Minutes #04-16 - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Comments

Transcription

Minutes #04-16 - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Authority Meeting #4/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, May 27, 2016. The
Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.
PRESENT
Kevin Ashe
Maria Augimeri
Jack Ballinger
Ronald Chopowick
Vincent Crisanti
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Michael Di Biase
Jennifer Drake
Chris Fonseca
Jack Heath
Jennifer Innis
Colleen Jordan
Matt Mahoney
Giorgio Mammoliti
Glenn Mason
Mike Mattos
Frances Nunziata
Linda Pabst
Anthony Perruzza
Gino Rosati
John Sprovieri
Jim Tovey
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Member
Vice Chair
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
ABSENT
Paul Ainslie
David Barrow
Justin Di Ciano
Maria Kelleher
Jennifer McKelvie
Ron Moeser
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
RES.#A55/16 -
MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Chris Fonseca
Kevin Ashe
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/16, held on April 22, 2016, be received.
______________________________
CARRIED
CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
Ronald Chopowick was nominated by Jack Heath.
110
RES.#A56/16 -
MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Glenn De Baeremaeker
THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory
Board be closed.
CARRIED
Ronald Chopowick was declared elected by acclamation as the City of Toronto representative
on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/17.
______________________________
DELEGATIONS
5.1
A delegation by Martin Medeiros, Regional Councillor, City of Brampton, in regard to
item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.2
A delegation by Andrew deGroot, One Brampton, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main
Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.3
A delegation by Michael Faye, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street
Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.4
A delegation by Christopher Benjar, Co-Chair, CFBB (Citizens For a Better Brampton),
in regard to item 8.3-Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.5
A delegation by Sony Rai, Director, Sustainable Vaughan, in regard to item 8.3Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.6
A delegation by Eloa Doner, resident, in regard to item 8.3-Hurontario-Main Street Light
Rail Transit (LRT).
5.7
A delegation by Natalia Korneeva, resident, in regard to item 8.3-Hurontario-Main Street
Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.8
A delegation by Charles A. Brooks, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main
Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.9
A delegation by Micheal Perrault, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street
Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.10
A delegation by Sheila Morris, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street
Light Rail Transit (LRT).
5.11
A delegation by Coco Papoi, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of
the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by
Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli).
111
5.12
A delegation by Furio Liberatore, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision
of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010
by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
5.13
A delegation by Frank Huo, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of
the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by
Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli).
5.14
A delegation by Richard Lorello, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision
of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010
by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
5.15
A delegation by Connie Zheng, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision
of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010
by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
RES.#A57/16 -
DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Jim Tovey
THAT above-noted delegations 5.1 – 5.10 be heard and received.
RES.#A58/16 -
DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Mike Mattos
THAT above-noted delegations 5.11 – 5.15 be heard and received.
______________________________
CARRIED
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
6.1
A presentation by John Coyne, Vice-President, Unilever Canada and Hillary Marshall,
Vice-President, GTAA, in regard to item 8.2, Partners in Project Green 2015 Results.
6.2
A presentation by Beth Williston, Associate Director, Planning, Greenspace &
Communication, TRCA, in regard to item 8.3, City of Brampton Hurontario-Main Street
Light Rail Transit.
RES.#A59/16 -
PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Chris Fonseca
Vincent Crisanti
THAT above-noted presentation 6.1 be received.
112
CARRIED
RES.#A60/16 -
PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Jim Tovey
THAT above-noted presentation 6.2 be received.
______________________________
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
7.1
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Wenyue Li and Xue Zhou in regard to item 9.2 Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the
Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian
Iacobelli).
7.2
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Marina Dykhtan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.3
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Serguei Lifchits in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.4
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Frank Huo in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.5
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Susan Poch in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.6
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Elham Shekarabi Ahari in regard to item 9.2 - Public
Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan
Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.7
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Winnie Chan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli)
7.8
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Shaul Wisebourt in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.9
A letter dated May 25, 2016 from Mayor Linda Jeffrey, City of Brampton, in regard
to item 8.3, Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).
7.10
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Joe and Sandra D’Addio in regard to item 9.2 - Public
Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan
Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
113
7.11
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Frances Chan in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.12
An email dated May 25, 2016 from Connie Zheng in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.13
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Nello DiCostanzo in regard to item 9.2 - Public
Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan
Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.14
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Anthony Percaccio in regard to item 9.2 - Public
Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan
Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.15
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Furio Liberatore in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.16
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Giovanni Senisi in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record
Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official
Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
7.17
An email dated May 26, 2016 from Salvatore Mirasola in regard to item 9.2 - Public
Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan
Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lilian Iacobelli).
