenance, management and operating practices (e.g. street
cleaning), and restoration. There were also several recommendations on how the program
could be improved from a functional and organizational standpoint.
In response to these recommendations, TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program
(STEP) was developed in 2005 The program, which has a much broader focus than its
predecessor, helps to fulfill the goals of several regional initiatives, including the Toronto
Region Remedial Action Plan, the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan,
Drinking Water Source Protection Plans and TRCA's vision for The Living City, a sustainable
and more livable community in the Toronto region. Its main objectives are to:
• monitor and evaluate sustainable technologies in the areas of water /land, energy and air;
• assess potential barriers to implementing sustainable technologies;
• provide recommendations for guideline and policy development; and
• disseminate study results and recommendations and promote the use of effective
technologies at a broader scale through education and advocacy.
Technologies evaluated under STEP are not limited to physical structures; they may also
include preventative measures, implementation protocols, alternative urban site designs or
other practices which promote more sustainable ways of living.
39
A website highlighting sustainable technology monitoring and research by STEP, SWAMP and
other agencies is currently being developed. The site will be hosted by Seneca College's
server as an in -kind contribution to the program The STEP website will not only disseminate
information about STEP projects, but also provide a portal through which developers, private
organizations, universities, government /non - governmental agencies and the general public can
access and learn about work being undertaken by other groups on sustainable technologies.
Overall direction of the program will be guided by a steering committee made up of
representatives from the Government of Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability fund, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, regional municipalities (York,
Peel and Toronto), TRCA, the academic community (represented by the Ontario Centres of
Excellence), the Urban Development Institute and the consulting industry. A technical
sub -group of the committee will advise on issues related to study design, monitoring protocols
and data analysis methodologies. The first meeting of the steering committee is planned for
April, 2006.
A discussion paper prepared for the water component of the program provides further details
regarding the context, operational principles, organizational structure and mandate of the
program. The paper will be made available to board members upon request.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Currently several technologies are being evaluated or are undergoing evaluation under the
program. These include:
• rooftop garden;
• permeable pavement;
• bio- retention swale,
• erosion and sediment control pond;
• air biofiltration system; and
• rainwater harvesting system.
Final reports for the rooftop garden at York University and the Erosion and Sediment Control
Pond will be available later this year. The website is an ongoing initiative but the core content
is expected to be completed by the summer of 2006. Interim reports for all other projects are
available, except the rainwater harvesting project, which begins this year.
In future years, STEP will conduct evaluations of the 'sustainable house demonstration project'
planned for The Living City Centre Campus, various stormwater source and conveyance
controls, and other projects yet to be identified. Discussion papers will be prepared for the air
and energy components of the program to define directions for research. TRCA will also host
a green technology seminar in May 2006 to announce the launch of STEP.
40
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The following table lists project /program contributions for fiscal year 2006/07.
Funding Sources ($000's) /Partners:
TRCA continues to seek new partners willing to contribute cash or in -kind materials or services
to the project for future years.
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Date: March 17, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, April 7, 2006.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
41
2006/07
Status
Toronto
40
Confirmed
York Region
20
Confirmed
Peel Region
20
Confirmed
Durham Region
0
--
Other - GLSF
80
Proposed
- RAP MOU
70
Proposed
- local municipalities
10
Proposed
- DFO, others
30
Proposed
Sub -total
270
In -kind Contributions
OMOE
110
Proposed
Other (Seneca)
10
Confirmed
Sub -total
130
GRAND TOTAL
400
TRCA continues to seek new partners willing to contribute cash or in -kind materials or services
to the project for future years.
Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5337
Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Date: March 17, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, April 7, 2006.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
41
erTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #2/06
June 9, 2006
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #2/06, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 9, 2006. The Chair Michael Di Biase, called
the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m..
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
Pamela Gough Member
David Gurin Member
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Norm Kelly Member
Glenn Mason Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
ABSENT
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Colleen Jordan Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Linda Pabst Member
John Sprovieri Member
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #E10/06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Glenn Mason
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/06, held on April 7, 2006, be approved.
PRESENTATIONS
(a)
CARRIED
A presentation by David Clusiau of Norr Architects, in regards to item 8.1 - SAS Canada
Headquarters.
(b) A presentation by Tim Van Seters, Manager, Sustainable Technologies, TRCA, in
regards to the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program.
RES. #E11 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pamela Gough
David Gurin
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES. #E12 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by: _
Norm Kelly
Glenn Mason
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES. #E13 /06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pamela Gough
CARRIED
CARRIED
THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.1 - McCallister
Environmental Communications Research Report.
CARRIED
ARISE AND REPORT
RES. #E14 /06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pamela Gough
THAT the Committee arise and report from closed session.
RES. #E15 /06 -
CARRIED
MCALLISTER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
REPORT
May 9, 2006. A summary of the issues contained in the research report
which are relevant to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
43
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Norm Kelly
Pamela Gough
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) Communications staff review the findings and integrate
recommendations wherever possible into publications and outreach activities.
CARRIED
RES. #E16/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DURHAM YORK RESIDUAL WASTE INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Response to information regarding the Durham York Residual Waste
Individual Environmental Assessment - Draft Report regarding the
"Evaluation of Alternatives to" and identification of the preferred system.
Dick O'Brien
Pamela Gough
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT York and Durham regions be
advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) supports their efforts to
develop a local solution for municipal solid waste (msw) disposal, including increasing
waste diversion targets through recycling and composting, and generating electrical
energy for the provincial grid;
THAT the regions of York and Durham be requested to ensure that there will be a benefit
to climate change by providing opportunities for a net gain to air quality through
techniques including, but not limited to, electricity generation, reduced transportation
and natural heritage restoration;
THAT the regions of York and Durham be advised that TRCA supports the recommended
preferred alternatives to the undertaking - Systems 2(a) and 2(b) - for consideration as
appropriate technologies for residual waste management in the next stage of the
Environmental Assessment process - evaluation of the alternative methods /sites;
THAT the regions of York and Durham identify in the Environmental Assessment the
support for a policy to be developed to ensure that high -rise residential facilities be
developed or retrofitted to include recycling and composting requirements in building
design;
THAT the regions of York and Durham identity in the Environmental Assessment the
support for a provincial or federal strategy aimed at best management practices for
consumers that promotes at- source diversion and conservation;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority through the
Sustainable Communities Board as this project proceeds through the Environmental
Assessment process.
CARRIED
44
BACKGROUND
The regions of Durham and York are participating in a joint_Individual Environmental
Assessment (EA) study to manage the residual waste (i.e. garbage) that will remain after
at- source diversion . The purpose of the undertaking as stated in the Terms of Reference (ToR)
for the EA is "to process - physically, biologically and /or thermally- the waste that remains after
the application of both regions' at- source diversion programs in order to recover resources,
both material and energy, and to minimize the amount of material requiring landfill disposal. ".
The ToR was approved by the Minister of the Environment on March 31, 2006. Following
approval of the ToR, the draft report regarding the "Evaluation of Alternatives to" and
identification of the Preferred Residuals Processing System was released and comprehensive
public consultation on the alternatives was completed.
The alternatives to the undertaking are based on Durham and York increasing waste diversion
through recycling and composting to 60 per cent by 2011,and to 75 per cent in the future. As
such, the study recommends that both municipalities adopt a formal hierarchy for their
integrated waste management systems that reflects the purpose of the undertaking for the EA
study, as follows:
• At- Source Diversion.
• Thermal Treatment, including energy and materials recovery using conventional
combustion or gasification and pyrolysis.
• Landfill Disposal of Residue.
Only those approaches that met or exceeded all regulatory requirements were considered in
the "Evaluation of Alternatives to" and identification of the Preferred Residuals Processing
System. Ontario standards for air emissions are similar to the standards set for Europe and the
United States. In Ontario, standards have been updated as required. The technologies in the
only thermal treatment facility in Ontario (Peel Region) have been upgraded, as required, to
meet those standards.
The majority of those participating in the consultation process supported the thermal treatment
of residual waste and the minimization of landfill disposal of the residue. The majority of those
participating in the consultative process for the York Durham study also supported the waste
diversion goals of the study, although a minority expressed concerns about the ability of the
two regions to achieve these goals.
The EA study included a detailed evaluation of four alternatives to the undertaking. All four
alternatives met or exceeded the regulatory requirements for emissions.
• System 1 - Mechanical and Biological Treatment with Biogas Recovery.
• System 2a - Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with Recovery of Materials from the Ash or
Char.
• System 2b - Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel.
• System 2c - Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel with Biogas Recovery.
The study indicated that System 2a is the preferred system, however, System 2b also has the
potential to offer additional benefits. The study concluded that both systems should be carried
forward into the next steps of the EA process.
45
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING
Four alternative systems to dispose of the residual waste were formulated and evaluated under
a seven step methodology which involved: additional consultation on the evaluation criteria
and methodology; assembling the component alternatives into four systems, data collection,
application of the comparative criteria, identification of potential effects and net effects; and,
consideration of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the systems. As a result of the
evaluation process it was concluded that System 2a is the preferred system, but System 2b
has the potential to offer additional benefits. Both systems should be carried forward into the
next steps of the EA process.
System 2a involves the combustion of residual (post- diversion) waste and recovery of materials
(metals) from the remaining ash /char. While System 2a has the potential to generate the
highest impacts on the air environment of the four alternatives studied, air pollution control
technology has evolved in order for all applicable air emissions standards to be met or
exceeded. The thermal treatment of mixed waste with recovery of materials from the ash /char
has proven reliable in Canada, the United States and Europe. In fact, Peel Region has been
operating this type of system for over 10 years. This system does not include mechanical
separation of recyclables in the residual waste at the front -end . Because the recycling and
composting targets are high (60 percent and up to 75 percent ), the EA study determined there
would be little added benefit from mechanical separation. Rather, the majority of residual
materials will be burned and recyclable metals (ferrous and aluminium) will be removed from
the ash and char.
System 2b incorporates mechanical separation of recyclables from the residual waste, an
optional bio- drying of the residual stream that contains organics and a thermal treatment of a
solid fuel recovered from the residual waste . As this solid recovered fuel is more homogenous
than mixed waste, it is suitable for thermal treatment via gasification and pyrolysis. It has less
potential impacts to the air environment than System 2a, but many of the technologies that
could be used to thermally treat the solid recovered fuel (e.g. gasification) are regarded as
"new technologies ". There is active research and development in these technologies , but they
are less proven than those applied to the technologies that are currently available to combust
residual waste in System 2a.
Regional staff has recommended that during the competitive process used during the next
phase of the EA, "Evaluation of Alternative Methods" (Sites), submission of proposals to
implement both System 2a and System 2b be encouraged . The final recommendation on the
technologies to be used to implement the preferred residuals processing system will be based
on the results of this competitive process.
In Systems 2a and 2b, only 9 to 12 per cent of the residual waste generated in both regions
would require Iandfilling. Negotiations with other municipalities that have existing landfill
capacity are underway. An additional landfill within York or Durham regions will not be
required. There is potential to significantly decrease the amount of materials to be landfilled if
the provincial government adopted policies that supported the use of bottom ash /char in
aggregate applications . In some European nations such as Belgium and the Netherlands,
where landfill is considered the last option, most of the char /ash is recycled into Granular "B"
materials and is used to manufacture concrete blocks or used as granular materials for roads.
If approved in Ontario, the European practice of curing and recycling bottom ash into
aggregate materials could then increase the diversion from landfill disposal to 95 per cent.
46
SYSTEM DETAILS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING
The following chart summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four
alternatives to the undertaking that were studied.
Alternatives to
the Undertaking
Advantages
Disadvantages
Selected
as
Preferred
Alternative
System 1 -
Mechanical and
Biological
Treatment with
Biogas Recovery
• Lowest potential impacts
on the air environment.
• More flexible to changes in
waste quantities and
composition.
• Potentially lower overall
system costs provided low
cost landfill capacity can be
obtained from a third party.
• Potential to increase
diversion through the
recovery of additional
recyclables - advantage
shared with Systems 2(b)
and 2(c).
• Greatest potential impacts
to water and land.
• Greatest potential to
disrupt sensitive habitat.
• Lowest energy generation
- both renewable and total.
• Greatest potential social
impact on the landfill host
community.
• Least reliable due to
dependence on export
landfill contracts.
No
System 2a -
Thermal Treatment
of Mixed Waste
with Recovery of
Materials from the
Ash or Char
• Lowest potential impact to
water and land.
• Least potential to disrupt
sensitive habitats.
• Greatest energy generation
- both renewable and total.
• Lowest potential social
impact on landfill host
community due to a
minimizing of the quantities
requiring landfill.
• Higher reliability due to
minimum dependence on
export landfill.
• Gosts, although high, are
comparable in the case of
System 2a with System 1
(System 2(a) does not
recover as much
recyclables as 2(b) which
may also offer potential
benefits in regards to air
emissions, energy
conversion efficiency).
• Highest potential impacts
on the air environment,
although current
technology has the proven
ability to exceed all
applicable air emissions
standards.
• Less flexibility to changes
in waste quantities and
composition.
• Need to manage
hazardous residues from
the pollution control
system.
Yes
47
Alternatives to the
Undertaking
Advantages
Disadvantages
Selected as
Preferred
Alternative
System 2b -
• Lowest potential impact to
• Highest potential impacts
Yes
Thermal Treatment
of Solid Recovered
water and land.
• Least potential to disrupt
on the air environment,
although current
Fuel
sensitive habitats.
• Greatest energy generation
- both renewable and total.
• Lowest potential social
impact on landfill host
community due to a
minimizing of the quantities
requiring landfill.
• Higher reliability due to
minimum dependence on
export landfill (System 2(b)
has higher costs and is
less reliable then System 2
technology has the proven
ability to exceed all
applicable air emissions
standards.
• Less flexibility to changes
in waste quantities and
composition.
• Need to manage
hazardous residues from
the pollution control
system.
(a)).
System 2c -
• Ability to recover additional
• Highest cost and lowest
No
Thermal Treatment
recyclable materials and
technical reliability due to
of Solid Recovered
also make beneficial use of
amount and complexity of
Fuel with Biogas
post diversion waste
the required processing
Recovery
stream.
equipment.
NEXT STEPS
• June 2006 - Durham and York Committees and Councils to consider recommendation
from the Joint Waste Management Group on Residuals Processing System.
• Summer 2006 - "Alternative Methods /Sites" including alternative ways or methods of
implementing the preferred "Alternative To" will be initiated. This typically involves an
evaluation of the alternative "sites" and may evaluate alternative facility design and
operational aspects. A detailed Health and Ecological Risk Assessment will be prepared as
part of this process. Proximity of natural and residential areas to proposed sites will be
considered in the evaluation. At this time it is anticipated that the facility will be located in an
industrial area. TRCA has been asked to provide the regions with environmental
background data, and to provide input on the exclusionary siting criteria and separation
distances, and to continue to review and comment on the study as it proceeds. TRCA staff
will investigate programs for natural heritage regeneration within the vicinity of the airshed
to be impacted by the emissions. The intent is to provide an overall net gain to the local
environment. TRCA staff will also review the proposed facility locations with respect to the
existing watershed characteristics and the impacts that the anticipated contaminant
loadings could potentially have on water quality.
• 2008 - Complete the EA.
• 2009 - Minister approval of the EA.
• 2011 - Facility ready to operate.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217, June Murphy, extension 5304
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: June 7, 2006
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E17/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SAS CANADA HEADQUARTERS
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification.. The SAS
headquarters helps to demonstrate why the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is becoming the primary 3rd
party verification system for green buildings across Canada.
Pamela Gough
David Gurin
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the SAS Toronto Headquarters be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
SAS Canada, which employs 200 people across the country, is headquartered in Toronto.
Their new 110,000 square foot green building headquarters has made use of cutting edge
technology and some of the most current green building initiatives to become Toronto's first
LEED certified commercial building.
The building reaches eight stories above the ground. The main floor is home to retail space
which has been made available to other Canadian businesses, while the top seven floors are
dedicated to office space. There are also three levels of underground parking, virtually
eliminating the need for surface parking. The building's design is meant to respect
neighbourhood and pedestrian traffic. To achieve this, the building's elevations facing King
and Ontario streets, Toronto, have been designed to be nearly transparent, thereby reducing
the apparent mass of the building. The ground floor is set back from the sidewalk, allowing for
a wider walkway and opening up the corner of King and Ontario streets, creating better
visibility for oncoming traffic.
49
There are a number of internal workings that contribute to the building's overall green design.
The structure strives to be as energy efficient as possible. It has a projected energy
consumption of 30 -50% Tess than other commercial buildings of typical design. The elevator
system uses the latest technology and consumes 50% Tess energy than traditional systems.
The building's south and west walls are made up of floor -to- ceiling glass walls. This glass is
blue tinted with low -e glazing to allow for the transmission of natural light, while at the same
time reducing heat gain. This strategy will reduce electrical lighting costs as well as air
conditioning costs. Another strategy used to reduce these costs was to equip the windows
with light louvres. The louvres provide natural light by capturing it and reflecting it into the
space along the ceiling. The roof is covered with white membrane to reduce solar heat gain in
the building and to reduce heat island effect for the surrounding neighbourhood.
There are several added ways in which the SAS Canada headquarters guarantees energy
efficiency while at the same time ensuring an optimal indoor environment for their employees.
All office space is created with full - raised floors, complete with under -floor air' distribution. This
allows for a high level of individual control of the indoor environment for each occupant, while
at the same time providing energy cost savings. In addition, a central atrium is located on the
top floors. This atrium brings natural Tight into the centre of the building and opens up the
entire top three floors to each other.
Conservation strategies, other than energy, were also taken into account during the design of
the SAS Canada headquarters. For example, the building's cast -in -place concrete structure
uses a high percentage of recycled material in the concrete. In addition, all rainwater from the
site is collected in tanks in the lower level of the building. This rainwater is then treated and
re -used to provide flushing to washroom fixtures.
David Clusiau of Norr Architects will make a presentation to the Sustainable Communities
Board at the June 9th meeting on this innovative building which is the first of its kind in Toronto,
marking the beginning of a revitalization effort in the city's south -east downtown
neighbourhoods.
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: May 16, 2006
Attachments: 1
50
Building Design Data
kr 11'iJt+C Vi�fi iAdV4R°1
iimitetixo
RES. #E18/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MARKHAM BYPASS CORRIDOR INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Transportation Improvements. Receipt of the staff report on
transportation improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor Individual
Environmental Assessment.
Dick O'Brien
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Individual Environmental Assessment
submitted by York Region for transportation improvements in the Markham Bypass
Corridor be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has completed its review of the
Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted by York Region for transportation
improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor dated December 2005, as well as
supplementary information prepared by York Region to the Ministry of Environment, dated
February 16, 2006. It is understood that this supplementary information has been added to the
EA for consideration by the Minister of Environment in her review of the EA. It is further
understood that concerns with this project have been raised by individuals, as well as the City
of Toronto. It is the Minister's responsibility to respond to these concerns, and TRCA staff
understand that this review is underway.
The preferred alignment for this road is option A3b Modified which will involve 4 new crossings
(Neilson Tributary, Morningside Tributary, Rouge River and Tributary B of the Little Rouge
Creek) of the Rouge River watershed within York Region and the City of Toronto. Should the
EA be approved by the Minister, funding options will need to be explored by the municipalities.
Staff has advised the Ministry of Environment that this project meets the programs and policies
of TRCA, and staff has no objection in principle to the needs assessment or preferred
alternative selected for this section of the Markham Bypass Corridor. This project has been
planned with regard to the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, the draft
TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, the TRCA Rouge River Fisheries
Management Plan, and the Rouge Park and Rouge Park North management plans.