RES.#A61/16 -
CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Jack Heath
THAT above-noted correspondence 7.1 – 7.17 be received.
______________________________
114
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE 7.1
ZhouR
<> 25/05/2016 11:33
AM
To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
cc
Subject Object to the proposed development plan at 230 Grand Trunk
Ave, Vaughan ON
75 Maverick Crescent
Vaughan ON L6A 4L1
May 25, 2016
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
101 Exchange Ave Vaughan ON L4K 5R6
Email: [email protected]
For the attention of Kathy Stranks
Dear Sir or Madam,
RE:
Dufferin Vistas Ltd
230 Grand Trunk Avenue
File No. : 19T-16V001 PAC No.: PAC.15.125 (the “Proposed Development
Plan”)
OMB Case No. PL111184 – VOP2010 Appellant 21
We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that we have with regard
to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue,
Vaughan ON (the “Open Space Lands”). As an immediate neighbor to the site of the
Proposed Development Plan, we are of the view that the Proposed Development Plan
will have a serious impact on our standard of living and does not comply with the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, and Vaughan
City Plan Policies.
1. Protection of valuable open space under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001: “ The decisions of provincial
ministers, ministries and agencies made under the Planning Act or the Condominium
Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, are required to conform with the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001
establishes the following objectives for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: (a)
protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area…”
The Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally sensitive and geological landform. One
of the goals of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is to protect and restore
natural and open space connections under the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Open Space
Lands are located in an area which is protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan and also were designated by Vaughan City as Valley/Open Space
Lands.
115
The Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect the objectives of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Area; to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green
space and loss of open space connections required by the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan. The Open Space Lands located within the Oak Ridges Moraine
provide important groundwater recharge and habitat to species that require open areas
to complete their life cycles.
2. Non-compliance with the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement
The Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014, 1.1.3 : “It is in the interest of all
communities to use land and resources wisely, to promote efficient development
patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces…”
Green open space is in scarce supply in our area and this woodland site and the trees
on it provide a valuable contribution to the neighborhood scene and adjoining
neighborhood park and are an amenity for local residents.
A lot of trees are so close to the Open Space Lands, so the Proposed Development
Plan would damage the root system of trees. The trees concerned and the Open Space
Lands are a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and significantly to the amenity of
our area. The Proposed Development Plan is a direct contravention of the Ontario
Provincial Policy Statement.
3. Detrimental impact upon residential amenities
City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 – Volume 1 Policies, 9.1.2.1 : “That new
development will respect and reinforce the existing and planned context within which it
is situated. More specifically, the built form of new developments will be designed to
achieve the following general objectives: a. in Community Areas, new development will
be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the established
neighborhood within which it is located…”
The Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect the character of the surroundings.
The layout and design of the surroundings close to the Open Space Lands are
detached two-garage houses (i.e., 40 ft. Lot Homes). The Proposed Development Plan
doesn’t respect local context, because the Proposed Development Plan intends to build
townhouses which will be much smaller than the neighboring properties. In addition, the
Proposed Development Plan will be in the middle of two areas having existing 40 ft. Lot
detached homes. Therefore, the Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect the
character and amenity of adjoining residential properties.
We wish TRCA to support sustainable development in our city. We would be grateful if
TRCA would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application.
Yours sincerely,
Wenyue Li and Xue Zhou
116
CORRESPONDENCE 7.2
Marina Dykhtan
<>
25/05/2016 11:36 AM
To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
cc
Subject 230 Grand Trunk- hearing Friday May 27, 2016
Dear Kathy Stranks,
My name is Marina Dykhtan, I reside at 43 Princess Isabella Court, Vaughan, the property adjacent to 230 Grand Trunk, and on behalf of myself and my husband Sergey Polak, we are writing to you to express our opposition to this development. We want for the TRCA to rule that the City follows the Vaughan Official Plan in regards to this development. We have great concerns that the City did not keep the residents (us)informed and the City were not transparent.
Sincerely,
Marina Dykhtan
Sergey Polak
43 Princess Isabella Court, Vaughan
117
CORRESPONDENCE 7.3
<> 25/05/2016 11:41
To <[email protected]>,
AM
Please respond to
<>
cc
Subject 230 Grand Trank Development
I, Serguei Lifchits, my wife Fatima Lifchits and my son Anton Lifchits,
residents of Maverick Cres, Maple, ON, L6A 4L1 are oppose development at 230
Grant Trunk and would like for the TRCA to rule that the city follows the
Vaughan official plan in regards to this development.
Regards,
Serguei Lifchits
Fatima Lifchits
Anton Lifchits
118
CORRESPONDENCE 7.4
frank huo
<>
To [email protected],
25/05/2016 12:36 PM
cc
Subject strongly oppose the new development for 230 Grand Trunk ,
Maple
Dear TRCA,
I and my family strongly oppose this new development on 230 Grand trunk, Maple. this piece
of land was been protected as woodland for last 10-20 years , now suddenly it changed to be low
residential house area, why and what happen ?
this land have hundreds of mature trees and many animals live there and should keep it as nature
heritage as before
thanks
Frank Huo
19 Princess Isabella crt
Maple, ON
L6A 4B3
119
CORRESPONDENCE 7.5
Susan Poch <>
25/05/2016 12:51 PM
To [email protected],
cc
Subject Dufferin Vistas Hearing May 27, 2016
Dear Ms. Stranks,
We live at 25 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, and back onto the Dufferin Vista lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue
that the TRCA has determined are eligible for redevelopment, pending further study.
We vehemently oppose this development. It has been shown in the past, and agreed to by the TRCA, that there are
endangered species on this land, and that there is a protected water course running under the land. Why would more
studies need to be done to undo something that has already been proven? We fear that the developer's land use
planners will overlook these important environmental elements, all in favour of his clients' best interests.
Please look at this issue carefully and ensure that your decision follows the Vaughan Official Plan before you
finalize this decision at the hearing on May 27th. Thank you.
Susan Poch, Mel Raskin, Robert Raskin and Michael Raskin
25 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario
120
CORRESPONDENCE 7.6
Elham Shekarabi <>
25/05/2016 12:43 PM
To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
cc Babak Kheiltash <>
Subject Opposition to 230 Grand Trunk development plan
Hi Kathy,
My names is Elham Shekarabi and I my husband , Babak Kheiltash, are the owners of 91
Maverick Crescent, Vaughan located at west south of 230 Grand Trunk.
I am writing to you behalf of myself and my husband to inform you about our opposition to 230
Grand Trunck develment plan. Currently, this area is a greenland and natural habitat for different
animals.
As I know one of your objectives is to protect , manage and restore woodland and natural
habitats so I hope you would support us to stop this development.
Regards,
Elham Shekarabi Ahari
And
Babak Kheiltash
121
CORRESPONDENCE 7.7
From: "Winnie Chan" []
Sent: 05/25/2016 09:22 PM AST
To: Kathy Stranks
Subject: TRCA agenda for Friday May 27th
Dear Ms Stranks,
Our family lives at 11 Princess Isabella Court. Our house backs onto the Dufferin Visa development at 230 Grand Trunk.
TRCA has decided this piece of land is suitable for development (in fact, building 105 town homes)
We STRONGLY oppose this development.
TRCA has a strong history of watershed management and protection of our environment. This decision totally goes against TRCA’s vision of building a greener, cleaner and healthier place to live. How can I explain to my granddaughters that the beautiful natural habitat with trees and bushes and birds and wildlife suddenly become rows of town houses? “ TRCA let them do it” is not an answer.
Before more damage is done, please reflect and take action. Stop this development.
Your expertise is to restore natural areas, not to destroy them.
Your vision is to keep nature’s beauty and diversity, not to replace it with human invasion.
Stand up and do what you have been doing so well all along. Stop the development and let nature be nature. If you don’t it. nobody can!
Regards,
Winnie Chan
11 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario.
122
CORRESPONDENCE 7.8
From: "Shaul Wisebourt" []
Sent: 05/25/2016 11:14 PM AST
To: Kathy Stranks
Subject: Designation of lands from natural conservation area to low-rise residential at 230 Grand Trunk in
Vaughan
Dear Ms. Stranks,
We became aware of the upcoming TRCA hearing regarding designation of 230 Grand Trunk in Vaughan. We strongly oppose any residential development on the subject lands. We hope that TRCA will do what’s necessary to protect these lands from any development. Please note that we were not aware of the earlier hearings on the subject (e.g. at the OMB), and therefore were not able to express our concerns at an earlier date.