As a member of the technical advisory committee, TRCA worked with Region of York, City of
Toronto and Rouge Park staff to ensure that the selection and preliminary design of the preferred
alternative was done with the highest regard to the natural environment of the Rouge River
watershed. This project was planned to connect the two built sections of the bypass, starting in the
City of Toronto where Morningside Extension terminates, and ending at Highway 407 in York
Region where Markham Bypass (north) has been built. This was done through site investigations
as well as the submission of detailed technical reports and preliminary design details, as
referenced in the EA and the supporting documentation. Through these meetings and discussions,
all TRCA staff concerns with respect to the EA have been addressed. As such, staff concur with the
selection of the alternative route chosen and the functional design developed as the best approach
to completing the Markham Bypass and are satisfied that the Region of York has taken the
necessary steps to minimize the potential for environmental impact.
52
At Authority Meeting #3/06, held on April 28, 2006, Resolution #A99/06 was approved as
follows:
THAT Section IV item - 10.7 - Markham Bypass Corridor Individual Environmental
Assessment, contained in Section IV of Sustainable Communities Board Minutes # 1/06,
held on April 7, 2006, be referred back to staff for clarification from Rouge Park and City
of Toronto staff on their concerns with the proposed alignment.
A letter dated February 17, 2006 from the Rouge Park to the Ministry of the Environment
(Attachment 2) clarifies the position of the Rouge Park on the alignment. The Rouge Park staffs
position is that the planning exercise has identified a preferred alignment that has the fewest
negative impacts on Rouge Park. Staff of the Rouge Park have advised TRCA staff that while
there is not a resolution from the Rouge Park Alliance on this matter, Rouge Park staff are
aware that not all partners on the Rouge Park Alliance are convinced of the need for this
project south of Highway 407.
A letter dated December 19, 2005 from City of Toronto to TRCA advises staff that the city
Works Committee reopened the "Morningside Avenue /Markham Bypass Extension - Individual
Project Environmental Assessment Study Status Report" for further consideration and adopted
additional recommendations (Attachment 3). In summary, the city has advised York Region
that it strongly opposes the section of the road to be located in the city, has requested a
re- evaluation of Alignment C north of Steeles Avenue, and advised York Region that it has no
funds to construct the road south of Steeles Avenue.
This project is currently being reviewed by the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible
for considering the City's concerns in her response, confirming that there is a need for the
project, and then confirming the preferred alignment based on an evaluation of the natural,
social and economic factors presented in the EA. TRCA staff remain confident that the
preferred alignment selected by York Region though the EA process will cause the least
environmental impact to the Rouge watershed.
Should this project be approved by the Minister, TRCA has advised York Region and the City of
Toronto that permits in accordance with regulations made under the Conservation Authorities
Act will be required in order for this project to proceed. Preliminary requirements of TRCA
regarding the design of the road, stormwater management facilities and crossing structures
has been incorporated in the EA. At detailed design, staff requirements will be fully detailed. As
such, TRCA endorsement of the preliminary design for the structures are conceptual only. This
is recognized in the EA and supporting documentation, as commitment has been made to
addressing all concerns related to the detailed design of this project through the TRCA
permitting process.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: May 29, 2006
Attachments: 3
53
Attachment 1
)OX is ROVF
FS1
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE MARKHAM BYPASS CORRIDOR
SOUTH OF I -HCII' `AY 407
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
54
Attachment 2
Rouge Park
Rouge Park
59 MoomInghna Road W"t:sl
Aurora. ON L4C 3C8
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment Project Coordination Section
Environmental Assessment& Approvals Branch
Attention: Kevin Plautz, Project Officer
,2 ;St_ Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 115
I I: 4905) 713.41D *8
Fox: (475) 713.G028
February 17, 2006
RE: Rouge Park Comments on the Transportatiio-nJmprnvemerits in the
Markham B . as Co `do
EA' file No,: MU- 11,05 -02
I •
HI . hwa 407'Environmental AssesSnjetlt -
D earMr. Plaut�:
Thank you for advising us of the release of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
documentation for this project. We have been very Interested in this study and appreciate
the level of involvement with the Technical Advisory Committeethat has been offered to us
and the accommodation of most of our comments' on the draft FA. Should the need for the
Bypass in this area be confirmed by the EA process the preferred alignment identified in-the
E A document would appear to have the fewest negative impacts on Rouge Park
In addition to reviewing the EA, we have also examined the Toronto Region Conservation _
Authority's (TRCA) comments on the EA which were copied to 'Rouge Park. TRCA isa partner
on the Rouge Park A11iar.ce and we support its comments. However, we -Orin like to make it
clear that as detailed design of the road arid crossing structures is not a requirement -of ai
'individual environmental assessment, these designs have not been consldered.as part arvur
Titre` review. Rouge Park will requite that all river crossings be designed so as to encourage
Wildlife passage and appropriate public use, and ensure that Rouge Park in York Reglcxt. nd
Toronto is not partitioned by transportation infrastructure. The Province and Region are strong partners on the Rouge Park Alliance, and have ,
traditionally been highly supportive of natural heritage issues in the Rouge Park Area.
continuing support and communication on sensitive natural heritage issues is key In this
partnership. We look forward to continued support from the Province and Region.
▪ You should be aware that not all partners an the Rouge Park Alliance are convinced of the
55
need for this project south of Highway 407, and there are many unresolved issues between
York Region and the City of Toronto, both Alliance members, over the future of transportation
issues in the Steeles Avenue area, including the Markham Bypass.
Thank you for keeping Rouge Park informed through the process. If you have any questions
or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (905) 713 -7374 or Barb Davies at (905)
713 -6022.
Sincerely,
Lewis Yeager
General Manager
Rouge Park
Sincerely,
Barb Davies
Manager, Natural& Cultural Heritage
Rouge Park
cc Frank Scarpittl, Regional Councillor, Town of Markham
Jack Heath, Regional Councillor, Town of Markham
Erin Shapero, Councillor, Town of Markham
Glenn'De Baeremaeker, Councillor, City of Toronto
Raymond Cho, Councillor, City of Toronto
Carolyn Woodland, TRCA
Beth Williston, TRCA
Martin Scott, MRC
Attachment 3
f Tina
December 19, 2005
Mr. Brian Denney
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary Treasurer
Toronto and Region Conservation
5 Shoreham Drive
Do rn view, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. Denney:
Ctty Medea Office
City Hail, 1291 floor West
100 Owen Street West
7civnto, ontario M5H 2N2
S. Watklss
City Clerk
TO (416) 392 - ots
Fax (416) 392 -2980
dark ° tdraitaca
ht1pf/w wr. .ca
Ref: 2005 -12 -1(05)
DEC 23
!a/ At r ill lraMr'tt O
City 'Council on December 5, 6 and 7, 2005,' 0-opened Works Committee Report 4,
Clause 5, headed "Morningside Avenue/Markham'By -pass Extension — Individual Project
Environmental Assessment Study Status Report (Ward 42— S rough Rouge River) ", for
further consideration, and adopted the balance nfthe following Motion, without amendment;
I(5)
Morningside Avenue/Markham By-pass Extension
Moved by Councillor Cho, seconded by Councillor De Baeremaeker
"WHEREAS City Council on June '14, 15 and 16, 2005 adopted, without
. amendment, Works Committee Report 6, Clause 5, headed `Morningside
Avenue/Markham By-pass Extension — Individual Project Environmental Assessment
Study Status Report (Ward 42 -- Scarborough Rouge River), and in, so doing,
requested York Region to conduct additional community consultation on the by=pass
extension; and
WHEREAS Scarborough Community Council recently held au evening meeting to
consider the results of the additional community consultation and the finer
transportation analysis which was conducted by the York Region study team arising
from City Council's request; and
WHEREAS as a result of this further information, Council should make new
recommendations on the Morningside Avenue/Markham by -pass 'extension;
57
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with §27-49 of
Chapter 27 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Works Committee Report 6,
Clause 5, headed `Momingside Avenue/Markham By -pass Extension — Individual
Project Environmental Assessment Study Status Report (Ward 42 —
Scarborough-Rouge River)', be re- opened for further consideration;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Council delete the
Recommendation of the Works Committee contained in the Clause and adopt instead
the following new recommendations:
`It is recommended that City Council:
(l)
advise York Region that it strongly opposes and formally objects to any
north/south road in York Region that will increase traffic congestion in the
City of Toronto;
(2) advise York Region that it strongly opposes and formally objects to the
extension of Morningside Avenue south of Steeles Avenue East, as
developed in the Environmental Assessment Study for transportation
improvements in the Markham By-pass Corridor;
(3) request York Region to do the following:
(a) re- evaluate Alignment C north of Steeles Avenue East, and
(b) conduct an additional community consultation meeting with City of
Toronto residents and the Scarborough Community Council,
following completion of this further evaluation ofAlignment C, with
notice beingprovided to the residents in consultation with local City
of Toronto Ward Councillor, and
(4) inform York Region that
the City intends to keep Steeles Avenue, east of Markham, at its
current width of two traffic lanes in keeping with its rural
surroundings; and
the City neither intends nor has budgeted any funds to construct the
Alignment C "south of Steeles Avenue East;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council's position be forwarded to
the Province of Ontario, the Regional Municipality of York, the Town of Markham,
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Rouge Park Alliance, the
Friends of the Rouge Watershed and the Save the Rouge environmental groups."
58
Council also considered the following:
Petition submitted by Councillor Raymond Cho, Ward 42 - Scatborough - Rouge
River, containing the signatures of approximately 323 individuals in opposition to the
Morningside Avenue/Markham By -pass Extension ; and
Communication (October 31, 2005) from the Regional Municipality of York.
Yours truly,
for City Clerk
M. Toft/cd
Attachments
Sent to:
c.
Ministry of the Environment, Province of Ontario
Ministry of Transportation, Province of Ontario
Regional Municipality of York
Town of Markham
Chief Administrative OfcerfSecretary- Treasurer,
Toronto and Region conservation Authority
Gord Weeden, Rouge Park fiance -
Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed
Murray Johnson, Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.
General Manager, Transportation Services
Deputy City Manager Farreed Amin
RES. #E19/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES PROJECT
Implementation Strategies. Community -based social marketing to
determine implementation strategies for lot level stormwater
management and naturalized landscaping. Study recommendations will
be incorporated in the watershed plans to address water balance and
other sustainability objectives.
Pamela Gough
David Gurin
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on Sustainable Practices Project be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The watershed advisory councils, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and
its partners are preparing updated watershed plans for the Rouge, Humber and Don river
watersheds. Key issues in these watersheds include the need to improve water balance
management and enhance natural cover. The watershed plans will further The Living City
vision and recommend implementation strategies for creating sustainable communities in
these watersheds. The shift to a more sustainable lifestyle at the personal, community and
watershed levels is going to require changes in attitudes and behaviours, which will need to
begin with individual property owners in residential and commercial /industrial areas.
Despite numerous education and awareness campaigns, and other incentives, the adoption of
"lot level" and "at source" practices, for stormwater management or water conservation for
example, has been limited. Attitudes and characteristics from different demographic and
cultural groups within the various Toronto watershed communities may explain barriers to
implementation of these sustainable practices. Other barriers may include risk, operational
requirements, conflict with other desired property uses, initial investment costs, lack of
incentive, or lack of familiarity relative to traditional practices. Uptake of sustainable practices
by individuals is a key part of implementing watershed plans, and therefore improved
strategies for promoting broad -based adoption of sustainable community management
practices are needed.
In April 2006, TRCA hired Freeman Associates to develop an action plan, applicable across
TRCA watersheds, with a focus on the Rouge, Humber and Don watersheds that will assist
watershed advisory groups, TRCA and it partners to accelerate implementation of sustainable
community management practices. The objectives of the study are to:
1. Identify key barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices (e.g. lot level stormwater
management, water conservation, backyard naturalization) by existing single - family
home owners and the owners or property managers of existing commercial and /or light
industrial operations (i.e. those with extensive roofs or surface parking areas).
2. Seek input on suggested strategies to overcome the key barriers to implementation or
adoption of sustainable practices.
3. Develop a recommended action plan outlining specific strategies for overcoming the
barriers and accelerating adoption of sustainable practices by watershed residents and
businesses (i.e. marketing strategies, programs, policies, initiatives, short list of
preferred sustainable practices).
60
The timeframe for this work is April to August, 2006.
The consultant's work is being overseen by an advisory committee with representation from
TRCA, Region of Durham, Region of Peel, Region of York, City of Toronto, Town of Markham,
Town of Richmond Hill, Rouge Park, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund - Environment Canada,
Rouge Watershed Task Force, Humber Watershed Alliance, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation and University of Waterloo.
The study is incorporating tools of community -based social marketing (CBSM) in order to
identify barriers to adoption of sustainability practices. CBSM is a set of tools for understanding'
behaviours and behavioural change at the local level, through direct contact with watershed
residents and businesses and engagement of public awareness. Therefore, over the course of
the study, the consultant will be contacting non - governmental organizations (NGOs),
municipalities, residents and property owners and managers of selected commercial /industrial
operations within TRCA watersheds. The consultant will be contacting individuals and
organizations for the following purposes:
• On May 26, 2006, the consultant held a workshop with staff from NGOs and
municipalities to learn about their experiences working to encourage adoption of
sustainable practices by residents and businesses. An additional workshop will be held
in the fall.
• In May and June, the consultant will be contacting single family home owners, via
telephone, to recruit participants for research sessions on lot level stormwater
management and backyard naturalization. Home owners will be recruited from
Brampton, Markham, North York, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, and will be selected to
reflect the demographic profile (i.e. age, sex, ethnic origin, education) of those
communities. Five research sessions will be held in June and July.
• In June and July, the consultant will conduct twenty one -on -one research interviews
with selected property managers or owners of commercial and light industrial
operations, to learn about motivations and business decisions associated with property
design, use and maintenance behaviours and practices.
In a related study, TRCA has hired J. D. Power and Associates to deliver a web -based survey
of new home buyers (i.e. largely greenfield development) in the Greater Toronto Area, to
collect data on:
• the relative importance of, and access to, options for sustainability technologies (e.g.,
water efficiency, energy efficiency) and proximity to environmental amenities (e.g.,
public transportation, natural areas) in the purchase of a new home;
• new home buyer preferences regarding type of backyard landscaping and anticipated
maintenance approaches (e.g., level of water and fertilizer use); and
• new home buyer comfort level with sustainability practices and technologies (e.g.,
smaller lot sizes, rain harvesting).
The web -based survey was open to participants from March 28 to May 19, 2006. As of April
13th, 678 of an anticipated total of 1,000 returns were received from participants. A final report
on the results of the survey is expected in July.
61
BENEFITS
Information from these studies will help ensure the watershed plans provide more strategic,
effective recommendations for TRCA and its partners to move forward in motivating sustainable
actions by property owners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Sustainable Practices: Implementation Strategies project is being financially supported by
the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, City of
Toronto, Region of York, Region of Peel, and CTC Region Source Water Protection Program.
The total budget for the project is $75,000. The municipal partner funding for this and the J. D.
Power and Associates survey (total cost $7,500) is derived from the watershed planning capital
budget.
Report prepared by: Janet Ivey, extension 5729
For Information contact: Janet Ivey, extension 5729; or Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: May 26, 2006
RES. #E20/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
USE OF BIODIESEL FUEL
Annual report on results of fuel usage.. Update on biodiesel pilot project
and actions for 2006.
Glenn Mason
Suzan Hall
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report on the Use of Biodiesel Fuel be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #9/04, held on October 29, 2004, Resolution #A294/04 was approved in
part as follows:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Sustainable Communities Board annually on the
results of using the biodiesel fuel in TRCA vehicles and equipment.
RATIONALE
The pilot testing of biodiesel fuel was targeted in the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's (TRCA) Sustainability Management System (SMS). Under the SMS, biodiesel
product was to be field tested in 2005. The program was to be expanded in 2006 if the 2005
test results were favourable.
62
The biodiesel program has been successful from the aspect of equipment function. There has
not been any clogging of the fuel filters and starting problems during the cold weather.
Purchasing new fuel tanks for use of B5 fuel mixture and changing the fuel filters soon after
starting use of the B5 fuel has avoided problems that other users have encountered. Staff are
currently prioritizing the replacement of our existing tanks and ordering biodiesel fuel for
additional locations. It is hoped that two or three additional locations will be using biodiesel
this year.
Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
Date: May 24, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:15 p.m., on Friday, June 9, 2006.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #3106
October 13, 2006
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #3/06, was held in the Victoria Room,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 13, 2006. The Chair Michael Di Biase,
called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m.
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
Pamela Gough Member
David Gurin Member
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Glenn Mason Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Linda Pabst Member
REGRETS
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Colleen Jordan Member
Norm Kelly Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
John Sprovieri Member
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #E21/06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Secorrded by:
Pamela Gough
Glenn Mason
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/06, held on June 9, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Renee Jarrett, Senior Manager, Education, in regards to item 7.1 -
EcoSchools Certification of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Education
Facilities.
64
(b) A presentation by Cathy Crinnion, Archaeologist, TRCA in regards to item 8.1 - Boyd
Archaeological Field School High School Course Award
RES. #E22 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Linda Pabst
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES. #E23 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Pamela Gough
THAT above -noted presentation (b) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E24 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
CARRIED
ECOSCHOOLS CERTIFICATION OF TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY EDUCATION FACILITIES
The celebration and presentation of EcoSchools Certification Awards to
all five Toronto and Region Conservation Authority education facilities.
Suzan Hall
Linda Pabst
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the efforts of the Kortright
Centre for Conservation, Black Creek Pioneer Village, Albion Hills Field Centre, Lake St.
George Field Centre and Claremont Field Centre be congratulated for their achievement
of Gold and Silver EcoSchools Certification during the 2005 -2006 academic year;
THAT the five education facilities continue to demonstrate their commitment to educating
for sustainable living through their teaching and facilities operations by participating in
the Ontario EcoSchools program in 2006 -2007;
THAT litterless lunches and snacks be promoted to visiting classes as a means to
increase their participation in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA)
EcoSchools Program while decreasing the production of waste at the education facilities;
65
THAT efficient ways to purchase a greater amount of local and organic produce and
foodstuffs be researched as a means to decrease the education facilities' ecological
footprints, and to further build on 2005 -2006 EcoSchools Certification achievements;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA continue to promote EcoSchools to other conservation
authorities and district school boards as a means to creating a culture of sustainability in
Ontario.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #1/05, held on February 25, 2005, a report on the Ontario EcoSchools
Program which charted its progress within the education community was received. Resolution
#A11/05 was approved in part as follows:
THAT staff continue to work with the project partners, conservation authorities and the
education community to implement the program across the province;
THAT staff integrate this work into other Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) education programs, projects and initiatives;
THAT the education facilities of TRCA pursue certification as EcoSchools facilities;
TRCA is a partner and participant in the Ontario EcoSchools program, and has been since its
development in 2002. The goal of the Ontario EcoSchools Program is to help schools reduce
their environmental impact by making decisions for a healthy world a part of everyday school
life. The program is uniquely designed to address both how schools are run and what
students learn. Based on the Ontario curriculum, its a holistic approach to education that
engages students, staff and volunteers in learning activities that are the foundations for
sustainable communities. Ontario EcoSchools also offers schools the opportunity to
participate in a certification program, with a scoring system for bronze, silver and gold, to
recognize and honour their environmental efforts each year.
TRCA education staff saw the EcoSchools Certification program as an opportunity to showcase
its efforts in sustainability education, to formally integrate the Sustainability Management
System (SMS) into its work, and to inspire visitors and other agencies to build on their
environmental programs and practices. To this end, in September 2005, the process for
certification was initiated at the five TRCA education facilities.
RATIONALE
In June 2006, TRCA's Claremont, Lake St. George and Albion Hills field centres, the Kortright
Centre for Conservation and Black Creek Pioneer Village joined the ranks of Ontario's 112
certified EcoSchools. Throughout the academic year, each facility went through the process of
completing EcoReviews for waste and energy, setting goals through action plans,
implementing their goals and documenting all work in a certification portfolio. The TRCA
EcoSchools auditing team, comprised of TRCA staff Sarah Kear, Manager of Education
Curriculum, Brian Dundas, Coordinator of Sustainability Management Systems, and Catherine
Mahler, the Ontario EcoSchools Program Coordinator, toured each of the five facilities to see
and share the results of each facilities' year of hard work in action. Tours included
presentations by the EcoTeams (teaching, administration and operations staff) on changes
66
made to facilities operations and new initiatives in teaching and communicating ecological
literacy. TRCA policy and guidelines, as set out in the SMS, were also fully integrated into the
EcoSchools Certification Guide.
Based on the certification portfolios and tours, points were awarded and tabulated under the
seven EcoSchools Certification categories.
• The Five -Step Process (forming an EcoTeam, conducting EcoReview, developing the
Action Plan, implementing the Action Plan, monitoring and evaluating progress)
• Energy Conservation
• Waste Minimization
• Curriculum
• Staff Development
• Enriching your Program
• Innovative Projects
The results: one silver and four gold Ontario EcoSchools certifications.
Each site is to be congratulated for the way in which their EcoTeams came together in a unified
effort to make EcoSchools their own within the basic structure of the EcoSchools program.
This was particularly evidenced at Black Creek Pioneer Village, which made a strong start by
integrating sustainability issues into its history curriculum. Also of note was the switch to 100%
green power at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. The three residential field centres,
Claremont, Albion Hills and Lake St. George, are to be commended for their achievements in
waste minimization (recycling, composting, student waste -watch programming) and the new
initiative to get students involved in EcoSchools over their extended stay through the 'Lights Off
programs.
It is difficult to do justice to the insights and initiatives of a year's worth of work. To assist, the
EcoTeams from each facility prepared their own narrative EcoSchools story as set out in
Attachment 1. These stories will also be found on our website (November 2006) for other
schools to read and be inspired in their own EcoSchools journeys.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In becoming the first conservation authority, and non - school board, to achieve Ontario
EcoSchools certification, TRCA is demonstrating its commitment to educating for sustainable
living. It is important that this work continue. Black Creek Pioneer Village is also the first
museum to achieve certification. Over the 2006 -2007 academic year, the five TRCA education
facilities will continue to demonstrate their commitment to education for sustainable living
through their teaching and facilities operations by participating in EcoSchools once again. As
well as meeting on -going challenges from the previous school year, such as a more explicit
integration of a systems thinking approach in the curriculum, or more effective delegation of the
EcoTeam's tasks, TRCA education facilities want to 'raise the bar' in a few key areas.
67
One of these key areas is food in terms of its production, transportation and disposal. The most
attainable goal in this area is to reduce the amount of waste produced at our centres through
encouraging day visitors to bring Iitterless lunches (and to bring compostables back to school)
and overnight visitors to choose snacks that are completely edible and compostable (such as
fruit), or in bulk, so as to avoid the waste from individually packaged items. A longer term goal
is to find cost effective ways to purchase more local and /or organic produce and foodstuffs to
reduce the ecological footprints of the education facilities. Some facilities have already begun
to purchase fair trade coffee and tea (Kortright) and are experimenting with biodegradable
cups and plates (BCPV). Collectively, staff are also researching various options for more
ethical and ecologically friendly food purchasing.
Hand in hand with the goal to produce Tess waste is the efficient diversion of waste produced
by visitors to either recycling or compost bins. The field centres have well established
programs and systems in place for this and Kortright and Black Creek Pioneer Village are
making strong inroads.
Report prepared by: Sarah Kear, extension 5234
For Information contact: Sarah Kear, extension 5234
Date: September 13, 2006.
Attachments: 1
68
Attachment 1
OUR ECOSCHOOLS STORIES
Albion Hills Field Centre
When our Albion Hills Field Centre staff were first approached with the concept of participating
in the EcoSchools Program, it is fair to say that there was a range of responses - from those
enthusiastic about a new challenge to anxiety among those thinking that we were embarking
on a monumental challenge! One year later, the team of participants discovered that our
journey to Gold Certification was a realization. We are proud of the improvements we made
and look forward to the opportunity to share our EcoSchools story with our visiting students
and teachers.
Step one in our EcoSchools journey was to form an EcoTeam. It was important to be totally
inclusive of all staff members. Each brought to the process personal and professional
knowledge and interest in the areas of their responsibilities This made identifying and
improving our use of energy - related resources more effective and rewarding to the process.
The "all- for -one and one - for -all" approach was a significant component of our success in year
one!
As our EcoTeam progressed, it became apparent that we already had many green initiatives in
our daily routines and practices, however the EcoReviews for Waste and Energy required that
we formalize them by naming them and documenting the benefits and savings achieved.
Finally, photos, measurements and calculations were forwarded on to the EcoSchools
Program coordinator before completing the audit and site visit.
Our most significant decreases in energy and resource consumption were achieved in the
areas of water and hydro use. A 75 per cent reduction (+ 300,000 L) in water use will be
realized over the course of the year by using new water saver showerheads. Hydroelectric
demand for dormitory lighting will be reduced by 50 per cent by using new high efficiency
compact florescent bulbs.
Waste Watch is a program that monitors and encourages zero food waste at mealtime. New
recycling centres added throughout the field centre, along with a flyer encouraging teachers to
bring Iitterless snacks, have resulted in approximately a 30 per cent reduction in our waste.
Albion Hills Field Centre is excited to introduce two new programs to our visitors. EcoJeopardy
uses EcoSchools principles to educate students in a fun evening program. EcoBuddies
involves students in a monitoring program that helps to save energy and water. We also hope
to liaise with other Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) facilities to share EcoSchools
ideas that might be implemented at Albion in the future. The Albion team looks forward to the
coming year as a Gold- Certified EcoSchool.
69
Black Creek Pioneer Village
The primary focus of our programs is historical, cultural and social, but we also emphasize the
importance of the environment, where appropriate. The latter created a challenge for us to
better integrate environmental information while at the same time maintaining the focus of our
programs. Also, unlike traditional schools, students are only here for the length of their
program - a few hours - as opposed to a whole school year. This presented an additional
challenge of how to have impact on students in such a short time.
In the Five -Step process for EcoSchools Certification, the first is forming your EcoTeam. Ours
includes representatives from all departments - Food Services, Education, Curatorial,
Interpretation and others. We wanted to make sure that all areas could have input to the
process. This worked very well and helped to generate many good ideas for our work. We tried
to be effective with our time and limit both the number of meetings and the amount of paper
produced. On the whole, it worked quite well.
When we conducted our EcoReviews we realized that we were already doing many of the
things required to be environmentally friendly. It wasn't a big leap to figure out what else we
needed to do and how to go about it. As always, starting out is half the battle. When you have
been through the process once, you can see how it can be improved upon for the next year.
We were pleased by how far along we already were in energy conservation. As soon as we
started discussing energy, several good suggestions came out about how we could improve in
the future. This year we will be conducting an energy survey of all our buildings to see how we
can do better.
Litterless lunch information is sent out to all schools that book education programs at the
village. We were surprised to see how effectively this helped our overall goals. There was a
significant reduction in the amount of garbage that students left, and therefore also in the work
we need to do to bag and dispose of it!
As part of Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA), we have developed a "Systems Thinking
Curriculum for Learning in The Living City ". This environmentally focused curriculum and the
systems thinking training workshops that followed tied in nicely with the thrust of the
EcoSchools movement. It will help us in our future programming and in educating the next
generation to be good environmental stewards.
The EcoSchools movement has helped us to become more aware of our environment and how
each one of us can make a difference. It has a lot to do with just changing our habits. We are
looking forward to our second season of work as an EcoSchool so that we can improve upon
what we have already done and make a greater contribution to the health and sustainability of
our small corner of the globe.
70
Claremont Field Centre
As a facility that continually works hard to promote sustainable living, Claremont Field Centre
was excited about taking on the challenge of becoming a Gold Certified EcoSchool! As our
team went through the certification process, we found that the EcoSchools Program acted as a
catalyst for many existing innovative ideas to become reality at our centre. The program
allowed us to clearly identify targets and map out where we should be headed in terms of
energy conservation, designing for shade and waste management Motivated by our
certification goals, the centre's staff expanded on traditional ideas and developed new
practices, each resulting in the creation of an overall smaller ecological footprint. To date, we
are very proud of our accomplishments and look forward to continuing our contribution to
resource conservation and environmental education.
Claremont Field Centre took its first step towards EcoSchools certification by establishing an
EcoTeam. Chaired by our program staff, EcoTeam meetings allowed us to share our
successes and concerns throughout the initiation, implementation and review phases of
certification. This collaborative effort also provided us with a venue for open communication
between all areas of operations including building and grounds maintenance, food services
and education.
Claremont's initial EcoReview was a valuable tool as it revealed that although we considered
ourselves to be 'eco- friendly', there was more still we could do. After a satisfactory assessment
of our energy conservation and waste management practices, we decided to develop an action
plan that focused slightly more on innovative projects and program enrichment initiatives. Our
EcoTeam worked together to provide continuous documentation and recommendations
throughout the certification process which helped to keep us motivated and on- track.
Many of our energy conservation actions came as a result of retrofits to our facility. We installed
a high - efficiency heating and air - conditioning system, switched to low -flow toilets in most
washrooms and purchased three Energy Star rated refrigerators. Also, through the
EcoBuddies Program guests were involved in self- monitoring to ensure that lights and faucets
were turned off in the dorm areas.
New waste management initiatives were incorporated into the daily routines of both our staff
and guests. Staff were encouraged to be more aware of waste being produced by office and
administration activities. During their time at Claremont, guests were invited to participate in our
Zero Food Waste Challenge and EcoBuddies Program. These two programs rewarded the
groups with the least waste.
Some of Claremont's innovative projects have included: the initiation of a site greening
program to increase the shade and windbreaks around the building; the planning and planting
of a native butterfly garden; the development of the EcoBuddies "Pledge to the Earth" activity;
and the presentation of an interactive "Earth Day Birthday" celebration for students.
71
During our first year in the EcoSchools Program, we feel that we have created a strong
foundation on which to build in the future. Projects that were initiated this year will grow to
have a greater impact next year. Achieving the Gold EcoSchools Certification has given us the
confidence to move forward with more challenging initiatives too. We are currently exploring
the possibility of installing a solar panel and have been in contact with organizations that may
assist the centre in becoming completely "garbage- free ". Based on our past success, we
hope to expand the EcoBuddies Program to include increased student participation in the form
of special projects (such as planting, building butterfly boxes, etc.).
Kortright Centre for Conservation
When we first looked at EcoSchools, we were not too sure if it would be an effective process for
Kortright. After all, we are an outdoor education centre whose programming focuses on
encouraging our students to be more environmentally aware and support sustainable
practices. What more could we do? Upon further examination however, staff became more
aware of the scope of the program, and began to see many areas where we could improve our
own practices in our classrooms, offices, visitors centre and on our property. After introducing
the program to staff the excitement began to build along with the anticipation of the
improvements we could make. To successfully modify practices requires a total staff
commitment so we moved on to the Five Step Process.
The first part of the process involves the establishment of an EcoTeam comprised of staff from
all levels of the organization. Our team consists of the Kortright Manager, the Education
Coordinator, the Operation's Manager, the Food Service and Retail Supervisor, and two
Environmental Educators. Our first meeting was a brainstorming session to generate initiatives
for Kortright. The team was then divided into two groups to complete the various EcoReviews.
One team took on the Waste Minimization Review and the other the Energy Conservation
Review.
Being a conservation area on 345 hectares of forest, meadows and wetlands we did not find
the Designing for Shade and Energy Conservation review applicable to us. However, other two
EcoReviews allowed us to assess what we were doing well and to identify new challenges. The
following are some of the highlights of what we achieved in the EcoSchools Certification
process.
• Purchased all of our electrical energy from Bullfrog Power which provides 100% green
energy.
• Installed motion sensor light switches in all classrooms
• Installed faucets that turn off automatically in all public washrooms
• All lighting in the building is fluorescent or compact fluorescent
• Doubled the number of recycling stations in the public areas of the building
• Moved to rechargeable batteries where possible
• Encouraged cafe customers to ask for mug rather than to use paper cups.
• Vermiculture set up in the staff lunch area
• Sold shade grown, fair trade organic coffee exclusively in our cafe
Having experienced our first year with the EcoSchools program we are looking forward to
completing some already planned initiatives as well as exploring some new and exciting
challenges.
72
• The implementation of a composting program to deal with the organic waste generated
by our visitors
• The installation of solar powered lighting from the parking lot to the visitor's centre.
• The installation of a solar hot water system to supplement the hot water in the visitor's
centre.
• The construction of the most sustainable house in Canada will begin in the fall of 2006.
Lake St. George Field Centre
Lake St. George embraced the challenge of reaching Gold Certification. We have been making
the efforts for years to show others through curriculum, recreation and daily routines that being
green isn't so hard, but he EcoSchools Program gave us a vehicle to evaluate where we were
and what more we could accomplish in being good environmental citizens. By embracing the
five -step process, we were able to easily see our present situation and create goals for
ourselves under the umbrellas of Waste Minimization, Designing for Shade and Energy
Conservation. We have accomplished many of our goals such as creating new programs,
adopting more conservative practices surrounding energy usage and providing our "human"
inhabitants with more eco- friendly dwellings.
Our first step after the initial briefing was to create the Lake St. George team It made sense for
our EcoTeam to include all staff, as we are a small group and we each have unique insights.
Our site supervisor was the lead, overseeing all processes. Program staff worked on
communications and shared the EcoReviews and Action Plan implementation with our
maintenance and operations team. Food preparation staff reviewed increasing kitchen energy
efficiencies and waste minimization.
It's easy to say that we're eco- friendly, but where's the proof? The EcoReview allowed us to
focus on our strengths such as the Waste Watchers Program, as well as highlighting where we
needed to allocate more effort. We determined that we were on track with recycling,
composting and minimizing garbage, but that we could still improve by exercising our
purchasing power, strategic plantings and modification of daily routines, so our action plans
focused on those areas.
Our energy use changes were impressive. We replaced windows and dressed them with
heavy weight curtains. Programmable thermostats increased the dormitory building's
efficiency. In the kitchen, we purchased a new dishwasher, and the pontoon boat received a
new four stroke motor. Visitors were reminded to close the curtains, turn off lights and leave
bedroom doors open when not in use to allow better heat circulation.
We informed guests that minimizing food waste and consumer waste is a priority by way of
some pointers in our planning guide. Instead of bringing individually wrapped items, many
groups chose to purchase home baked and bulk packaged snacks in- house. We awarded our
groups with certificates and journals outlining their waste watching achievements.
We reduced our grass cutting and have a much more aesthetically pleasing view, due to the
efforts of students that created bird habitat and completed some strategic tree planting. By
blocking direct sunlight and wind from our dorms, we can also look forward to energy savings.
73
Our actions to date will create a future with taller trees, extensive meadows and human activity
blending seamlessly with nature. But what else can you expect to see happening while nature
is sculpting the view? During our building retrofits, we plan to further model responsible
consumerism by researching and purchasing eco- friendly products to replace aging, less
efficient equipment. We are eager to explore purchasing locally grown foods, further
decreasing our consumer waste and introducing biodiesel to fuel our maintenance equipment
needs.
74
RES. #E25/06 -
Moved by •
Seconded by:
ONTARIO ECOSCHOOLS PROGRAM
Adapting to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Offices.
Sustainability Management System adoption of Ontario EcoSchools
format at Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's administrative
offices.
Linda Pabst
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the EcoSchools model (5 Step
Process) for managing environmental sustainability be adapted for use, under the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Sustainability Management System
(SMS), at TRCA's administrative offices;
THAT the adapted program be called EcoOffices, and be initiated as a pilot project at the
Boyd Office, Restoration Services Centre, Head Office and Downsview Office beginning
in the fall of 2006;
THAT EcoTeams be convened at each site;
THAT the Coordinator, SMS lead the pilot project, with support from TRCA education
staff, to facilitate its integration with the SMS and corporate EcoSchools program;
THAT the EcoSchools Steering Committee be advised and consulted throughout the
TRCA pilot project for consideration of its possible application at their school board
offices;
THAT staff develop an internal certification process to recognize office efforts;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report in 2007 on results of the EcoOffice pilot project.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since 2003, TRCA's SMS has helped the organization progress towards operational
sustainability by:
• gathering ideas and knowledge on best practices from staff;
• setting operational targets;
• monitoring progress toward said targets;
• reporting on TRCA's continued performance in this area.
In 2006, TRCA participated in the Ontario EcoSchools program, culminating in the recent
certification of its five educational facilities.
The Coordinator, SMS, having been involved in both the set up of the EcoSchools program as
it pertains to TRCA, and having acted as an auditor at our education facilities, has suggested
SMS may work better with the incorporation of an EcoSchools approach at various offices.
75
RATIONALE
It is the opinion of staff that the following EcoSchools components, which are absent in the
existing SMS, will add value to TRCA's organizational efforts towards sustainability:
• establishment of EcoTeams at each facility;
• empowerment of facility EcoTeams to set annual targets and pursue site specific solutions;
• incorporation of annual goals that are set cooperatively.
It is anticipated that the SMS will be greatly enhanced by the establishment of facility specific
EcoTeams and the generation of site - specific approaches to sustainability that these teams will
provide. The EcoSchools methodology is based on staff empowerment and ownership,
whereas, too often in the past, the SMS has worked in atop- down,' or prescriptive fashion.
Adapting EcoSchools for use at TRCA offices will empower staff and have a positive impact.
In addition, it is felt that the dissemination of information will be enhanced by the EcoTeams.
Communicating TRCA's significant advances towards sustainability has proven to be a difficult
venture. Circulating a 'hard -copy' newsletter is not sustainable and evidence suggests limited
penetration of the SMS message to staff through e- newsletters. An EcoTeam allows for
face -to -face interaction and will result in a more traditional dispersion of crucial information, as
committee members take items back to staff in their various departments.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
By the end of 2006, TRCA will:
• complete the modification of EcoSchools materials for use in TRCA offices;
• establish (with management consultation) EcoTeams at each of the four pilot office
locations (Downsview Office, Boyd Office, Restoration Services Centre and Head Office);
• initiate first steps of EcoOffice program (i.e. completion of EcoReviews at each location and
setting of targeted actions to pursue).
In 2007:
• offices will work through the five step process;
• an internal auditing team will be named;
• certification of the three EcoOffices by the internal auditing team will be targeted for fall of
2007.
Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
Date: September 22, 2006
76
RES. #E26/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
POWERSTREAM ENERGY EDUCATION PILOT PROJECT
Approval of funding by PowerStream Inc., the local power distribution
corporation serving the Town of Markham, City of Vaughan, Town of
Aurora and Town of Richmond Hill, to implement the PowerStream
Energy Education Pilot Project to selected schools within the 2006/2007
academic year.
Glenn Mason
Pamela Gough
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT approval be granted to enter into
an agreement for funding to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) by
PowerStream Inc. to implement the PowerStream Energy Education Pilot Project to
selected schools within the Town of Markham, City of Vaughan, Town of Aurora and
Town of Richmond Hill, in the 2006/2007 academic year;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of any
necessary approvals and the execution of any documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
PowerStream Inc. is mandated to foster and encourage the development and adoption of
energy conservation and demand side management programs within its service area. This
mandate has presented opportunities for joint programming and projects with TRCA. In
January 2005, PowerStream and TRCA entered into a Conservation and Demand Side
Management Services Agreement to execute such joint programming for six programs.
• Mayors' Green Building Challenge
• Greening Health Care
• Sustainable Schools
• Sustainable Housing Demonstration Project
• Building a Conservation Culture at Home - Residential Energy
• The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
The positive relationship built between PowerStream and TRCA led to discussions regarding
energy education programming. TRCA, in collaboration with boards of education and others,
prepared a proposal for an energy education pilot project and in August, received funding
approval for same.