Thanks,
Shaul Wisebourt and Margarita Makovenko, residents of 79 Maverick Crescent in Vaughan
123
CORRESPONDENCE 7.9
May 25, 2016
Dear Brian:
Re: 8.3 Hurontario-Main Light Rail Transit (LRT) – Proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley
Alignment
I understand that on Friday morning at the regularly scheduled TRCA meeting Board
Members will be considering a staff report on the issue of the Hurontario-Main Street LRT –
proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley Alignment. I am reaching out to you and Board Members
on behalf of a number of concerned residents in Brampton to offer my full support for
TRCA’s staff position which does NOT support this alignment.
I am strongly opposed to any alignment route which would require an LRT to travel
through the Etobicoke Creek valley from north of Nanwood Drive to Queen Street and the
Brampton Downtown GO Station. In the report, staff indicate that there is increased risk to
life, property and infrastructure should an LRT alignment be permitted within the valley
and which is not supported by TRCA’s policies – I concur. This proposed route would have
significant impacts on a regulatory floodplain and is contrary to the policies of the TRCA,
the Government of Ontario, and more specifically the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change.
TRCA staff has indicated that if the City of Brampton were to proceed with considering this
option, that an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) would need to be completed,
and the IEA would be subject to approval by the Minister of the Environment and Climate
Change. In my opinion, any further study of this proposed route, would be unwise and
ultimately a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I respectfully request that you share this correspondence with all Board Members.
Regards,
Linda Jeffrey
Mayor
124
cc. Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry
Minister of Transportation
Chair of Metrolinx
125
CORRESPONDENCE 7.10
Dear Kathy Stranks,
I am writing to you on behalf of myself Sandra D'Addio and my husband Joe D'Addio, we live at
47 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, and back onto the Dufferin Vista lands at 230 Grand Trunk
Ave. We are opposed to this development that the TRCA has determined eligible for
redevelopment, pending further study.
It has been shown in the past and agreed to by the TRCA, that there are endangered species on
this land, and that there is a protected water course running under the land. I am in question as to
why more studies are needed if this has already been proven.
We would would like you to please look at this issue very carefully in hopes that the TRCA rule
that the City follows the Vaughan's official plan in regards to this development.
Thank You,
Sincerely,
Joe & Sandra D'Addio
126
CORRESPONDENCE 7.11
Francis Chan <>
26/05/2016 12:01 PM
To [email protected],
cc
Subject Item 9.2 -Dufferin Vistas Ltd - 230 Grand Trunk Townhouse
developemnt
Dear Ms Stranks,
Our family lives at 11 Princess Isabella Court. Our house backs onto the Dufferin Vistas
development at 230 Grand Trunk.
TRCA has decided this land is suitable for Townhouse development.
We STRONGLY oppose this development.
Our major concern is that this development destroys wetlands and wildlife habitats intentionally.
The developer had identified the presence of wetlands, potential fish habitat, potential
significant wildlife habitat (amphibian breeding habitat) and an intermittent stream in the eastern
section of the townhouse development.
The developer proposed to cover these wetlands and habitats with over 10 metres of fill in these
locations, and construct a retaining wall at the end of the cul-de-sac to obtain a grade separation
of 11 metres above the existing wetland, to enhance the east wetland size and functions to
compensate for the wetland removals and impacts within the proposed development area.
In general the proposed grade of the development will be above the surrounding OS5 zones and
the existing residential areas.
 New wetlands have uncertain environmental outcomes when they are used to replace healthy
natural wetlands. They do not replace what is lost in terms of biodiversity and other key
functions compared to natural wetlands
 The noise, pollution and vibration from the construction and fill compaction will
permanently destroy the wildlife habitats in the proposed Townhouse area and in the adjacent
environmental protection zones. Wildlife habitat compensations are not feasible.

The tall retaining wall will have a negative impact to the wildlife and environment.
These eastern areas are connected upstream hydrologically to existing storm water management
facilities and existing development.
127

The developer proposed to construct a storm water outfall at the retaining wall.
The water flow from a major storm will turn the existing OS5 wetland into storm water retention
pond and will have a negative impact to the wildlife habitats and vegetation.

Construction works should not be allowed in the OS5.