RATIONALE
The Protect
The PowerStream Energy Education Pilot Project is a collaboration of regional education,
environmental and health organizations interested in combining efforts and resources to
implement one of the first, integrated, multi - partnership energy education / climate change
programs in Ontario. Participants, led by TRCA, include:
• the York Region and York Catholic district school boards (DSB)
• Ontario EcoSchools
• York Region Health Services
77
• The Clean Air Partnership
• The Kortright Centre for Conservation
Goals and Objectives
The goal of the PowerStream Energy Education Pilot Project is to generate immediate and
long -term energy savings through behaviour change and actions at school, in the community
and at home, with the following objectives:
1. Over the 2006/2007 school year, the PowerStream Energy Education Pilot Project will
cultivate exemplary energy education and conservation practices in York Region and York
Catholic DSB schools.
2. The project will engage up to 1,000 Grade 5 students, through 40 classroom teachers, from
20 York Region and York Catholic DSB schools as located within PowerStream's
jurisdiction.
3. The project will provide intensive support to teachers and students, at school and at home,
through professional development and learning activities that build knowledge and
capacity, initiate action and achieve energy savings.
Overview
• The York Region and York Catholic DSB's will select 40 grade 5 classes from 20 of their
schools within PowerStream's jurisdiction
• The curriculum will be based on Ontario EcoSchools, including its energy resource guides
and the 20/20 The Way to Clean Air resource materials. These resources allow teachers
and students to complete energy reviews and action plans both at school and at home.
• An energy toolkit, including an energy efficient light bulb provided by PowerStream, will be
distributed to each student to enrich the at -home energy conservation action plan and to
meet PowerStream's energy savings objectives.
• A professional development workshop with the 40 grade 5 teachers will be delivered and
will also review the project framework and curriculum resources.
• A sponsored trip to TRCA's Kortright Centre, home to Canada's largest collection of
educational renewable energy demonstrations, will enable each student to participate in
the "Conservation of Energy" program. This trip will enrich the students' learning and will
also serve as an incentive and reward for participating teachers and students.
Benefits
• The project provides the framework for energy savings and sustainable behaviour change.
• The project builds on successful energy education resources, avoiding duplication of effort.
• School boards can build connections with their current energy conservation initiatives.
• Teachers will become more confident in addressing energy curriculum with their students.
• PowerStream will strengthen relationships with school boards, schools and the other
education project agencies.
• School boards will build capacity as schools become Certified EcoSchools.
• A culture of energy conservation and leadership will develop with the students and within
schools.
• An education model for others to emulate will be developed.
78
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding of $128,100 has been approved by PowerStream. Provision has been made to
increase funding if more schools can be accommodated within the pilot. The boards of
education are currently soliciting school enrollments and final numbers will be established by
mid- October.
Report prepared by: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
For Information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
Date: September 28, 2006
RES. #E27/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SCIENCE CAMP PROGRAM,
2007 -2009 AT LAKE ST. GEORGE FIELD CENTRE
Toronto District School Board & Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority Initiative. The Toronto District School Board, in partnership with
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, has received funding
through the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation's Youth Science
and Technology Outreach Program to support summer camps in
2007 -2009 for academically at risk grade 7 -9 students.
Pamela Gough
Linda Pabst
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) work in partnership with the Toronto District School
Board (TDSB) to provide summer camps over three years at the Lake St. George Field
Centre to service at risk grades 7 -9 students, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Research
and Innovation through its Youth Science and Technology Outreach Program;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of any
necessary approvals and the execution of any documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Through a joint submission to the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation (OMRI) under its
Youth Science and Technology Outreach Program (YSTOP), TRCA and TDSB were successful
in securing a 3 year $115,000 grant to offer academically at risk grade 7 -9 students a summer
science and technology experience camp at TRCA's Lake St. George Field Centre.
79
The camp is called Research and Innovation Science Camp (RISC). The camp brings
researchers and innovators to the students at Lake St. George to provide hands -on scientific
and technological experiences, supported by lectures, on a variety of current issues in the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The program will help students develop skills and networks
based on personally significant research and innovation topics that will lead to participation in
science and technology celebrations during the year. The researchers and innovators will also
be available via the internet, and where possible, as face -to -face mentors to help students
develop their capabilities as researchers and technological innovators.
The current funding provides for a total of seven camps, each five -days in length, over three
consecutive summers, commencing in the summer of 2007. It will be led by TDSB staff with
joint programming support by TRCA staff and will engage researchers and innovators from
TRCA, universities and colleges and other professionals to provide daily discussions on a wide
range of science and technology topics. A number of these topics will be environmentally
based and will contribute to TRCA's overall goal of learning in The Living City.
RATIONALE
TRCA currently works with the TDSB on a variety of education programs, including Ontario
EcoSchools and outdoor education centre programming and facilities operations.
Collaborations such as these provide TRCA education with both program and professional
development benefits. The RISC camp program is no exception as it will allow staff the
opportunity to build and share its knowledge in the development and delivery of educational
programming designed to meet the special needs of senior elementary students.
The program and its location at Lake St. George Field Centre also supports the goals that
underpin the TRCA strategy for sustainability education. Based on A Systems Thinking
Curriculum for Learning in The Living City, learning should be:
• Locally Based or "Grassroots ": designed for or by a particular population which values their
specific geographical, socio - cultural, economic and physical needs;
• Relevant to Learners: personal meaning is powerful, for e.g. learning is much more likely to
endure when students clean up a ravine they play in, rather than watch a video of a similar
clean -up in a place they will never visit;
• Experiential: when engaged in learning programs, people retain about 10% of what they
read, 20% of what they hear, 50% of what they hear and see, 70% of what they say (in
presentations or answering questions etc.) and 90% of what they do themselves;
• Life -Long: the joy of learning doesn't end with graduation, but continues throughout a
person's personal and professional life; and
• Systems Thinking: is one important tool that can help learners and teachers simplify the
relational and interconnected issues of our times, and thereby help them to identify
effective, realistic and sustainable solutions.
80
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Securing a three year commitment for summer programming is a major benefit in the financial
business planning for the Lake St. George Field Centre The funding grant provides TRCA with
$6,750 per camp and each 5 day /4 night camp is capped at 20 participants Total revenue for
Lake St. George over the three years is $47,250.
Report prepared by: Darryl Gray, 416 - 791 -0327
For Information contact: Darryl Gray, 416 - 791 -0327
Date: September 11, 2006
RES. #E28/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
HUSKY /EARTH RANGERS ENVIRONMENTAL WEEKS
Celebration of 10 Years at Albion Hills Field Centre. Highlighting the
September 22, 2006 event celebrating 10 years of the Husky /Earth
Rangers Environmental Weeks Program at the Albion Hills Field Centre,
a model of corporate commitment to community and children's learning.
Linda Pabst
Suzan Hall
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Husky Injection Molding
Systems Ltd. and the Earth Rangers receive a formal motion of thanks for their generous
support and commitment to the community and the environment as exemplified by the
Husky /Earth Rangers Environmental Weeks Program at the Albion Hills Field Centre.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2006 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) celebrated 10
years of funding for the Husky /Earth Rangers Environmental Weeks Program at Albion Hills
Field Centre by hosting a sponsor recognition event. With a total 10 year contribution of
$620,000.00, the Husky /Earth Rangers Environmental Weeks sponsorship has helped provide
high quality outdoor and environmental learning opportunities for over 5,300 students from the
Bolton, Caledon and Palgrave communities, as well as students from five participating school
boards.
The program developed for this event will be available at the Sustainable Communities Board
Meeting #3/06. It provides a wonderful overview of the significant achievements of this
education partnership made possible by the commitment and generosity of Husky Injection
Moldings System Ltd. and Earth Rangers.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
At the event, it was confirmed that Husky Injection Molding Ltd. and Earth Rangers is providing
$98,000 to support the Husky /Earth Rangers Environmental Weeks Program for the 2006/2007
school year, its eleventh.
81
Even though funding is approved on a year over year basis, both Husky and Earth Rangers
expressed their commitment and enthusiasm for the next ten years of the program. John Galt,
the new Chief Executive Officer of Husky, stated that we can look forward to funding for many
years to come.
Report prepared by: Darryl Gray, 416- 791 -0327
For Information contact: Darryl Gray, 416 - 791 -0327
Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
Date: August 11, 2006
Attachments: To be made available at the meeting
RES. #E29/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SCHUMACHER COLLEGE 'ROOTS OF LEARNING' PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COURSE
Report on the Roots of Learning: Weaving an Ecological Culture in
Education course held at Schumacher College, England in April, 2006.
Suzan Hall
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the insights gained from the
Roots of Learning: Weaving an Ecological Culture in Education course held at
Schumacher College, England in April, 2006 be integrated into the on -going exchange
and expansion of key concepts and methodologies in sustainability education that builds
on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) A Systems Thinking Curriculum
for Learning in The Living City and the Ontario EcoSchools program;
AND FURTHER THAT a methodology be researched and developed to assess and
evaluate the transition of TRCA education towards sustainability education in its policy,
management and delivery of education services.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Executive Committee Meeting #12/05, held on February 3, 2006, Resolution #B156/05 for
out of country travel for the purpose of staff professional development was approved. A further
request was given that staff report back to summarize what was learned.
82
RATIONALE
Sarah Kear, Manager, Education Curriculum is the staff person responsible for leading TRCA's
work in sustainability education. The Roots of Learning course at Schumacher College was
deemed appropriate because it would further immerse the Manager, Education Curriculum in
current thought and initiatives, and thereby augment her future work with TRCA. It would also
provide the opportunity to represent the important work of TRCA around change, learning,
sustainability and specifically, A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The Living City, to
the critical review of international peers in environmental education. The Manager, Education
Curriculum shared her learning with colleagues and works collaboratively with them to ensure
that TRCA's education programming continues to meet high levels of business excellence for
years to come.
This course was strategic for the following reasons:
• It further connected TRCA with the ideas of United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future.
• It showcased TRCA's A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The Living City
internationally.
• It gave TRCA education staff valuable feedback on its philosophy and approach from
experts in the field outside of Canada.
• It helped TRCA staff learn from other models of institutional change towards sustainable
living.
• It gave TRCA education staff exposure to the current developments in assessing
institutional change.
• It gave TRCA education staff an in -depth look at another curriculum being re- written and
compared the case study of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) United Kingdom's Alphington
Sustainable School with TRCA education's process.
A follow -up narrative on the school, course, transformative education and its application to
TRCA can be found in Attachment 1.
Report prepared by: Sarah Kear, extension 5234
For Information contact: Sarah Kear, extension 5234
Date: September 13, 2006
Attachments: 1
83
Attachment 1
Narrative Report on the Roots of Learning: Weaving an Ecological Culture in Education
course held at Schumacher College, England in April 2006
By: Sarah Kear, Manager, Education Curriculum
The College
Schumacher College is well known for being an educational institution based in systems
thinking, which is why it encourages 'making connections' between the disciplines in its
curricula. Renowned systems thinkers such as Fritjof Capra, author of Hidden Connections: A
Science for Sustainable Living, have taught at Schumacher. Schumacher College was founded
in 1991 on the conviction that a new vision is needed for society, its values and its relationship
to the earth. Over the last decade the college has become a centre of excellence with an
international reputation for the inspiration, quality and breadth of its teaching. The college
welcomes participants from all over the world.
Schumacher College tries to integrate the learning happening in the classroom with the daily
lives of the students in all it does. In this way, the curriculum is embodied in their 'hands and
hearts,' not only their heads. For example, class members are split up into teams. Every day
your team takes part in doing the laundry, cleaning, or cooking. In this way, students are not
just learning about sustainability through reading and lectures, but also practicing the
components of a sustainable community by collaboratively helping to maintain the basic
functions of the school (which also helps with economic sustainability), and to be in a more
holistic relationship with one another.
The place where I was most profoundly moved by this head -heart-hand synthesis was the
kitchen and pantry. The food we ate was the part of the curriculum that nourished our bodies
as well as our minds. It was the perfect medium for continued ecological learning. For
example, we were given a tour of the scullery and the kitchen, but when we arrived in the
pantry, Wayne, the kitchen manager told us that he didn't feel the need to go to morning
meditation - he could do it right where we were standing in the pantry. He saw the tetrapaks
and thought of the impacts they would have in the landfill and how he would like to find an
alternative; he saw the fair -trade coffee and smiled, the saw the quinoa and thought about the
struggle of the Bolivian farmers who grew it; and finally he saw the local apples and cheddar
and thought how great it was that he knew the farmers and their commitment to producing
without the pesticides and hormones that harm both humans and the earth. The diet at
Schumacher is vegetarian for two important reasons; to avoid the environmental impacts of a
meat diet, and to ensure that students are able to work in the kitchen, for if there was meat,
insurance and public health would not allow such a set -up to exist.
84
The Course
Schumacher College invites as guest teachers those working at the leading edge of their fields
who can offer inspiration to the students, and whose work is contributing to the creation of
sustainable ways of living. Our facilitator was Jane Reed, who is Head of the International
Network for School Improvement (INSI) at the Institute of Education at London University. She
is involved with a wide range of improvement and evaluation projects with schools and private
partners. Stephen Sterling, our primary lecturer, is an independent consultant in environmental
and sustainability education, with a national and international reputation as one of the leading
voices in education for sustainability. He is author of the Schumacher Briefing on Education,
and his most recent book is Sustainable Education - Re- visioning Learning and Change. Phil
Clarke, our guest speaker, teaches at Alphington School in Exeter, a pilot school for WWF
United Kingdom and Devon County Council on Learning for Sustainability. The school is
completely rewriting its curriculum with Sustainability and Global Education as the cornerstone
of what and how they teach.
The course took a connected approach in the classroom too. Our facilitator, Jane, deliberately
chose methodologies that would break down the dichotomy between Teachers and Learners,
(this was particularly important in a room full of educators) instead we were Learners passing
on our knowledge to other Learners. We discussed this as a class and made a conscious
decision to take our "teaching hat" off in order to avoid falling back into the role of "teacher as
the person who holds the knowledge and therefore has nothing to learn."
Big Ideas
Over the four days we began at a broad level, Persons and Planet, identifying and exploring the
issues. We then narrowed the focus moving from Education and Learning,to Our Workplace,
and finally on to focus on what we might do when we returned to work in What Next?
Transformative Education
There were many intriguing ideas and presentation methodologies used during the four days
of the course. One idea that seems to have particular relevance to TRCA Education, was that of
transformative education. I found our discussion on levels of learning and change (learning
being synonymous with change) quite enlightening because it broke the process down into
different orders - one not being better than the other, just different in the degree and depth of
change desired. Sometimes we can also mistake first order change for third order change -
this table helps us to identify the characteristics of each.
Levels of Learning and Change
1st Order:
Conformative
Being effective & efficient
"working in the woods with
the trees"
Doing things better
2nd Order:
Reformative
Examining assumptions
"working just outside the
woods"
Doing better things
3rd Order:
Transformative
Paradigm change
"working from helicopter
above the woods"
Doing different things
85
Please note that this is not a linear flow; once transformation happens, we cycle back to
conformity until the transformative process is initiated again. It is also important to note that "
conformative" learning and change does not have a negative connotation in this context.
At TRCA Education, we certainly use the language of Transformative Learning, but I wonder if
this is really the level we are operating at. We may be functioning there in some aspects of our
work while at a different level in others. We need an assessment process to help us figure out
where we are
Another related and important question to ask, since we are trying to make a shift towards
taking a systems approach to things is "If we are aiming to be a learning system, what are
some of the indicators of one ?" i.e. How do we recognize if we are on the right track or not?
A Learning System Is:
An organized and coherent group of people.. .
Collaborating purposefully together to achieve high quality transformations and transactions.
With a deep appreciation of their own integrity.. .
And a keen sense of emergence and acute consciousness of their shared processes, levels
and states of learning.. .
As they design and create new and responsible futures together.
This question is paralleled by another, "How do we get systemic rather than piecemeal
change ? ". First, we need to nurture and grow something called abductive reasoning in our
practice. This kind of reasoning sees patterns that connect. Additionally, Stephen Sterling
came up with a mnemonic to help answer this question by listing the characteristics of
systemic change with six adjectives starting with the letter "I ".
Invitational
"make this a party people want to come to"
Inclusive
Indicative
we need indicators of where to go, and where there are none we need
to be able to collaboratively ask "Where do you think this process
should go ?"
Inspirational
Integrative
connecting projects and programs so that they are part of a cohesive
body of work
Intelligent
maintain a systemic intelligence - abductive understanding - of what
is happening in the change process at policy and management levels
so that it may continue to be connective and collective.
Applications to the TRCA
On the TRCA's journey to transform education so that it may be transformative in practice,
policy, and management, we are at the stage where we now have to ask a simple question. "
What do we do now ?" I think that TRCA's 'Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The
Living City' and the Ontario EcoSchools Program are helping us to organize our Education
team into a Learning System, and that although they are at different stages of development and
implementation, they collectively make an excellent vehicle for transformation; however we
must not rest on them alone. We can use the following four questions to get us started in a
formal assessment of the past and visioning for the future.
86
1) What is of value that we need to keep?
2) What might need modification?
3) What might need abandoning?
4) What new ideas, principles, methodologies and or policies are needed?
From what I gathered from the feedback of the instructors and the other participants, there are
not too many organizations that have gone where the TRCA would like to go next, i.e
assessing the transitions we have made towards sustainability education. The work we do in
this area will be adding to the research in this emerging area of educational theory and
practice, and could be valuable to the United Nations Regional Centre of Excellence (RCE)
process here in Toronto. This is both a challenging and exciting place to be!
87
RES. #E30/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Update on the status of the Sustainable Schools program and approval
of contract for services to implement phases III and IV.
Pamela Gough
Glenn Mason
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to work with Enerlife
Consulting to raise funds and implement phases III and IV of the Sustainable Schools
program;
AND FURTHER THAT Enerlife Consulting be retained to complete project management
and implementation of phases III and IV of the Sustainable Schools program at a
multi -year cost not to exceed $412,500, plus applicable taxes, subject to available
funding.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Sustainable Schools is a program which identifies and evaluates best practices in green
design, commissioning, operations and helps school boards take action to improve the energy
and environmental performance of their new and recently -built schools.
At Authority Meeting #9/04, held on October 29, 2004, Resolution #A295/04 in regards to the
Sustainable Schools program was approved as follows:
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue to
work with Enerlife Consulting to develop new programs for the Living City, namely, Home
Energy Clinic, Green Community Design and Residential Housing, Sustainable
Communities Development and Sustainable Schools.
In phases I and II of the Sustainable Schools program, energy use was compared in 25
recently built schools (built since 2000) in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) with some from
across Canada. The results indicated that there is up to a four fold difference in energy use per
m2 in these facilities (Attachment 1). Given that the sample was of recently built schools with
large similarities in design and technology, it is believed that much of the difference in energy
use is related to building operations and occupant behaviour.
Based on the strength of the data compiled in phases I and II, funding commitments were
obtained from the Ontario Power Authority and Natural Resources Canada to undertake
phases III and IV.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To date staff have recruited four school boards to the program, the Dufferin Peel Catholic, Peel
Public, Simcoe County Public and York Region Public. Up to six additional school boards will
be accepted into phases of the program. It is anticipated that when completed, the program
will be expanded to any school board and will address their entire portfolio of schools.
The work planned with each school board includes:
88
• benchmarking and evaluation of actual energy and environmental performance for up to
ten recently -built schools;
• on -line system by which staff and students can develop quantitative evaluations of the
working and learning environment in each school;
• operations workshops for maintenance and caretaking staff to explore options and improve
performance in the subject schools;
• classroom action workshops for academic staff, information technology managers and
caretakers to develop guidelines and tools for staff and students;
• design /commissioning charettes for new schools to identify and adapt specific measures
for improving school performance;
• self- directed post- occupancy workshop for each new school with design team and school
staff;
• use of the Sustainable Schools website, on -line tools and utilities management system; and
• Sustainable Schools newsletters, awards and media releases.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Completion of Phase III will cost $361,200 and is anticipated to be completed by April of 2007.
Phase IV will cost $133,800 and will be completed by October of 2008. Funding commitments
have been received of just over $240,000 and staff are in the process of securing a
commitment of $75,000 from Natural Resources Canada. Work will only be undertaken where
sufficient funding commitments have been received.
Overview of revenue sources
FUNDING SOURCE
STATUS
AMOUNT ($)
Ontario Power Authority
Committed
100,000
Natural Resources Canada
Committed
6,900
Proposed
75,000
Participating School Boards
Committed
60,000
Additional School Boards (6)
Proposed
90,000
Utility Companies
Committed
80,000
Proposed
83,100
TOTALS
Committed
Proposed
246,900
248,100
TOTAL
495,000
89
Overview of projected expenditures
Program
Estimated
Program
Cost
Estimated Enerlife
Fees and
Disbursements
Estimated TRCA
Management and
Administration
Sustainable
Schools
$495,000
$412,500
82,500
Total
$495,000
$412,500
82,500
Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: September 28, 2006
Attachments: 1
Attachment 1
Raising p
Out Sponsors
1.1 W.r
c..r. c..r.
Energy= O Ontario
Stream #
.«a [4.MNIf11Mwaxnu
hydro e,‘
o
OPA
n Iariat „.,,e
Participatin
School Boarr
Dufferin -Pee! Catholic
District School Board
Pee! District School Board
Simcoe County
District School Board
York Region
District School Board
to,Coaaaro- novenf?o
for The ii.iag City
erformance of new school buildings
Over the past few years, considerable attention and resources have been applied across
Canada to upgrading the design of new school buildings. There are a growing number of LEED
registered schools in Canada, and a large proportion of federal Commercial Building Incentive
Program (CBIP) grants have been awarded to energy efficient schools.
Sustainable Schools is a program which identifies and evaluates best practices in green design,
commissioning and operations, and helps school boards take action to improve the energy and
environmental performance of their new and recently -built schools.
As well, Sustainable Schools helps governments and utility companies meet their energy effi-
ciency and environmental goals. They, in turn, provide funding to support design and operation
of energy efficient schools, while the benefits are shared by all.
Sustainable Schools
The program relies on three basic principles to achieve its goals:
Bencilm rkin g. correlation of actual school building performance and
capital costs with design and operational practices.
Action,: workshops and technical support to improve school design,
commissioning and operations.
Furxl nq & <esor ;ryes: facilitated access togovemmentand utility
company grants and incentive programs, and to green building
technical expertise.
wing Where You Stand
The energy and environmental
performance of a school is determined
by its design, operations, and the
actions of staff and students. By
adopting best practices in each of
these areas, every school board can
achieve its optimal level of energy and
environmental efficiency.
Benchmarking within and between
school boards helps identify existing
best practices. Ongoing performance
monitoring highlights successful
anions taken.
• Design
✓ Conslrudion
Corrmissialing
✓ Cgeraliahs
Winienance
GODOOl700
0t]cua 000
o a r lril o 0
✓ Aciians by slaff
& stjdenls
Energy and £naronmerfar Performance
Phase I -I1 of Sustainable Schools bepchmarked twenty-five recently-builtschools from across
Canada, and identified a surprisingly wide range of energy performance, with the high decile
using twice as much energy as the low decile. Two-thirds of the performance difference is
qualify of life on Earth is being determined in rapidly expanding city regions.
Our vision is fora new kind of community, The Living Cify, where human
settlement can flourish forever cs part of nafure's beauty and diversify.
91
SusfcirubJe Schools
helps school .bcards:
learn about best
design and operational
practices from across
Canada
benchmark perform-
ance of recently-built
schools
take action to improve
energy and environ-
mental performance
lower operating
Gusts, energy use
and greenhouse
gas emissions
comply with provincial
energy target and
reporting requirements
access government
and utility incentive
programs
demonstrate fiscal
and environmental
leadership
attributed to Gornrnissioning and operations,
rather than to design differences_
Sustainable Schools works individually
with each school board to benchmark its
recently -built schools, and to help evaluate
and adapt relevant best practices to its
o+nn, unique circumstances. Working with
a number of boards across the country
allows continuous improvement and
expansion of the knowledge base of new
schools' design and performance, which
is shared uvth all member school boards
and sponsors.
Meeting Energy Efficiency Goals
Energy efficiency is a major focus of Sustainable Schools. Enhanced school design and opera-
tions can significantly reduce operating and life -cycle costs while actually improving the learning
environment- a worthy area for attention_
The Government of Ontario has committed to lowering energy demand by 5% province -wide,
and by 10% within its own buildings, by 2007. Energy savings targets for publicly- funded build-
ings are likely to be included in upcoming energy conservation regulations.
The Government of Canada is in the process of developing its "made in Canada" solution to
address climate change. The government is committed to substantial, measurable reductions in
Greenhouse gas emissions, and improving energy efficiency is expected to figure prominently in
their strategy. The schools sector will be an important priority_
Sustainable Schools provides tools and resources to help school boards develop energy targets
and action plans, and track their actual savings. The program facilitates access to related
grants and incentives from governments and utility companies. Participation in the program also
demonstrates a pro-active response by school boards to provincial and federal energy goals.
Helping Make Improvements
Sustainable Schools provides the following services and resources to each member
school board:
benchmarking and evaluation of actual energy and environmental performance for up to
10 of its recently -bu ilt schools
on -line system by which staff and students can develop quantitative evaluations of the
working and learning environment in each school
operations workshops for maintenance and caretaking staff to explore options and improve
performance in the subject schools
classroom action workshops for academic staff, FT managers and caretakers to develop
guidelines and tools for staff and students
design /commissioning charettes for new schools to identify and adapt specific measures for
improving school performance
a self - directed post - occupancy workshop for each new school with design team and
school staff
use of the Sustainable Schools wwebsite, on -line tools and utilities management system
Sustainable Schools newsletters, awards and media releases
Join Sustainable Schools to save money, improve the environment, and help raise the
performance of new school buildings.
The tivirrg City proctrams are collaborative initiatives that bring businesses,
government, communities and other stakeh&Jders together to achieve significant,
measurable change in the susfainabiJify of city regions.
or more information
visit ww'
92
RES. #E31/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING STUDY FOR ORGANIC
PROCESSING FACILITIES
Preliminary Evaluation of Sites. Support of the preliminary stage in the
City of Toronto's site selection process for organic waste processing
facilities.
Suzan Hall
Pamela Gough
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Toronto's goal of
processing organic waste locally, whenever possible, be supported;
THAT the city's consideration of environmental, social and economic factors in its review
of possible processing facilities be recognized;
THAT the city be requested to develop a sustainability plan for the final alternative using
a triple bottom line approach;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff received the Planning Study for an
Expanded Public (Source Separated Organics) SSO Processing System Recommendations
Regarding Sites and Technologies. The study identified 10 possible locations for an organic
processing facility within TRCA's jurisdiction, seven of which were within the City of Toronto
and three of which are in the Regional Municipality of Durham. Because this is not waste
disposal, an environmental assessment (EA) is not required. This will be a facility that treats
organic materials from the greenbin process. Toronto staff are conducting the site selection
process in an open and publicly accountable manner which includes an evaluation of
environmental, societal and economic criteria. TRCA has had meetings and discussions with
Toronto staff, as well as staff of the Rouge Park Alliance, regarding the site selection process
and has provided copies of relevant background mapping. In addition, these discussions have
also included a commitment to address sustainability issues in the design of the facility,
including the development of a sustainability plan.
RATIONALE
At the request of city staff, TRCA reviewed each of the ten identified sites to identify preliminary
concerns. As well, TRCA has also identified sustainability issues that staff recommend be
addressed once the final site(s) is selected.
93
Site Level Evaluation
It is TRCA staff understanding that through a pre- screening process, city staff have reviewed
lands in Toronto's ownership and identified that there are ten potential sites for development, in
whole or in part, as an organic waste processing facility. Of the seven sites located within city
boundaries, none have the capacity to accommodate all stages of organic processing and the
final stages of composting and storage will need to be completed off site. The three sites in
Durham Region are all large enough to accommodate all stages of organic processing, or to
accommodate the composting and storage stages if a site(s) within the city's boundary is
selected for the tipping and initial processing stages. As such, staff understands that the three
sites in Durham Region must all be considered on the short-list as site selection proceeds to
the next stage of evaluation.
In staff's preliminary evaluation, concerns with five of the proposed sites were identified. These
include the North Toronto Treatment Plant, Beare Road Landfill and the three Durham sites
(Brock North, Brock South and Brock West). The results of this evaluation are outlined below.
The North Toronto Treatment Plant site is located in the flood plain of the Don River valley.
The development of a new industrial site in this area is contrary to the Provincial Flood Plain
Policy Statement, the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program and the TRCA
Don watershed strategy - 40 Steps to a New Don. As such, it is staffs opinion that this site is
inappropriate for development and that it should not proceed for further evaluation.
The Beare Road site is located within Rouge Park. The Rouge Park Alliance has expressed
concern (Resolution #39/06) with respect to the use of the Beare Road Landfill as it considers
organic processing activities, or other such industrial uses, as being incompatible with Rouge
Park for a number of reasons, including proximity to trails, unique natural open spaces and its
investment in ecological restoration in the vicinity of the landfill area. TRCA staff support this
concern.
The three Durham sites (Brock North, Brock South and Brock West) are all located beyond
the city's boundary and do not provide a local solution to solid waste management. However,
each site is large enough to host all stages of organic waste processing, including the
composting and storage stages which cannot be completed within any of the seven sites within
the city's boundaries. TRCA staff are aware that these sites will be recommended for further
consideration. TRCA staff has identified to the city that each of the three Durham sites have
natural environment issues that will need to be reviewed in greater detail at the next stage of
the study. These include issues associated with natural heritage and valleyland protection. In
addition, there are legal agreements in place between the City of Toronto and the local
municipalities in Durham Region that speak to post landfill closure uses of the sites. TRCA is
named in the agreements but is not a party to them. These agreements will need to be
reviewed in detail at the next stage of the site selection process.
94
The five remaining sites are : Ingram Transfer Station, 3301 Markham Road, Dufferin Waste
Management Facility, Disco Road Transfer Station and Morningside Landfill Site. Each of
these sites are located on tableland although some of these sites are located adjacent to a
valley corridors and forest areas. However, staff are confident that as the site selection process
proceeds these issues can be confirmed through site inspections, and that appropriate
setbacks will be determined so that the sites can be further evaluated during the next stage of
this study. As such, staff have recommended that the city focus efforts on selecting the
preferred site or sites from five of the ten short listed sites: Ingram Transfer Station, 3301
Markham Road, Dufferin Waste Management Facility, Disco Road Transfer Station and
Morningside Landfill Site, recognizing that the Durham Region sites will also need to be
considered due to size requirements for the composting and storage stages of organic waste
processing.
Sustainabiiity Considerations
The local processing of the city's organic waste supports the Toronto and TRCA's
sustainability initiatives. There are opportunities for improving the triple bottom line at the
watershed level and the site level. The triple bottom line is an approach that moves away from
the philosophy that to achieve sustainability, environment, society and economy must be
balanced. Rather, using the triple bottom line approach, sustainability is achieved when net
gains to each of the environment, society and economy factors of the sustainability model are
achieved. These gains can be at both the watershed level (e.g., the diversion of waste from
landfill and creation of compost) and the site level (e.g., designing the facility using LEED
building design principles, and incorporate state of the art stormwater management and
comprehensive tree plantings). In both examples, improvements to the triple bottom line can
be achieved in each of environment, society and economy, although the improvements would
not likely be equal nor would they be balanced.
Through developing a sustainability plan using a triple bottom line approach, the city will be
able to show how net gains will be achieved at the watershed and site levels. As this project
moves through the site selection and detailed design stages, there are a number of concerns
which would need to be addressed from a sustainability perspective such as: is biogas
recovery incorporated into the process? Will mechanisms for processing the organic waste
have the least odour and air emissions? Will mechanisms for processing the organic waste
have the greatest potential to produce energy to either self- sustain the facility or to add into the
grid? Will the facility be designed, developed and operated in such a way that a net
environmental gain is achieved? The next stage of the study should be developed to address
these concerns through the development of a site specific sustainability plan. The more
traditional environmental considerations that are specific to TRCA policy, such as
improvements to the natural heritage and integration of state of the art stormwater
management must also be considered in the sustainability plan.
The sustainability plan should include as many Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) credit features as feasible, thus achieving environmental and socio- economic
gains through eco- efficiency. The design should include mechanisms for water conservation,
energy conservation, waste management and indoor environmental quality, such as:
95
A. Sustainable Community Design (e.g. developing a program to capture and use
the heat lost in the surrounding industrial community);
B. Sustainable Technologies, (e.g. improvements to the plant operation to ensure
the most innovative technologies for water and energy conservation are used);
C. Pollution prevention (e.g. plant maintenance and operating procedures, as is
advocated through programs such as ISO 14001);
D. Sustainable design for the preferred site (e.g. recycled materials, disposal,
division, reduction, rapidly renewable materials, and locally manufactured
materials; as well as dust, odour, particulate matter, lighting, daylight and views,
and volatile organic chemicals); and,
E. LEED or alternative eco- efficiency programs for the long term operation of the
project so as to achieve an environmental and socio- economic gain.
TRCA staff have offered to make a presentation to representatives of the city in regard to the
LEED building standards with regards to this project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will work with the city to provide technical input to the selection of the preferred site(s) and
to develop the sustainability plan for the preferred site.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: October 3, 2006
RES. #E32/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TORONTO GREEN BUILDING FESTIVAL
The Toronto Green Building Alliance (GBA) is hosting the second annual
Toronto Green Building Festival on October 31 - November 1, 2006. The
conference will demonstrate how integration between stakeholders
delivers outstanding green buildings and communities.
Pamela Gough
Linda Pabst
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the regions and municipalities in
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction be requested to support the
initiatives of the Toronto Green Building Festival by encouraging staff attendance and
promoting the event to associates.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is a founding member of the Toronto
Green Building Alliance (GBA) in association with Sustainable Buildings Canada, Canada
Green Building Council - Toronto and the Canadian Urban Institute. The Toronto Regional
Green Building Festival is the primary initiative of the GBA. The aim of the festival is to inform
sector leaders about new green building and sustainable community initiatives within our
jurisdictions and across Canada.
96
The second annual Toronto Regional Green Building Festival will take place on October 31st
and November 1st, 2006 at the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, 250 Front Street West, Toronto
with breakout sessions across the street at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, 255 Front
Street West.
Last year's conference looked at the roadblocks to sustainable development in the region and
what changes were necessary to overcome these obstacles. David Clark, Town Architect of
Markham, gave an inspiring overview of Markham's sustainability initiatives.
The theme of this year's conference is Transformation via Integration. The purpose is to
illustrate how integrated processes in planning, design, development and financing have
delivered superior buildings and communities. Case studies from the region and beyond will
show how economic, environmental and social benefits accrue from sustainable development.
Of the 2006 conference topics, those of interest to municipalities will be:
• The launch of the Green Municipal Toolkit. Developed by the Canada Green Building
Council in partnership with TRCA, it is designed to help municipalities establish and
implement sustainable building policies and programs to green their own buildings and
those developed by the private sector.
• Current examples of sustainable planning including:
• Toronto's waterfront;
• City of Vaughan Block 39 project;
• Pickering's new community planning;
• Toronto Community Housing Corporation's Railway Lands project; and
• Canada Land Corporation's Rockcliffe Landing development in Ottawa.
• TRCA's The Living City Campus will be showcased in a breakout session.
• The TRCA Archetype Sustainable House Project will be presented and the 7 winning
designs will be on display.
Report prepared by: Melissa Ferrato, extension 5569
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: May 16, 2006
RES. #E33/06 - GTA AGRICULTURAL ACTION PLAN
Implementation Arrangements
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Glenn Mason
THAT staff report to Authority Meeting #8/06, to be held on October 27, 2006, on the GTA
Agricultural Action Plan.
CARRIED
97
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E34/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BOYD ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SCHOOL
High School Course Award. The Boyd Archaeological Field School is the
2005 recipient of the Peggi Armstrong Public Archaeology Award,
administered by the Ottawa Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological
Society.
Suzan Hall
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report on the Boyd Archaeological Field School be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the Ottawa Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society (OAS) celebrated its 25th
anniversary by launching a new Public Archaeology award to show its commitment to greater
public awareness of archaeology. The award was named the "Peggi Armstrong Public
Archaeology Award" (PAPA) in remembrance of Peggi Armstrong (1957- 1997), a long- standing
member of the OAS and the Ottawa Chapter. Ms. Armstrong was a driving force behind the
development of a public archaeology component of the chapters' activities. The Ottawa
Chapter is aware that many OAS members, institutions and organizations work diligently
towards the preservation and advancement of archaeology through activities, programmes and
formal educational studies. The recognition of these contributions through the official award
process of the OAS is now possible with the PAPA Award.
The Boyd Archaeological Field School is receiving the 2005 PAPA Award for excellence in
presentation of archaeology to the people of Ontario, based upon the following criteria:
• Scope of the audience:
Through the Boyd Archaeological Field School, more than 1,000 high school students
at the Grade 12 level have been given an introductory hands -on experience for
academic credit over a period of 30 years, from 1975 -2005. Students have attended
from across Canada (Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia) and around
the world (Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Nicaragua, Poland,
South Africa, Taiwan and the United States).
• Innovation in the design and delivery:
The first school was run by the Royal Ontario Museum, which has maintained a
continuing involvement, although the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) has become the major sponsor, in collaboration with the York Region District
School Board (YRDSB) and the Rouge Park Alliance. The teaching innovations include
a combination of excavations, classes and hands -on activities through which students
learn excavation techniques, methods of analysis, archaeological theory, cultural history
and ethics. This approach has subsequently been followed by other archaeological
field schools.
98
• Development of enduring public archaeology resource materials:
The teaching curriculum that has been developed for the three week course, The
Archaeology and Prehistory of Southern Ontario, is available as a model for other
archaeological teaching projects, present and future. It includes an introduction to
archaeological theory, archaeological excavation fieldwork, analysis of artifacts, study
of pre- and post- contact native cultures and historic period settlers, experience in native
uses of the environment, flint - knapping and other lost arts. The most enduring impact
of the programme is through its alumni, many of whom have gone on to pursue
archaeology at the university level and found jobs in the discipline or in related
disciplines. For instance, four students from the 1981 class alone have gone on to get
PhDs. Cathy Crinnion, TRCA's Archaeologist, was a student in the 1991 class.
• Scope of events, partnerships or sponsorships brought together to promote public
archaeology:
The sites for the course, including the 16th century Seed - Barker Iroquoian village near
the Humber River, and campsites and historic period sites near the Rouge River, are on
lands owned by TRCA. The Boyd Office (formerly Boyd Field Centre), and Lake St.
George and Claremont field centres have been home to the residential programme,
also operated by TRCA. To sustain the school for the period of 30 years has required
commitment from TRCA and the co- sponsors, the ROM, the YRDSB and the Rouge
Park Alliance. Institutional success can only be accomplished through individuals, in
this case dedicated professional field archaeologists with the ability to teach. Brian
Snow, David Johnson, Mima Kapches, Bob Burgar and Cathy Crinnion have all
participated in this capacity. In 2004, Bob Burgar was recognized as a finalist for the
Governor General's Award for Excellence in Teaching Canadian History.
It is becoming more evident that Ontario universities are focussing archaeological training of
their students in exotic locales. This is very problematic, since increasing urbanization in
southern Ontario has rapidly increased the need for trained archaeologists who are able to
conduct fieldwork ahead of development and interpret archaeological information specific to
Ontario's past peoples. The Boyd Archaeological Field School remains one of a decreasingly
small number of programmes which provides appropriate training for the archaeologists of the
future. Plans for the school are to continue to offer the course on an annual basis subject to
funding and to strive to attract students of First Nations ancestry.
The presentation for the PAPA Award for the Boyd Archaeological Field School is scheduled to
take place on Friday, October 27 at 2 p.m. at the Boyd Office. All members of the Authority are
invited to attend, and the media will be invited to attend as well.