TRCA should not grant permission for the low rise residential development in these areas. The
control of flooding, erosion, pollution, change and interfere with wetlands are affected by this
development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Francis Chan
11 Princess Isabella Court, Maple, Ontario. L6A 4B3
128
CORRESPONDENCE 7.12
zheng Connie <>
25/05/2016 11:26 PM
Please respond to
zheng Connie <>
To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
cc
Subject Strong objection to the Proposed Development Plan on open
space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON
Dear Ms. Stranks,
We wish to make you aware of our strong objections regard to the Proposed
Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON (the
“Open Space Lands”). We are the resident at 103 Maverick Cres. As an immediate
neighbor to the site of the Proposed Development Plan, we are of the view that the
Proposed Development Plan will have a serious impact on our standard of living. And it
also does not obviously comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan,
Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, and Vaughan City Plan Policies.
First, according to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001: “ The decisions
of provincial ministers, ministries and agencies made under the Planning Act or the
Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, are required to conform
with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Act, 2001 establishes the following objectives for the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan: (a) protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Area…” The Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally sensitive
and geological landform. One of the goals of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan is to protect and restore natural and open space connections under the Oak
Ridges Moraine. The Open Space Lands are located in an area which is protected by
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and also were designated by Vaughan City
as Valley/Open Space Lands.
The Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect the objectives of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Area; to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green
space and loss of open space connections required by the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan. The Open Space Lands located within the Oak Ridges Moraine
provide important groundwater recharge and habitat to species that require open areas
to complete their life cycles.
Second, according to the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014, 1.1.3 : “It is in
the interest of all communities to use land and resources wisely, to promote efficient
development patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces…” Green open space
is in scarce supply in our area and this woodland site and the trees on it provide a
valuable contribution to the neighborhood scene and adjoining neighborhood park and
are an amenity for local residents.
A lot of trees are so close to the Open Space Lands, so the Proposed Development
Plan would damage the root system of trees. The trees concerned and the Open Space
Lands are a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and significantly to the amenity of
129
our area. The Proposed Development Plan is a direct contravention of the Ontario
Provincial Policy Statement.
Third, according to City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 – Volume 1 Policies, 9.1.2.1 :
“That new development will respect and reinforce the existing and planned context
within which it is situated. More specifically, the built form of new developments will be
designed to achieve the following general objectives: a. in Community Areas, new
development will be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the
established neighborhood within which it is located…” The Proposed Development Plan
doesn’t respect the character of the surroundings. The layout and design of the
surroundings close to the Open Space Lands are detached two-garage houses (i.e., 40
ft. Lot Homes). The Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect local context, because
the Proposed Development Plan intends to build townhouses which will be much
smaller than the neighboring properties. In addition, the Proposed Development Plan
will be in the middle of two areas having existing 40 ft. Lot detached homes. Therefore,
the Proposed Development Plan doesn’t respect the character and amenity of adjoining
residential properties.
We wish TRCA to support sustainable development in our city. We would be grateful if
TRCA would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application.
Yours sincerely,
Connie Zheng & Raymond Su
130
CORRESPONDENCE 7.13
From: Nello DiCostanzo []
Sent: 05/26/2016 04:01 PM AST
To: Kathy Stranks
Subject: My Family Strongly Opposes the. Development of 230 Grand Trunk Blvd
Dear TRCA, I have been living at 33 Princess Isabella Court for the last 7 years, with my family.
One of the reasons we bought our home is that the natural green forested areas behind our house was part of a protected are under the Oak Ridges Moraine act and we were told by the builder this area behind our home would never be developed . We paid a premium dollar amount for our home because it backed onto this green space.
Throughout the years we have seen numerous wildlife, including deer, owls, turtles and birds.
I also spoke with officials at the TRCA over the last year and they always stated that they were in opposition to any development of these lands on the proposed 230 Grand Trunk development.
Why and when did the TRCA change their minds on the development of these lands? Did someone influence the TRCA's decision. This does not make sense to all of the residents of Princess Isabella and surrounding area.
We strongly oppose the development of 230 Grand Trunk as we believe this will not only destroy this natural habitat but also destroy the equity value of our homes.
Sincerely,
Nello DiCostanzo and Family
131
CORRESPONDENCE 7.14
Good afternoon Kathy,
My name is Anthony Percaccio of 12 Princess Isabella Crt Maple ON L6A 4B3. As I am unable to attend in person, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and wish to have my statement below added on record as a deputation in opposition to Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27th at 9:30am regarding:
PUBLIC RECORD
DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road City of Vaughan, York Region I strongly oppose the re‐designation of these lands and the proposed development.
The residents of Princess Isabella Crt, Maverick Cres, Lady Bianca Crt and Grand Trunk Ave have had a terrible, negative and extremely confusing experience with the majority of our City Councilors and some City Staff regarding the re‐designation of the subject lands. We feel that we have been kept in the dark and misrepresented regarding this PL111184 OMB Case. Most of the details and recommendations made by the majority of the City Councilors were brought into close sessions and thus we feel a great lack of transparency. I wish to note, however, that our local Councilor, Sandra Yeung Racco, has been fighting on behalf of the residents.
As a resident, I find it very odd that 3 levels of government, in this case, the City of Vaughan, York Region and the Province of Ontario choose not to participate in the protection of the natural features of these lands during this case, when in the past they were at the forefront to preserve them. From what we understand, the City for many years has apparently attempted to purchase the subject lands to extend Grand Trunk Ave and at the same time preserve these eco‐sensitive lands and the corridor that is provides for the wild life that habitats it. How has this suddenly changed?
The residence have collectively submitted an option to the City that can make this "win‐win" scenario by exercising various land securement tools such as a "Land Exchange" or perhaps “
Conservation Easement Agreements” that the City states in their Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014) . The following is an excerpt from the City of Vaughan Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014): "Landowners who own property within a valley system, flood plain, or environmentally sensitive feature may exchange their parcel with a less environmentally sensitive area, usually within the higher, drier tableland. These arrangements may bring funds, which can be used to acquire additional conservation lands. While these transactions traditionally consist of the exchange of fee simple interests, they can consist of any combination of property interests. Note that land exchanges are not necessarily acre for acre. Any exchange would be based on appraised value as valley lands would not be valued the same as developable tableland ."
I would like to note and applaud the TRCA's Vision: The quality of life on Earth is being created in rapidly expanding city regions. Our vision is for a new kind of community "The Living City" where human settlement can flourish forever as part of nature’s beauty and diversity, as well 132
as its Mission: To work with our partners to ensure that "The Living City" is built upon a
natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities . Under this Vision and Mission, TRCA's mandate it is to further the conservation and restoration of the Humber and Don watersheds in Vaughan. Given this, the TRCA should have through its mandate and ongoing advocacy, restored the natural environment and the ecological services that the previous owner unfortunately altered through deforestation of the subject lands. We ask that the TRCA Board and its staff continue their due diligence with the technical studies review and not to compromise their core values and to use their power through regulation, reviews and comments, prevention, elimination or reduction of the risk of life and property, public safety and advocacy with the City.
I would also like to bring to your attention a former precedent case with the same developer that the TRCA was involved in: 611428 Ontario Limited v. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (February 11th, 1994). Perhaps this case should be reviewed as it may relate to the subject lands case in terms of the "conservation of an ecosystem ".
The TRCA is one of our last hopes in regards to having this re‐designation addressed and we hope that this case turns into a Good News Story agenda item at your next meeting.
Thank you for your consideration to contribute to "The Living City"!
Anthony Percaccio
133
CORRESPONDENCE 7.15
From: furio []
Sent: 05/26/2016 03:58 PM AST
To: Kathy Stranks
Cc: furio home liberatore <>; Richard Lorello <>; [email protected]
Subject: 230 Grand Trunk Ave. Formerly 9500 Dufferin Street.
Good Morning,
My name is Furio Liberatore. I reside at 7 Princess Isabella Crt which is adjacent to 230 Grand Trunk Ave. We strongly oppose the re‐designation of these lands and the proposed development plan file 19T‐16V001 submitted by Dufferin Vista Ltd to the City of Vaughan.
The residents of Princess Isabella Crt, Maverick Cres, Lady Bianca Crt and Grand Trunk Ave have had a negative, confusing, and dis‐heartening experience with our City Councilors and City Staff regarding the re‐designation of the subject lands. We feel that we have been kept in the dark and misrepresented regarding this PL111184 OMB Case. Most of the details and recommendations made by City Councilors were brought into close sessions and thus we feel a great lack of transparency.
As a resident, I find it odd that the City, the Region and the Province choose not to participate in the protection of the natural features of these lands, when in the past they were front ant centre to preserve them. The City for many years has attempted to purchase the subject lands to extend Grand Trunk Ave and at the same time preserve these eco‐sensitive lands and the corridor that is provides for the wild life that habitats it.