Report prepared by: Cathy Crinnion, extension 5270
For Information contact: Cathy Crinnion, extension 5270
Date: October 3, 2006
99
RES. #E35/06 - TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION
2006 Highlights and 2007 Activities. A report highlighting the
accomplishments and future activities of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority education initiatives in sustainability.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Pamela Gough
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report highlighting the accomplishments and future
activities of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) education initiatives in
sustainability be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA education is a network of centres and programs whose commitment to excellence in
education has spanned 50 years. Included under this umbrella are the formal and non - formal
programs offered through Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV), the Kortright Centre for
Conservation, the three residential field centres (Albion Hills, Lake St. George and Claremont),
the Watershed on Wheels outreach program, the Investigating The Living City Spaces
programs, and the seasonal /new educational initiatives offered in the TRCA parks. The
education programs are designed to connect learners to their environment through fun and
meaningful, hands -on exploration of local systems and sustainable technologies.
In 2005, the Authority approved the adoption of a TRCA education curriculum entitled A
Systems Thinking Guide to Learning in The Living City. This curriculum set out the future
concepts and directions for the re- orientation of TRCA environmental education towards
sustainability education. Rooted within are five goals, as follows:
TRCA Education for Sustainabilitv Goals
Based on A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The Living City, learning should be:
• Locally Based or 'Grassroots' : designed for or by a particular population which values their
specific geographical, socio- cultural, economic and physical needs;
• Relevant to Learners: personal meaning is powerful. For example, learning is much more
likely to endure when students clean up a ravine they play in, rather than watch a video of a
similar clean -up in a place they will never visit;
• Experiential: when engaged in learning programs, people retain about 10 per cent of what
they read, 20 per cent of what they hear, 50 per cent of what they hear and see, 70 per cent
of what they say (in presentations or answering questions etc.) and 90 per cent of what
they do themselves;
• Life -Long: the joy of learning doesn't end with graduation, but continues throughout a
person's personal and professional life; and
• Systems Thinking: is one important tool that can help learners and teachers simplify the
relational and interconnected issues of our times, and thereby help them to identify
effective, realistic and sustainable solutions.
100
TRCA education staff strive to embrace these goals, which in turn create a ripple effect in our
practice as educators and learners. This report has been prepared to highlight the educational
leadership projects and initiatives completed and /or underway in 2006 and those being
explored for 2007 that are charting the way to a more sustainable future.
RATIONALE
The following highlights the collective and program - specific efforts and accomplishments of the
TRCA education teams.
2006 TRCA Education Highlights
1. Following the approval of A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Living in The Living City, TRCA
education staff from all program and department areas participated in a professional
development course. The course was designed and implemented to achieve the following
learning outcomes:
• To understand the purpose of reorienting TRCA education products to a more
disciplined approach to teaching systems thinking and how it is related to sustainability
• To understand the use, process and application of the general systems benchmarks
and The Living City benchmarks in learning activities and programs.
• To build the skills to use and integrate systems thinking tools into activities and
programs.
• To develop new and redevelop older activities and programs into a collaborative
portfolio of Systems Thinking lessons.
• To build professional relationships and shared ideas among education colleagues from
different facilities.
The course was exceptionally well attended and received. It generated understanding and
collaboration within and across the various programs and departments. Application of the
knowledge and skills developed to date is being reflected in the cross - section of activities
in which staff is engaged.
2. After a year of planning and preparation, TRCA education will have a new web presence on
the TRCA web site. Efforts began in late 2005 to create a more streamlined and user
friendly site that is better able to cater to the needs of visitors. The redesigned site has a
number of new features: an e- planning form that will make booking visits simpler; a
searchable database of all available education programs; and, an education resources
section for teachers and students. The new site will also house more print material in digital
format to cut down on the amount of paper flyers, brochures and planning documents that
are mailed out each year. The new site will be live in November 2006.
3. The Gold and Silver EcoSchools Certifications of the five TRCA education facilities is
another important team initiative that recognizes the significant accomplishments achieved
to date in operations and teaching and sets both the framework and goals for continued
improvements.
101
2006 Education Highlights at the Field Centres
1. 2006 was a year of continued revitalization of facilities through public use capital funding
and operating funds to ensure client satisfaction and expectations were met. Work in 2006
includes renovation of teachers' residence washrooms at Lake St. George and Albion Hills
field centres and replacement of old windows with high efficiency windows at Claremont
Field Centre.
2. A one day Global Positioning System (GPS) course was developed for school groups and
as a professional development opportunity for teachers and other practitioners. This
continues to position the field centres at the leading edge of environmental and ecological
literacy programs by adding current technology and practices to existing programs. Three
Lake St. George staff attended a two day training session at the Canadian Ecology Centre
in Mattawa to become certified Green Check GPS instructors.
2006 Education Highlights at Black Creek Pioneer Village
1. 2006 saw the launching of a new education program entitled 'Life in a New Land.' This
deals with 19th century immigrants to Canada, why they came, what challenges they faced
and how they cooperated to survive. Comparisons and contrasts are also made with what
new immigrants face today.
2. Black Creek Pioneer Village began to incorporate the new TRCA systems thinking
curriculum into its education programs. This will promote yet another enlightening learning
experience for students and reinforce their knowledge about environmental responsibility
and sustainable development.
3. BCPV fully embraced the Ontario EcoSchools program. A concerted effort was made in
the areas of waste reduction, recycling, energy conservation and greening habitat. A good
start was made with staff and schools in communicating that we can all make a difference
in caring for the environment through the Iitterless lunch flyer and staff reinforcement.
2006 Education Highlights at Kortright Centre for Conservation
1. In 2006 the Kortright Centre for Conservation became 'Bullfrog Powered' (100% powered by
green energy). This initiative was one of many that allowed the centre to achieve
EcoSchools Gold Certification.
2. Ducks Unlimited, one of TRCA's partners, sponsored 110 classes to participate in a
Wetland Study program at the Kortright Centre for Conservation in the spring. For many of
these children the program was the first time they had ever visited a natural wetland. Many
were amazed at what they saw and learned. Ducks Unlimited support also allowed TRCA
to enhance the infrastructure at the Kortright marsh.
3. In 2006, the Kortright Centre for Conservation launched the first integrated high school
program through a partnership with Earth Rangers. The program introduces the students to
the concepts of sustainability and ecological footprint by visiting both the Earth Rangers
building and the Kortright energy trail.
4. The Kortright Centre for Conservation was an integral partner in creating a sustainable
centres demonstration network across Canada. via ecosites.ca, a web based network that
links public and sustainable sites.
102
2006 Education Highlights in Outreach Education
1. Watershed On Wheels developed and delivered a very successful program at the
stewardship forum called 'the well -being walk.' This program showed participants how we
can learn to lower our stress levels and improve our overall health by experiencing and
learning from nature .
2. Watershed On Wheels continued to deliver guided field trip programs to schools promoting
sustainability and responsibility in locations such as the Oak Ridges Moraine and the City
of Toronto, highlighting TRCA sites, initiatives and events as well as ecological and
environmental importance and history of the areas.
3. The Aquatic Plants Program completed a record year with over 48 planting events within a
six week period. The aquatic plants team engaged 3,083 students and community group
members to restore and learn about 13 local wetlands across TRCA's jurisdiction.
4. The Yellow Fish Road Program introduced a new interactive non -point source pollution
model showing the effects of agriculture, industry and urban impacts on watersheds. This
effective visual demonstration is used to show participants of the program some of the
more common causes of non -point source pollution.
2006 Education Highlights under Investigating The Living City Spaces Program
1. A successful spring program entitled 'Winged Migration' was delivered at Tommy
Thompson Park under the sponsorship of the Imperial Oil Foundation. This program
provides additional educational opportunities to economically less fortunate schools within
the Toronto and Toronto Catholic district school boards, and involves them with the
scientific and restoration work of TRCA's Restoration Services division. Plans to continue
with the program in 2007 and 2008 are underway.
2006 Education Highlights at TRCA Parks
1. The development of a new education program at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area (CA),
'Knowing Nature, Staying Safer,' is underway. Focused around personal and ecological
safety while participating in activities in the natural environment, this program complements
the existing safety education being provided by the Community Safety Village of York
Region located at Bruce's Mill CA. This program provides additional educational
opportunities to schools and day camps visiting the Safety Village and Bruce's Mill CA.
2. TRCA parks once again hosted, and participated in, the Peel and York children's water
festivals at Heart Lake and Bruce's Mill CAs respectively. Collectively, 6,000 students
experienced education in these outdoor classrooms, building their knowledge and skills
about our regional water resources.
3. The Claireville Conservation Area hosted the Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario
(COED) annual conference this fall, in partnership with the Humber Arboretum and Guelph
University at Humber College. Its theme was urban diversity allowing TRCA staff and
others to showcase existing programs and opportunities for environmental education in
urban communities.
2007 Activities
In 2007 this important work in sustainability education will continue through the pursuit of the
following:
• Developing more dynamic and engaging resources for on -line visitors, such as interactive
maps of the watersheds and Tommy Thompson Park.
103
• Participating in the United Nations Decade (2005 -2015) of Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) initiative through the Toronto Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE).
Staff will share their expertise in ESD, as well as contribute to the Governance and
Outreach committees on an ongoing basis over the life of the program.
• Implementing and evaluating the PowerStream Energy Education Pilot Project in
collaboration with Ontario EcoSchools, the York Region and York Catholic district school
boards, York Region Health Services and the Clean Air Partnership.
• Expanding educational program opportunities for secondary students and adults.
• Exploring a redevelopment strategy for the Lake St. George Field Centre, including the
retrofit or rebuild of existing facilities to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) standards and provision of technology - enabled learning through broadband
networking to connect the field centre with advanced broadband - enabled schools within
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and province.
• Continuing to expand professional and skill development opportunities for TRCA education
staff.
• Introducing two new programs at the Kortright Centre for Conservation: a team building
and leadership development program and a GPS / Geocaching program. Both programs
will be geared towards secondary school students to maintain relevancy and meet
education needs.
• Expanding Black Creek Pioneer Village's work in environmental citizenship and
communicating environmental messaging to all schools and visitors. The EcoSchools
movement has helped us to plan how to go about this.
• Investigating, through proposals that are underway, the possibility of Black Creek Pioneer
Village becoming the 'Gateway to the Greenbelt' with the Greenbelt Foundation. This would
put the village in a unique position for promoting the sustainable use of the province's
farmlands and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Building a sense of place by linking schools to their watershed addresses and using this,
along with EcoSchools certification, as a basis for watershed reporting in ecological literacy
and achievement.
Report prepared by: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
For Information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
Date: September 13, 2006
RES. #E36/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
KNOWING NATURE, STAYING SAFER PROGRAM
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Education and Conservation
Parks Initiative. Introduction of the Knowing Nature, Staying Safer
education program at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area, a new initiative to
introduce relevant, creative learning programs into the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) parks system.
Pamela Gough
Glenn Mason
104
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Knowing Nature, Staying Safer
education program at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Knowing Nature, Staying Safer is a self - guided, interactive education activity developed for
Bruce's Mill Conservation Area (CA), focused on themes of safety in the natural environment. It
is a new initiative of TRCA education and conservation parks groups to introduce relevant,
creative learning programs into the parks system.
Educational opportunities at Bruce's Mill CA are currently provided during a number of festivals
throughout the spring and summer, and year -round at the Community Safety Village of York
Region, located on -site. The Knowing Nature, Staying Safer program has been designed to
complement and expand on existing education programs and provide additional learning
opportunities for visiting classes and groups.
While there has a been a significant amount of focus on educating young students and adults
on being street and community safe, little has been done to ensure that people participating in
outdoor activities close to home or in the wilderness are equipped with the appropriate skills to
enjoy their excursion while taking the precautions necessary to be safe and secure. This
program provides some of the tools needed for students and adults to recognize the potential
hazards of weather, wildlife, water (in particular flooding) and woodlands.
Program Description
Knowing Nature, Staying Safer is a fun and interactive program designed to educate students,
children and adults on being safe while exploring and enjoying the out -of- doors. It uses
interpretive signage and a guidebook with information and activities as resources. Program
activities are centered around four key discovery areas: Being Water Wise, Being Weather
Wise, Being Woodland Wise and Being Wildlife Wise. The information and activities developed
on these four themes provide safety tips (including information on being prepared while
enjoying the out -of- doors), encourage physical fitness and sensory exploration, and challenge
the imagination.
The school /camp program consists of a comprehensive activity guide provided to group
leaders at the time of trip booking and is designed to complement the four discovery areas in
the park, complete with interpretive sign panels, program backpacks with safety equipment
and teaching aids. The public program consists of an easy to use trail guide with safety tips,
educational information and a detailed map and materials relating to the interpretive panels at
the learning areas.
Current Status
This past summer, a selected cross - section of the Knowing Nature, Staying Safer program was
piloted with summer camps at Bruce's Mill CA and was well received. The full program is
nearing completion and will be offered through Bruce's Mills CA within the 2006/2007 school
year.
105
RATIONALE
TRCA is committed to the safety of its' visitors and understands that on any excursion into the
natural environment there are associated and inherent risk factors. This program takes steps
towards ensuring that participants are able to recognize and respond to these risks. By adding
both a school /camp program and a public program focused on safety in nature to current
education opportunities at Bruce's Mill CA, TRCA will ensure that objectives around visitor
safety are met and the reach of TRCA education programs in the conservation parks system
will be expanded.
A key component of the Knowing Nature, Staying Safer program supports TRCA's mandate of
natural protection, ensuring public safety in nature (particularly around valleys and streams by
providing specific messaging) in an engaging and enjoyable fashion.
With an annual attendance of more than 35,000 visitors, many of whom are school, Scout,
Guide and day camp groups, and with the on -site Safety Village, Bruce's Mill CA is ideally
positioned to offer this additional education programming. Both the school and public
components of this project will serve to expand the general reach of TRCA's education
programs, supporting our vision of learning for a sustainable future.
This program has easily transferable components that can be adapted to suit education
initiatives and opportunities at other TRCA conservation areas. Staff are exploring this
potential.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Development of the Knowing Nature, Staying Safer program is supported in part through the
York Children's Water Festival and a donation from TD Friends of the Environment Foundation
program. User fees collected as part of this program will be used to support ongoing
operations at Bruce's Mill CA.
Staff continue to seek supporting project funding to further develop and expand educational
park initiatives.
Report prepared by: Darryl Gray, 416 - 791 -0327
For Information contact: Darryl Gray, 416- 791 -0327
Date: September 28, 2006
RES. #E37/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
BUILDING CODE ENERGY STANDARDS
Recommended Changes. Recommendations by the Chief Energy
Conservation Officer on the Ontario Building Code that are aimed at
lessening the electrical load of the province.
Dick O'Brien
David Gurin
106
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the review of the report on The Power of Building Better:
Increasing the Energy Efficiency Requirements of the Ontario Building Code to Create a
Culture of Conservation, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) has proposed changes to the Ontario
Building Code (OBC) in an effort to improve the energy efficiency of houses built in Ontario
Advancements in materials, products and construction practices allow builders to improve the
quality of their products and the OBC is in place to ensure these advancements are adopted
where possible throughout the province. The Chief Energy Conservation Officer for the Ontario
Power Authority (OPA) has reservations that the proposed changes offered by MMAH will not
properly address the energy demands of a growing Ontario population.
In the document entitled The Power of Building Better: Increasing the Energy Efficiency
Requirements of the Ontario Building Code to Create a Culture of Conservation, the Chief
Energy Conservation Officer for the OPA responds to MMAH's proposed changes to the OBC
and sets out a series of recommendations that are aimed at lessening the electrical load of
Ontario. These recommendations have the added effect of saving homeowners money,
reducing infrastructure development costs and lessening the environmental impact from new
housing. The OPA report effectively outlines concerns to the proposed changes and has been
used as the summary framework for this staff report to the Sustainable Communities Board.
In addition, Summerhill Group was engaged by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff to assist in the review of the proposed changes to the OBC. Summerhill Group
has a strong background in the low -rise housing sector (running EnerQuality Corporation from
1998 to 2005) and a new affiliation to TRCA established through the Archetype Sustainable
House project. Summerhill Group is well placed to comment on the MMAH proposed changes
to the Ontario Building Code as EnerQuality was the corporation responsible for administering
all the federal housing programs in Ontario (R -2000, EnerGuide for New Houses, Building
Canada and ENERGY STAR for New Homes).
RATIONALE
MMAH issued a consultation paper to explore increasing the energy efficiency of the OBC. The
OBC is divided into 4 key areas:
• Area 1) Building better Homes
• Area 2) Commercial and Industrial Analysis
• Area 3) Labeling
• Area 4) Green Technology
In response to this call for submissions, OPA made 5 key recommendations (in italics below).
Each area of the OBC received one key comment from OPA with the final 5th comment as a
general initiative to be adopted. Following each recommendation in the report are a number of
comments combining the knowledge of both Summerhill Group and TRCA.
OBC Area 1) Building better Homes
1. All new homes (Part 9) built under the Ontario Building Code shall meet or exceed 80 on
the EnerGuide for Houses scale for energy efficiency.
107
a. All new homes shall be built with high efficiency heating and cooling systems,
and programmable thermostats.
b. All new windows shall have an energy rating of at least -10 Efficiency Rating (ER).
c. All cooling systems shall at least meet the Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) 11.5
standard.
MMAH is recommending that houses be built to EnerGuide ratings ranging from 71 to 76.
EnerGuide numbers involve a software analysis of homes at the drawing stage and a final air
tightness test at the as -built stage to achieve a rating, but a number can be generated from
drawings alone for sales purposes. This is the method that the report has taken, which
involves two assumptions:
• An average air tightness level is assumed.
• A hypothetical typical house is used to avoid having to model every home individually.
The result is not a rating system or the requirement to have each house perform at the same
level, but a set of required standards that get to an EnerGuide 80 level on the hypothetical
typical house when modeled at the assumed air tightness rating. This is common practice and
underlies the thinking behind several other programs such as ENERGY STAR for New Houses.
If this method was not taken, then larger homes with walk -out basements and many windows
would be quite difficult to meet the EnerGuide 80 level and conversely, middle unit row houses
would be able to meet it quite easily.
OBC Area 2) Commercial and Industrial Analysis
2. All other non - residential new buildings (Part 2) not covered by Part 9 shall be built to a
standard of 25% better than the Model National Energy Code for Buildings.
a. Ontario should work with the Federal Government to update the Model National
Energy Code for Buildings in an expeditious manner.
This recommendation concerns Part 2 (building over 4 stories or 60,000 sq ft.) of the OBC. It is
to be noted that the goal of 25% above the Model National Energy Code is substantial and
significant. The additional upfront cost (versus longer term savings) is currently a difficult
message to pass on to consumers, but there is a movement to develop an ENERGY STAR for
Hi -Rise label that will work with the Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP), Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and Green Globes labels to make the case more
compelling.
OBC Area 3) Labeling
3. A labelling system for all buildings that is based on existing Natural Resources Canada
systems should be adopted in the Energy Conservation Responsibility Act, 2006, and
phased -in over time.
108
This recommendation asserts that requiring home labeling in the code is not going to be as
effective and have as much consumer resonance as requiring, in the Energy Conservation Act,
the use of an existing program like EnerGuide for Houses. It is a difficult recommendation to
assess, given that the EnerGuide program is under review by the federal government and will
at least change, if not disappear. The logic is clear: utilize existing, recognized consumer
brands to maximize benefits and minimize cost. The cost of creating and promoting a
consumer brand is enormous, and EnerGuide is well recognized. ENERGY STAR is the only
home label with more consumer recognition but it does a very different job than EnerGuide.