The residence have collectively submitted an option to the City that can make this "win‐win" scenario by exercising a land securement tool via a "Land Exchange" that the City states in their Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014). The following is an excerpt from the City of Vaughan Conservation Land Securement Strategy (2014): "Landowners who own property within a valley system, flood plain, or environmentally sensitive feature may exchange their parcel with a less environmentally sensitive area, usually within the higher, drier tableland. These arrangements may bring funds, which can be used to acquire additional conservation lands. While these transactions traditionally consist of the exchange of fee simple interests, they can consist of any combination of property interests. Note that land exchanges are not necessarily acre for acre. Any exchange would be based on appraised value as valley lands would not be valued the same as developable tableland ."
Part of the TRCA's mandate it is to further the conservation and restoration of the Humber and Don watersheds in Vaughan. Given this, the TRCA should have through its mandate, restored the natural environment and the ecological services that the previous owner unfortunately altered through deforestation. We ask that the TRCA Board and its staff continue their due diligence with the technical studies review and not to compromise their core values.
The TRCA is our last hope in regards to having this re‐designation shed an ounce of true transparency.
Thank You.
Furio Liberatore
134
CORRESPONDENCE 7.16
From: Giovanni Senisi <>
Date: May 26, 2016 at 11:01:55 PM EDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27 at 9:30am
Reply-To:
Good evening Kathy,
My name is John Senisi of 99 Maverick Crescent. Since I am unable to attend
in-person I would like the statement below to go on record as my deputation in
opposition to Item 9.2 scheduled for Friday May 27th at 9:30am regarding:
PUBLIC RECORD
DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL
OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD.
(FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI)
230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street)
Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road
City of Vaughan, York Region
My family and I strongly oppose the re-designation of these lands and the
proposed development.
The lands in question are an integral part of a patch-corridor matrix - it is
effectively the 'keystone' holding three of them together. This tract of land is a
wildlife corridor between four forested areas, two large ones and two smaller
ones. This strip of forest and grassland connects to one Vaughan's largest
forests that is east of Peter Rupert Avenue, and the wider green spaces of the
MacMillan Nature Reserve east of Dufferin and eventually joining the Don River
ravine system. Neither of the three forests west of Dufferin can sustain large
mammal populations like deer without this corridor - without the ability to access
other populations during breeding season they will inevitably die off as a result of
inbreeding. The corridor is used by an impressive array of wildlife considering it's
suburban position. The Wood-Peewee (listed as "Endangered" by Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources) is a known inhabitant. The Barred Owl, Cooper's
Hawk, Cardinal, Blue Jay, Titmouse, Dove, Junco, Chickadee, Northern Flicker,
various Woodpeckers, Hummingbird, American Goldfinch, Sparrow, Indigo
Bunting, Wild Turkey, Deer, Coyote, Gopher, Rabbit, Gray Treefrog, and the
American Toad have all been witnessed using this land by my neighbours and I.
Indigo Buntings dwell among old growth - their presence here is remarkable. The
Barred Owl is not known to live in this part of Ontario yet it's one of our regulars.
According to Frog Watch Ontario this is one of very few spots in the GTA with a
vibrant population of Gray Treefrog; indeed they use the treeline running along
the length of this property to get from one body of water to the next each spring a migration crucial to their survival.
Not only is this the location of an aquifer fulfilling its part of the Oak Ridges
Moraine System but it's higher areas also serve to filter the groundwater that
135
partly maintains the two bodies of water used by the Treefrog and other wildlife one at the easternmost end of the property and the other just west of Peter
Rupert surrounded by forest.
The reasons for maintaining protection of this space in the past were as plentiful
as they are now and it is misguided to consider degrading it any further than it
already has been. Open grasslands are a habitat that has become greatly
needed to ensure the continued survival of several species - this property's
unique combination of features and important functions made it an obvious part
of Vaughan's Natural Heritage Network ... a network that deserves to be
preserved for future generations.
Thank-you,
John Senisi
136
CORRESPONDENCE 7.17
From: salvatore mirasola <>
Date: May 26, 2016 at 10:32:09 PM EDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: email to TRCA
Sam and Enza Mirasola
Our family lives at 30 Princess Isabella Court. TRCA has decided this land is suitable for Townhouse development. We STRONGLY oppose this development.
To Whom it may concern
As community residents we are extremely concerned about the changes to land use
sanctioned by the OMB and TRCA.