EnerGuide is a rating program that allows consumers to compare competing products on the
basis of their energy efficiency. As a builder or homeowner you cannot fail to get an EnerGuide
rating. ENERGY STAR is the opposite; it is a leadership recognition program that only labels
the best -in -class homes. A builder can fail to meet this standard and not get his /her home
labeled. This is the sign of quality assurance and the strength of the brand. There is strong
opposition to entrenching energy levels in the code, and the Chief Energy Conservation Officer
is recommending a route external to that process, so as to not lose the opportunity to measure
homes altogether.
OBC Area 4) Green Technology
4. The green technologies listed in the consultation document should be included in the
Ontario Building Code.
a. A process should be established to ensure that the Code facilitates the adoption
of viable green technologies.
The intent of having the code keep up with emerging green technologies would remove some
of the barriers these technologies face in approval processes, resale of buildings and with
insurance providers.
OPA General Initiative
5. Energy efficiency should be actively encouraged .through amendments to the Code and
education of the market.
This recommendation deals specifically with opportunities to improve energy efficiency in Part
11 of the Ontario Building Code, where renovation work is addressed. Here the key is the sheer
volume of housing that is affected; even small energy savings can become significant at this
scale. The recommendation correctly notes the difficulty of enforcing higher standards for
renovations and shifts the focus from enforcement to education.
Additional Recommendations for Codifying Improvements from the Chief Energy
Conservation Officer for the Ontario Power Authority.
Municipal leaders may wish to try to support on a local level the following topics:
• pool timers;
• standards regarding light intensity;
• motion sensors for garage and porch lighting, as well as emergency lighting;
• bathroom fans that are energy efficient and have timers;
109
• block heater timers;
• visible metering electricity consumption;
• high efficiency ventilation recovery systems
• electronically- commutated motors; and
• installation of natural gas lines, along with 220 -volt outlets, for residential ranges and
clothes dryers, for houses serviced by natural gas.
OPA would like to see the OBC require greater energy efficiency in Ontario for all building
types above what MMAH is recommending. The 5 key recommendations would address this
issue and OPA is currently working with MMAH to finalize requirements. Factors to be
considered in this process include.
1) The price increase for building more energy efficient homes /buildings.
2) Education of the building community.
3) Determining a reasonable time frame for "phasing in" specific requirements.
Housing is always a local issue. Housing codes may be the purview of the province, but
community standards cannot be legislated The significant leadership of local governments
including, but not limited to, East Gwillimbury, Pickering, Oakville, King and Vaughan have
been applauded. Local governments can be decisive in their presence or absence in shaping
housing developments. That said, it is in fact consumers who can most affect change in the
building industry; so can municipalities by working with consumers to entrench the value of
building better, more efficient homes
Of the five recommendations outlined above, it is the first and second that will have the most
significant and organized opposition from homebuilders associations. As housing prices and
starts begin to moderate, builders will be looking for a competitive edge and will try leadership
programs like ENERGY STAR, while at the same time resisting its codification. Whether it is
through code change or voluntary labeling, local leaders should be pushing the energy
efficiency message and demanding better built homes in their area.
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: June 22, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11.45 a.m., on Friday, October 13, 2006.
Michael Di Blase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
110
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #4/06
December 1, 2006
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #4106, was held in the Humber Room, Head
Office, on Friday, December 1, 2006 The Chair Michael Di Biase , called the meeting to
order at 11:07 a.m.
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
David Gurin Member
Norm Kelly Member
Glenn Mason Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Linda Pabst Member
ABSENT
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Pamela Gough Member
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Colleen Jordan Member
John Sprovieri Member
Michael Thompson Member
RES. #E38/06 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Norm Kelly
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/06, held on October 13, 2006, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Sean Mason, Vice President, Mason Homes, in regards building a
LEED for Homes Canada case study.
111
(b) A presentation by Deborah Martin - Downs, Director, Ecology, TRCA, in regards to item
7.1 - Municipal Green Building Tool Kit.
RES. #E39 /06 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Glenn Mason
THAT above -noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E40 /06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
MUNICIPAL GREEN BUILDING TOOL KIT
A Product to Assist Municipalities with Green Building Development and
Implementation. On December 1st 2006, the Municipal Green Building
Tool Kit will be available for purchase and distribution from the Canada
Green Building Council.
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Linda Pabst
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with the Canada Green Building Council
(CaGBC) and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to promote the purchase and
application of the Municipal Green Building Tool Kit;
THAT municipal leaders work with the CaGBC Greater Toronto Chapter and CaGBC
National Office to facilitate the application of green building standards and protocols as
outlined in the Municipal Green Building Tool Kit for new and existing buildings on both
private and public sector lands;
AND FURTHER THAT all municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction be requested to encourage
public sector staff to participate in Municipal Green Building Tool Kit workshops and
information sessions under development for 2007/8.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At the Authority Meeting #10/05, held on January 6, 2006, Resolution #A292/05 "was approved
as follows:
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with
the Canada Green Building Council ( CaGBC) in developing the Municipal Tool Kit
based on the successful American product created by the US Green Building Council
(USGBC);
112
THAT TRCA staff provide services where possible in the production of the Municipal
Tool Kit,-
THAT TRCA staff inform municipal partners on the benefits of adopting and
implementing the initiatives outlined in the Municipal Tool Kit,-
THAT all municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction be asked to review and participate in the
new Municipal Tool Kit for sustainable development;
THAT TRCA work with municipalities and associated partners to raise the remaining
funds needed to create the Municipal Tool Kit;
THAT TRCA staff report back on the progress of the Municipal Tool Kit through the
stages of development;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff review the application of the Municipal Tool Kit when
complete to require Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification for all public buildings and encourage LEED for all building applications.
RATIONALE
Municipalities are among the early adopters of green building practices and the LEED building
rating system in Canada. Some municipalities such as the City of Calgary and the City of
Vancouver have mandated LEED Silver and Gold level certification respectively for the design
and construction of new buildings. Canada has mandated LEED certification for all new federal
buildings, the Province of Alberta has now mandated LEED certification for all new public
buildings and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation has mandated LEED Gold for
new construction and will be participating in a LEED for neighborhoods pilot project.
The reasons for these municipal commitments are clear: greening civic buildings provides on
the ground examples for the community of how municipalities can address climate change and
other environmental issues. It is also responsible fiscal management since green buildings
help to significantly reduce operating expenses (particularly energy costs) over the life -cycle of
the buildings. If built on a larger scale, green buildings can have significant regional
environmental benefits and reduce demand on infrastructure services with associated savings
from deferred investments in future capital projects.
Municipal Green Building Tool Kit Project
Municipalities across the country are looking for assistance on how they can adopt and
implement green building policies and programs to green their own buildings and those
developed by the private sector. In order to facilitate the adoption of green building practices
at the local level, CaGBC and TRCA are working together to develop a tool kit targeted
specifically at municipal governments.
The tool kit will provide a step -by -step approach on how local government can develop green
building policies and programs for their own building projects (new and major retrofits). It will
show what policies, tools, processes and strategies other municipalities have used to advance
green building practices within their own organizations. The information will be collected
through a national survey of key decision - makers and program managers at Canadian
municipalities.
113
More specifically, the tool kit will:
• make a clear linkage of green buildings to local sustainability priorities and infrastructure
demand reduction;
• identify green building benefits to municipalities;
• provide strategies on how to work with key decision- makers;
• identify opportunities and barriers to green municipal buildings and discuss solutions on
how to overcome significant roadblocks;
• provide the business case for municipal green buildings;
• provide examples of green building policies and programs;
• address building code issues and recommend the development of training programs for
building inspectors,
• discuss the application and use of green building guidelines with a focus on LEED Canada;
• identify best green building practices and those tools and resources currently available for
program implementation; and
• showcase completed municipal green buildings from across the country.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Canada Green Building Council, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and TRCA
staff have been preparing for distribution of the Municipal Green Building Tool Kit, to be made
available on December 1, 2006. Workshops will be conducted in 2007 to assist municipal staff
in southern Ontario with navigating through the tool kit and applying the information to
potential green building projects within their jurisdictions. A support website is also under
development as a partnership project between TRCA and the CaGBC - Toronto Chapter.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Total project cost is $55,000 and is completely funded as follows:
CaGBC $20,000
Ameresco Canada $10,000
Environment Canada $10,000
Cement Association $10,000
Enbridge Gas $5,000
TOTAL $55,000
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: November 06, 2006
RES. #E41/06 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ARCHETYPE SUSTAINABLE HOUSE PROJECT
Update on progress with design and financing for the Archetype
Sustainable House Project.
Dick O'Brien
Glenn Mason
114
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with partners and sponsors to
develop The Archetype Sustainable House Project and move to construction phase at
The Living City Campus.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The TRCA Archetype Sustainable House Project began with a national competition conducted
in partnership with the Design Exchange. The intent of the competition was to engage
architects, engineers and graduate students from across Canada to design a mass production
green home for new community development. The winning team, Building Blocks joint
venture, chosen on June 21, 2006 was selected from 17 entries by a blue ribbon panel of
judges. A comprehensive report was provided with each design submission, with final design
drawings and specifications to be generated by the winning team prior to construction.
The winning design will be built at The Living City Campus, at the entrance to the Energy Trail.
The Energy Trail is an interactive renewable energy learning exhibition. The Archetype
Sustainable House Project will serve as the primary energy conservation education facility for
workshop participants and as a model to help monitor and verify the effectiveness of materials,
systems and technologies.
RATIONALE
TRCA plans to build two semi - detached houses at The Living City Campus. The primary goal
of the first home will be to represent affordable green options that can be adopted by home
builders and buyers in today's marketplace; the second home will showcase alternative
materials and technologies that will demonstrate the best in sustainable design, resource
efficiency and energy management systems. These houses will serve as models for industry
and municipal leaders to see the next generation green homes as we move toward ever more
sustainable housing. They will be a powerful statement of what can be achieved in
environmentally conscious new home design. They will demonstrate Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation's (CMHC) five principles of Net Zero Energy Healthy Housing (NZEHH),
and stand as a case study for the emerging Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) for Homes program in Canada.
The goals of the sustainable demonstration houses are to:
• educate and demonstrate new technologies, materials and processes for residential mass
construction;
• provide training for product installation and systems management;
• provide equal opportunities for the demonstration and application of products; and
• encourage a holistic approach to sustainable design (not just energy efficiency).
Halsall and Associates have also been engaged to document the construction process of the
Archetype house in relation to the United States (US) Green Building Council's LEED for
Homes system. The objective of this initiative is to review how the US LEED for Homes
certification standard can be adapted to better serve the Canadian market. A Report will be
compiled through an interview process of the project participants with final recommendations
to assist in the creation of LEED for Homes in Canada.
115
One of the primary objectives of the Archetype Sustainable House Project is to highlight the
support and sustainability initiatives of sponsors and associates. Initiatives conducted on The
Living City Campus must be conducted through partnerships and associations to ensure
success and achieve market transformation toward communities that are healthy and
sustainable.
The project team and advisory committee (see table below) for the houses are comprised of
people with expertise that will help to ensure the project's success. The team and committee
are accountable to TRCA Directors and the Authority. TRCA and the City of Vaughan will be
working with the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association (GTHBA), CMHC, PowerStream
and Enbridge to streamline the approvals and building process once the design is completed
by Building Blocks. Furthermore, sponsor interest and support in the project will be a catalyst
for the project to stay on schedule.
Project Team:
Mark Preston, TRCA
Andrew Bowerbank, TRCA
Alex Waters, TRCA
John Godden, Alphatec
Advisory Committee:
Mark Salerno, CMHC
Larry Brydon, GTHBA/Ozz
Lenard Hart, Summerhill Group
Karen Antonio - Hadcock, Vaughan
Patrick Guran, PowerStream
Chris Gates, Enbridge
Note: The project team reports to TRCA's Directors Committee with primary construction management and
decision- making provided by the Director, Restoration Services. Regular progress updates will be provided to the
TRCA Sustainable Communities Board to keep stakeholders informed and engaged.
The GTHBA has been engaged to partner with TRCA in the construction phase of the project,
and has been asked to take on a major role in the construction of the Archetype houses. A full
memorandum of understanding between TRCA and the GTHBA is currently under
development. This will be available for review as of December 20, 2006.
Construction is planned to start in May 2007 and to be completed by the Fall of 2007. A
number of variables were considered before commitment to the construction start date
including: finalizing of funding, donation of materials, building permits, coordination of utilities
and media coverage.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Final contracts between TRCA and Building Blocks Architectural team are expected to be
completed by Dec. 1 2006.
• Mechanical systems for the houses will be finalized by the engineering committee by
January 2007.
• Final funding commitments are expected to be secured by February 2007.
• Construction is expected to begin in April 2007.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total construction is expected to cost approximately $1,682,000.
116
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Construction Budget
(including contingency fee)
$1,167,000
TRCA Overhead & Administration
$180,000
Demonstration Components
$40,000
Equipment & Furnishings
$40,000
Cost & Code consultant
$20,000
Architect Fees
(including contingency fee)
$150,000
Multi Media Equipment
$40,000
Materials Storage & Site Office
$20,000
TOTAL
$1,682,000
The projected expenses for the construction of the Archetype Sustainable House Project will
be offset by sponsorship funding, donated materials, technology and labour. A full breakdown
of the financial details is available in the draft business plan (available upon request). The
financial details will be updated bi- weekly as new sponsors sign on to participate.
Status of Funding:
Cash, In Kind Materials & Labour Committed $380,000
Cash, In Kind Materials & Labour Pending $470,000
Cash, In Kind Materials & Labour Under Development $672,000
Total $1,522,000
Remaining to be Sourced $160,000
Total Project Budget Required $1,682,000
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: November 20, 2006
RES. #E42/06 - CONSERVATION BUREAU
2006 Annual Report. Release of the Conservation Bureau annual report
for 2006, which outlines energy conservation accomplishments in 2006
as well as key recommendations for 2007.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
117
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to meet with the Conservation Bureau and
the Ontario Power Authority to explore opportunities for collaboration;
AND FURTHER THAT Peter Love, Ontario's Chief Energy Conservation Officer,
Conservation Bureau, Ontario Power Authority, be requested to make a presentation to the
Authority at Meeting #10/05, to be held on January 5, 2006, regarding the 2006 Annual
Report of the Conservation Bureau, as well as on the direction for the bureau in 2007.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In December 2004 the Ontario government passed the Energy Restructuring Act which
directed the Ontario Power Authority to establish the Conservation Bureau and a hire a Chief
Energy Conservation Officer. The mandate of the Conservation Bureau is to develop,
coordinate and stimulate electricity conservation and demand management by planning,
designing and implementing programs that foster a culture of conservation across the
province.
The Conservation Bureau 2006 Annual Report
The bureau's Chief Energy Conservation Officer, Peter Love, recently released their Annual
Report for 2006. This report contains information on_Ontano's conservation targets, the
conservation market, conservation performance in Ontario, Conservation Bureau's 2006
activities, Conservation Bureau's 2007 proposals, along with regulatory opportunities and
barriers.
The following are some conservation highlights in the report:
• Energy - efficiency amendments to the Ontario Building Code, announced in June 2006,
increased energy - efficiency requirements and will save Ontario an estimated 550
megawatts of electricity over the next eight years.
• Ontario consumers have reduced peak demand by approximately 950 megawatts since
2004, including 328 megawatts of naturally occurring conservation.
• Consumers have reduced electricity consumption per capita by 2.5 per cent,
weather - adjusted, during the period January to August 2006, compared with the previous
year.
• The Conservation Bureau launched 10 programs in 2006, including a demand response
program, which on August 1, delivered maximum savings of 182 megawatts, with an
average of 133 megawatts over eight hours.
• Conservation programs run by local distribution companies achieved 2005 savings of 121
million kilowatt hours and will result in 868 million kilowatt hour savings over the life of the
installed equipment.
• Energy management companies have achieved an estimated 20 megawatts.of peak
demand reduction in 2005 and in 2006.
• Investment in electricity conservation in Ontario, including the activities of energy
management firms and local distribution companies, is estimated at $300 million to $350
million per year.
118
A key conservation target for Ontario is to reduce peak electricity demand by 6,300 megawatts
by 2025, and it includes interim targets of 1,350 megawatts reduction in peak demand by 2007
and a further 1,350 megawatts by 2010. A more general target is to create a culture of
conservation in Ontario.
To meet these targets the Conservation Bureau is taking a threefold approach:
1. Creating and delivering conservation initiatives informed by the best available market
knowledge through a multitude of channels.
The initial program focus will be on reducing summer peak demand through demand
response, and commercial and residential cooling and lighting programs. In addition they
will target reductions in electricity consumption through programs aimed at low- income
consumers, electrically heated homes, residential appliances and the agricultural sector.
2. Developing needed infrastructure and market mechanisms to deliver and measure
sustainable electricity savings by forging partnerships with a broad range of industry and
community organizations and establishing a protocol for electricity program measurement,
verifications
Their priority here is to build market capacity with a focus on large industrial consumers,
municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals sector.
3. Championing the building of a culture of conservation to achieve sustained commitment to
conservation through targeted awareness, education and social marketing campaigns, and
by advocating for policy and regulatory changes to promote energy efficiency.
In this area the Bureau will focus on raising awareness in the mass market and recognizing
ongoing conservation success of consumers. They will also undertake advocacy efforts to
increase the energy- efficiency requirements of standards related to heating, ventilation and
air conditioning, lighting, building code and standby power.
The annual report ends by giving 17 strong recommendations to the Government of Ontario for
achieving the conservation targets. These are listed below, under five categories.
Provincial Energy and Conservation Policy
1. All new government building construction should use the 2011 Ontario Building Code
requirements as a minimum. New and green technologies should also be explored.
2. Government procurement contracts must specify high energy efficiency as a minimum
requirement.
3. The government should continue to actively seek stakeholder advice on conservation
targets through stakeholder groups as appropriate and other mechanisms.
4. The Conservation Action Team should act on its expanded role and leverage other
cross - ministerial forums to provide consistency and coordination of conservation policy
and action across the government.
5. The government should publish its energy and conservation policy in one summary
document.
119
Energy Efficiency Standards in Ontario
6. Ontario should continue to match California's standard and work with California and
other leading jurisdictions on the introduction of new standards in the future.
7. Ontario should work with other jurisdictions to adopt a one -watt standard for load
losses associated with standby losses.
8. Ontario should incorporate the A440.2 -04 window performance standard for
replacement windows into the Ontario Energy Efficiency Act.
Ontario Building Code
9. Develop a market transformation strategy to ensure achievement of the Part 2 target by
2011.
10. Develop a market transformation strategy to ensure achievement of the Part 9 target by
2011.
11. Put in place a process to ensure ongoing facilitation of green technologies.
12. Begin discussion on how to ensure that energy efficiency is considered in renovations.
13. Begin to develop a vision for the Ontario Building Code beyond 2011.
Other Regulatory Opportunities and Barriers
14. Develop meaningful regulations under the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006,
to address barriers to conservation and to promote leadership by the broader public
sector in energy conservation.
15. Review land use policies to establish density requirements in existing and future
developments.
16. Consideration should be given for site design and the implementation of energy
efficiency and renewable energy in land use policies.
17. Ensure that electricity savings are considered in the implementation of the 2005
Greenbelt Protection Plan.
Of particular note for municipalities is the Ministry of Energy's work to develop regulations
under the Energy Conservation Leadership Act. The Act was passed in March of 2006 and
under the Act, Ontario Ministries, agencies and broader public sector organizations such as
municipalities and hospitals may be required to:
• prepare energy conservation action plans on a regular basis
• set targets for reducing consumption
• report on energy consumption and
• report on conservation measures taken.
TRCA's Mayors' Megawatt Challenge and Greening Health Care are designed to help the
respective sectors meet the requirements of the Act.
RATIONALE
Through the adoption of The Living City vision, TRCA has a stated interest in the sustainability
of the Greater Toronto Area. The supply and consumption of energy are significant issues for
the sustainability of the province and the city region. TRCA is already partnering with the
Bureau on the development of the Sustainable Schools and the Greening Health Care
programs but there are many other TRCA programs that could be leveraged to help TRCA,
OPA and the Conservation Bureau achieve their objectives.
120
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
1 Staff will meet with OPA and the Conservation Bureau staff to discuss opportunities for
collaboration.
2. Invite Peter Love to give a brief presentation to the Authority at the January meeting,
regarding the Conservation Bureau's Annual Report 2006 and the direction for 2007.
3. Report back to the Authority on opportunities for collaboration with the OPA and the
Conservation Bureau.
Report prepared by: Anne Reesor, extension 5202
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: November 15, 2006
RES. #E43/06 - SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES RESEARCH PROJECT
Community -based social marketing research and a survey of new home
buyers to inform implementation strategies for lot level stormwater
management and naturalized landscaping. Recommendations from the
studies are being incorporated in the watershed plans to address water
balance and other sustainability objectives.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn Mason
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff incorporate the findings of the sustainable practices
research projects into watershed plan recommendations for enhancing implementation of
lot level sustainable practices;
THAT TRCA staff use the findings of these research projects to inform and improve the
effectiveness of their stewardship, education and outreach programs;
THAT TRCA staff continue to work with municipalities and other partners to develop
proposals for follow up projects that enhance adoption of sustainable water practices
and naturalized landscaping by businesses, and to develop a Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) -wide marketing strategy and pilot implementation program for the residential
sector in the Rouge watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT copies of the study reports be provided to member municipalities
and neighbouring conservation authorities.
CARRIED
121
BACKGROUND
The watershed advisory councils, TRCA and its partners are preparing updated watershed
plans for the Rouge, Humber and Don watersheds. The watershed plans will further The Living
City vision and recommend implementation strategies for creating more sustainable
communities in these watersheds. Findings from the Rouge watershed planning study confirm
that the watershed has suffered degradation in response to urbanization, despite
state -of- the -art management practices over the past decade. These findings are typical of
conditions found in neighbouring watersheds. Innovative management approaches will be
needed in urban, urbanizing and rural communities in order to protect and restore these
watersheds. For example, scenario modelling for the Rouge watershed plan showed that
current stormwater management technologies alone will not be adequate to achieve a more
natural water balance; lot level practices are essential if we are to maintain current flow
conditions, let alone attempt to enhance them, as further urban growth or redevelopment
proceeds. The shift to sustainable lifestyles at the personal, community and watershed scales
is going to require changes in attitudes and behaviours, which will need to begin with individual
property owners in residential and commercial /industrial areas. This report summarizes
findings and proposed next steps from two studies: 1) the Sustainable Community
Management Practices - Implementation Barriers project - a social marketing study of existing
residents and businesses, and 2) a survey of new home buyers in the Greater Toronto Area.
1. SOCIAL MARKETING STUDY - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
In April 2006, TRCA hired Freeman Associates to undertake a marketing study, applicable
across TRCA watersheds, with a focus on the Rouge, Humber and Don watersheds, that will
assist watershed advisory groups, TRCA and it partners to accelerate implementation of
sustainable community management practices. The objectives of the study were to:
• identify key barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices (e.g. lot level stormwater
management, water conservation, backyard naturalization) by existing single - family
homeowners and the owners or property managers of existing commercial and /or light
industrial operations (i.e. those with extensive roofs or surface parking areas);
• seek input on suggested strategies to overcome the key barriers to implementation or
adoption of sustainable practices;
• develop a recommended action plan outlining specific strategies for overcoming the
barriers and accelerating adoption of sustainable practices by watershed residents and
businesses (i.e. marketing strategies, programs, policies, initiatives, short list of preferred
sustainable practices).
The consultant's work has been overseen by an advisory committee with representation from
TRCA, Region of Durham, Region of Peel, Region of York, City of Toronto, Town of Markham,
Town of Richmond Hill, Rouge Park, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund - Environment Canada,
Rouge Watershed Task Force, Humber Watershed Alliance, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, and the University of Waterloo.
122
Study Approach
The study has incorporated tools of community -based social marketing (CBSM) in order to
identify barriers to the adoption of sustainability practices. CBSM is a set of tools for
understanding behaviours and behavioural change at the local level, through direct contact
with watershed residents and businesses and public awareness.
A workshop with municipal and environmental NGO representatives was used to identify, from
their perspective, the opportunities and barriers to on -site stormwater management in the
residential and business sectors and potential strategies to foster sustainable practices in
these sectors. Research with owner /occupants of single family dwellings was undertaken in
Brampton, Vaughan/Woodbridge, Thornhill /Richmond Hill, Markham /Unionville and north
Toronto (Don Mills area). At each of five research sessions, 20 to 25 participants (selected to
reflect the communities' demographic profiles) were asked 124 written response questions to
explore residents' motivations and intrinsically held beliefs regarding their home and
surrounding landscape. Residents were also asked to draw representations of their "ideal"
landscape and what they believe a "naturalized" landscape to be. A Cantonese and Mandarin
speaking researcher was hired to identify key stakeholders (community organizations, retailers,
electronic and print media) utilized by Chinese residents of Markham /Unionville, as it was
difficult to include this group in the research sessions due to language barriers. Subsequent to
the residential sector research, interviews were conducted with 19 key informants in the
business sector - building owners /managers, architects, landscape architects, civil and
mechanical engineers and stormwater management specialists - to identify on -site stormwater
management marketing barriers and opportunities.
Key Findings and Recommendations
A final report has been prepared and has been reviewed by TRCA staff, advisory committee
members and selected others. Major findings and recommendations that have sparked
discussion within the advisory committee are summarized in the following sections.
Residential Sector
The study revealed a strongly held underlying aesthetic motivation that leads homeowners to
unsustainable practices, such as excessive lawn and garden watering. Participants defined
beautiful landscapes as ones with:
• a manicured, green, weed -free lawn;
• lots of colour, primarily from flowers;
• a neat, tidy appearance; and
• a well- designed, organized layout.
Additional barriers to the uptake of sustainable practices by residents included a perception of
"naturalized" landscapes as uncontrolled and lacking in design (i.e. inconsistent with their
aesthetic), competing lifestyle priorities, and varied and mixed environmental messages. On a
positive note, participants reversed their opinions when shown photos of neat and
well- designed partially naturalized residential landscapes, and were supportive of reusing
rainwater for irrigation.
123
The major recommendation is for a multi- faceted, GTA -wide marketing strategy to enhance the
uptake of sustainable practices (e.g. backyard naturalization, rain gardens) by using
homeowners' strongly held aesthetic motivations for their personal landscapes (e.g. promote
partial naturalization using images showing tidy appearance, design and structure, colours,
trees). Unified messaging and strategic partnerships with municipalities, community and
environmental organizations, box retailers (especially Home Depot and Canadian Tire), and
garden centres and nurseries; and a landscape advisory service; could be key components of
the strategy.
Business Sector
The major finding from the business sector interviews was that most of the barriers to on -site
stormwater management had little to do with marketing and instead related to institutional
arrangements, budgets and financial mechanisms, and a tack of technical capacity. Key
barriers included:
• Municipal development approvals staff focus on, and are most familiar with, compliance
with building code requirements, rather than enhanced (i.e. beyond regulation) lot level
stormwater management and green building technologies.
• Capital cost, functionality of the building and site, and regulatory compliance are the major
drivers in building design. Many stormwater management technologies are not considered
to be cost effective - they have a long payback period (e.g. greenroofs for box stores) or
have associated carrying costs (e.g. bioswales occupying otherwise usable space or
requiring additional land purchase).
• Municipal stormwater management fees are sufficiently low as to not serve as a motivator
for adopting enhanced stormwater management in new development or as a retrofit.
• Many building owners /managers would be willing to undertake "greener" construction if
incorporation of those technologies meant expedited approvals from the municipality, in
compensation. Otherwise, enhanced stormwater management likely occurs only when the
builder /developer: wants to market a "green" development; has a personal commitment to
the environment; or is offered an incentive (e.g. change in zoning to increase density in
exchange for green design).
The study recommends additional research into the non - marketing barriers to sustainable
development in the business sector. Key marketing related recommendations included:
• Establish a "virtual" GTA Centre for Sustainable Technologies in partnership with
stakeholder experts to act as an information hub for resources and referrals on sustainable
practices and green building.
• Target educational outreach to municipal planning and approvals staff through a workshop
and development of a set of guidelines for reviewing applications incorporating enhanced
stormwater management and green building technologies.
• Raise the profile of sustainable practices through demonstration projects, case studies,
establishment of a sustainable practices business leaders program (including an award)
and outreach to the business community.
It was strongly recommended that TRCA develop strategic partnerships with stakeholders to
design and deliver these programs to enhance market penetration, reduce costs and develop
a cooperative approach.
124
2. J.D. POWER SURVEY OF NEW HOME BUYERS
In a related study, TRCA hired J. D. Power and Associates to deliver a web -based survey of
new home buyers (i.e. largely greenfield development) in the GTA, to collect data on:
• the relative importance of, and access to, sustainable technologies (e.g. water efficiency,
energy efficiency) and proximity to environmental amenities (e.g. public transportation,
natural areas) in the purchase of a new home;
• new home buyer preferences regarding type of backyard landscaping and anticipated
maintenance approaches (e.g. level of water and fertilizer use); and
• new home buyer comfort level w ith sustainability practices and technologies (e.g. smaller
lot sizes, rain harvesting).
There were 1,527 respondents to TRCA's web -based survey (March 28 - May 19, 2006). A final
report on the results of the survey was completed in June 2006. More than 70% of
respondents rated the following as important or extremely important in their purchase decision:
• proximity to a park, common outdoor area, or natural area;
• energy efficiency;
• water efficiency; and
• indoor air quality.
However, the extent to which these amenities were available was variable:
• 4 out of 5 responding purchasers of new homes live within a 10 minute walk to a park,
common outdoor area or natural area;
• 94% were offered energy efficiency packages by their builders;
• 34% were offered water efficiency packages by their builders; and
• 29% were offered indoor air quality packages by their builders.
There was evidence to suggest that new home buyers may be more inclined to adopt other
sustainable practices, if they are made available:
• 46% of respondents would accept a low maintenance landscaping package requiring Tess
water and fertilizer use if such an option was offered by the builder. Only 28% of new home
owners would choose conventional landscaping methods if the builder offered a choice of
packages. However, 45% of new home owners planned to use conventional methods if an
alternative was not available from the builder.
• When asked to rank their comfort level in using rainwater, 86% of respondents chose 4 or 5
out of 5 for comfort in irrigating their lawn and garden; 66% for flushing their toilet; and 37%
for supplementing their laundry water.
The findings of the survey suggest opportunities to work with builders to make•sustainable
practices and technologies more available in greenfield developments, and the need to work
with provincial and municipal stakeholders to revise building regulations to make rainwater
re -use technologies more accessible to homeowners and builders.
125
Integration into the watershed plans
The findings of these studies have provided invaluable information about the feasibility,
acceptability and strategic approaches to implementation of lot level practices on private lands
that has informed the watershed management strategies. The Rouge watershed planning study
has found that lot level practices are essential if we are to maintain current flow conditions, let
alone attempt to enhance them, as further urban growth or redevelopment proceeds. The
Rouge Watershed Plan, therefore, includes recommendations to implement these practices
using approaches outlined in the Action Plan. Findings also will be incorporated into the
Humber and Don watershed plans.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff has begun working with the advisory committee and other potential partners to develop
proposals for an additional phase of study to address some of the key recommendations.
Anticipated follow -up projects include:
• Development of a multi- faceted, GTA -wide marketing strategy to enhance the uptake of
sustainable practices (e.g. backyard naturalization, rain gardens) by using homeowners'
strongly held aesthetic motivations for their personal landscapes in a high impact visual
campaign.
• In concert with the marketing strategy, development of a pilot program to enhance the
uptake of sustainable practices by residents in selected municipalities in the Rouge River
watershed. The pilot will involve co- ordination with existing conservation authority,
municipal and non - governmental organization programs that deliver advice and assistance
regarding naturalization and lot level stormwater management. Opportunities for
partnerships with key Chinese community stakeholders identified in the first phase of the
study will be explored to expand delivery of the pilot program to the Chinese community, if
appropriate.
• Host one or more "strategy sessions" in cooperation with municipal and business sectors,
and other partners, to discuss mechanisms that could support and drive the adoption of
sustainable practices (e.g. beyond compliance on -site stormwater management). These
sessions will be a first step toward addressing the financial, regulatory and other barriers to
sustainable practice uptake identified in the study. The scope of the session(s) would be
confirmed by a multi - stakeholder advisory committee.
BENEFITS
Findings from these studies are providing more strategic, effective recommendations for TRCA
and its partners to pursue in motivating sustainable actions by property owners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Sustainable Community Management Practices - Implementation Barriers project was
financially supported by the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, City of Toronto, Region of York, Region of Peel and CTC Region Source Water
Protection Program, with in -kind support from the Region of Durham. The total budget for the
project was $75,000. The municipal partner funding for this and the J: D. Power and Associates
survey (total cost $7,500) was derived from the watershed planning capital budget.
Report prepared by: Janet Ivey, extension 5729
For Information contact: Janet Ivey, extension 5729; Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: November 10, 2006
126
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E44/06 - COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS
Update in the status of the Community Transformation Programs.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Linda Pabst
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the status of the Community
Transformation Programs be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Community Transformation Programs are a group of new programs under The Living City
banner focused on creating substantive measurable change in the sustainability of the Greater
Toronto Area. The programs are collaborative initiatives working with partners to engage and
enable leadership to take action. The programs are dynamic, continually shifting to meet the
needs of participants in target sectors as well as ephemeral, existing only for as long as
needed to effect the necessary change.
This group of programs was endorsed in 2004 when at Authority Meeting #2/04, held on
February 27, 2004, Resolution #A45/04 was approved as follows:
THAT the program of activities set out in the staff report and as presented in the summary
of the Living City Centre programs be endorsed.
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek further opportunities and new
partnerships which will support the efforts of the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's member municipalities to create more sustainable urban and rural
communities.
At Authority Meeting #2/05, held on March 11, 2005, Resolution #A41 /05 was approved as
follows:
THAT the 2005 business plan for the Community Transformation Partnership be
approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to put funding partnerships in place to achieve the
objectives outlined in the business plan.
RATIONALE
The purpose of this report is to provide the Authority with an comprehensive overview of the
status of all the programs. The Community Transformation Programs continue to play an
important role for TRCA in engaging and enabling sectors to take action in support of The
Living City vision.
127
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge (MMC) brings municipalities together to improve energy
efficiency and environmental management in their own buildings. Through the Mayors'
Megawatt Challenge, municipalities demonstrate leadership, inspiring other organizations and
individuals to take action toward healthier, more sustainable communities.
Thirteen municipalities are participating in the program. This total includes returning
municipalities, the Town of Ajax, City of Barrie, City of Brampton, Town of Milton, City of
Mississauga, City of Oshawa, Town of Richmond Hill and City of Toronto and new
municipalities to the program, City of Guelph, City of Kitchener, City of St. Catharines, City of
Waterloo and Township of Uxbridge. We are continuing the recruitment of new participants.
The Arenas Project is a special project of the MMC that was introduced to members in 2005.
The goal of the Arenas Project is to achieve large -scale energy and water use savings in arena
facilities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, through identification and implementation of
comprehensive energy retrofit projects and operational best practices. Seven municipalities
have joined the program and have enrolled 22 arenas. In TRCA's jurisdiction, Uxbridge and
Richmond Hill are participating. Data collection will occur over the fall and early winter with
workshops and final audits and action plans to be developed by spring 2007. We are in
discussions with the Ontario Recreational Facilities Association to determine how the pilot
project, when successful, could be scaled up and delivered across Ontario.
Mayors' Green Building Challenge
The Mayors' Green Building Challenge was a pilot initiative to bring together municipalities in
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that are in the early stages of planning new facilities for
opening in 2006 to 2008 (or major renovations). The concept was to have leaders work
together on designing and building exceptional municipal facilities for the betterment of their
communities, the province and Canada.
Staff determined that this program could not function as a stand -alone program of The Living
City. As such, the concept has been incorporated into other Living City programs and
activities, including the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge, Greening Health Care, Sustainable
Schools, the Municipal Green Building Tool Kit, as well as general activities promoting green
buildings.
Greening Health Care
The nature of health care facilities and operations makes them inherently intensive users of
resources. Hospitals in Ontario spend more than $250 million a year on utilities. As facilities
expand and acquire new equipment, and the prices of energy, water and waste removal
continue to rise, hospitals are faced with volatile costs that consistently rise faster than the rate
of inflation.
128
Membership in the program includes 16 hospital corporations, representing a total of 19
hospital sites. In order to increase membership in the program we are developing partnerships
with the Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care and the Canadian Health Care Engineering
Society (CHES). As a result of a workshop held with CHES in September, an additional 12
hospitals have recommended joining the program to their senior management. We anticipate
holding two to three more workshops with CHES in 2006 to help extend membership into
eastern, southern and north central Ontario.
The Energy Conservation Action Planner is a collaborative project with the Ontario Power
Authority's Conservation Bureau, to help hospitals benchmark energy and water usage,
develop conservation action plans that satisfy Ontario Bill 21 (the Energy Conservation
Responsibility Act) requirements and establish rational conservation targets. Under Ontario's
Bill 21, hospitals may be required to prepare energy conservation plans and report on energy
consumption, proposed conservation measures and results achieved. This project provides
hospitals with the opportunity to take a pro- active approach to addressing the requirements of
Bill 21.
Sustainable Schools
The Sustainable Schools program identifies and evaluates best practices in green design,
commissioning and operations, and helps school boards take action to improve the energy
and environmental performance of their new and recently -built schools. Recruitment of school
boards for the program is an ongoing process, with four of the up to 10 boards we plan to
recruit having signed up. York public and Peel public boards were the first to join the program,
followed by the Dufferin -Peel Catholic District School Board and Simcoe County District School
Board. Once the boards joined, we immediately began working with them to identify
recently -built schools to include in the program. At present a total of 53 recently built schools
have been enrolled.
Benchmarking has been updated with the additional schools and the results continue to
indicate up to a four -fold difference in energy intensity in recently built schools. Two
workshops have been held with the Simcoe public board to review the benchmarking results
and begin to engage staff. A design charette for one or two new schools is being planned with
Simcoe for January or February, 2007. Workshops with the York public board are currently
being scheduled.
Greening Retail
The Greening Retail Program is a new program of The Living City that was brought to the
Authority at Meeting #3/06, held on April 28, 2006 at which Resolution #A86/06 was approved
as follows:
THAT staff pursue funding and partnership opportunities in order to develop and
implement a new program of the Living City that engages the retail sector in the
application of sustainable practices and technologies.
129
Staff was able to secure $25,000 from Environment Canada and $6,000 in -kind from the
Conservation Foundation to undertake and complete Phase I of the program. The results of
the Phase I report confirmed the premise for Greening Retail that, doing the right thing for the
environment can also be good for the bottom line. There are a great many environmental best
practices that leaders in the sector are implementing but are not yet common practice across
the sector. The objective of Greening Retail is to make the best practices of the leaders,
common practice for the sector.
Having confirmed the premise for the program, staff are now in the process of raising funds for
Phase II. Staff has received a verbal commitment for an additional $25,000 from Environment
Canada and $20,000 from PowerStream. Total cost of Phase II is $180,000 and staff will be
working with the Conservation Foundation to raise the additional funds.
Home Energy Clinic
The Home Energy Clinic teaches homeowners to identify and understand the benefits of
making their homes more energy efficient. The clinic offers homeowners a solution by
identifying the actions that can be taken, the resulting savings in energy costs and the
appropriate incentive and rebate programs. This information is then presented in an easily
understood Home Energy Plan.
Development of the Home Energy Clinic was put on hold when staff learned that a significant
local distribution companies (LDC) was in the process of developing a similar software
program. Staff will explore partnerships with the LDC in question and determine how best to
move forward with the program.
Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: November 06, 2006
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:42 a.m., on Friday, December 1, 2006.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
130