It’s evident from the numerous written submissions and community indignation that the
vast majority of residents bordering the Dufferin Vistas Lands disagreed with key aspects
of the changes to land use.
Our consensus is that the resolution was expedited in haste and without community
involvement. Like my fellow residents I am resentful of the duplicitous aura of the
decision and bitter by the inadequate governance for the maintenance and enhancement
of environmental protection.
Needless to say, the community has spoken by raising concerns.
The recurring and consistent themes in the residents submissions have been:
1. Poor quality of public consultation
2. Poor quality of research.
3. Bias nature of information provided.
4. Concern about harm to the natural environment
5. Concern about the workability of the development proposed
6. Loss of trust in local government and lack of transparency
A more responsive system of Governance must put quality decision making as a higher
priority. Do the right thing!
137
Section I – Items for Authority Action
RES.#A62/16 -
APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
City of Toronto. The Secretary-Treasurer advises that two new appointees
to TRCA, representing the City of Toronto, have been duly appointed and
are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority until the 2017 annual
meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority
Meeting for 2017 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 will be
confirmed, unless a successor is appointed.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Giorgio Mammoliti
THAT Councillor Frances Nunziata be recognized as a City of Toronto Member of Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until December 31, 2016 and until the first
meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a
Member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on
February 24, 2017, or until her successor is appointed;
THAT Ronald Chopowick be recognized as a City of Toronto Member of TRCA until July 9,
2018, and until a successor is appointed, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit
as a Member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/17, or until his successor
is appointed;
AND FURTHER THAT Councillor Rob Ford’s service to TRCA be acknowledged, and
Rodney Hoinkes be thanked for his service to TRCA.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In December 2014, the City of Toronto Council approved the nine Council appointees to TRCA for
a term of office expiring on December 31, 2016 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards. In
July 2015, City of Toronto Council approved the five citizen appointments to TRCA until July 9,
2018, and until successors are appointed.
Two of these positions became vacant due to the passing of Councillor Rob Ford and the
resignation of Rodney Hoinkes due to job requirements out of country. As a result of these
vacancies, at Toronto City Council meeting held on May 3-5, 2016, Council approved
appointment of Councillor Frances Nunziata and Ronald Chopowick to TRCA.
Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary-Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as
Members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such
advisement needs to be provided at the May 27, 2016 meeting, to be effective until Annual
Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017, or until their successors are
appointed. As a result, the Secretary-Treasurer is advising that Frances Nunziata and Ronald
Chopowick are duly appointed to sit as Members of the Authority, effective May 27, 2016.
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 6, 2016
______________________________
138
RES.#A63/16 -
PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: A PEARSON ECO-BUSINESS
ZONE
2015 Annual Report. Overview of Partners in Project Green’s 2015
accomplishments in the Pearson Eco-Business Zone.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jack Ballinger
Michael Di Biase
THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report Highlights be received for
information;
AND FURTHER THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report be provided to
TRCA’s local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone was developed by Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 2008 in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority
(GTAA), the Region of Peel, and cities of Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga, to build and
activate the largest eco-business community in the world. Partners in Project Green actively
supports Building The Living City, TRCA’s 2013 – 2022 Strategic Plan through Leadership
Strategy #1: Green the Toronto region’s Economy by helping the business community transform
the way it operates and instill lasting change in the Etobicoke-Mimico and Humber watersheds
through long-term renovation, retrofit and redevelopment in the region’s major employment lands.
Partners in Project Green’s 2015 Annual Report captures the achievements and results of
Partners in Project Green activities in 2015, and includes a variety of impressive energy, water
and waste reduction achievements throughout the Pearson Eco-Business community. The report
also profiles members of Partners in Project Green Executive Management Committee and
Performance Area Committees.
Partners in Project Green’s results for 2015 speak to a simple truth: we are all stronger, we are
more effective and we can achieve so much more when we choose to work together.
The full report can be found online at http://ar2015.partnersinprojectgreen.com/.
Annual Report Highlights
The following are highlights from the annual report:

38,330 tonnes eCO2 reduced
300% increase with respect to 2014 | Target: 10,170 t by 2015

4,262 tonnes avoided from 26 materials exchanges
500% increase with respect to 2014 | Target: 2,000 t by 2015
212.4 million litres of water footprint offset
16% increase with respect to 2014 | Target: 172.4M by 2015


Collective impact – 80 networked electric vehicle charging stations installed
15 participating companies and 6.5 tonnes of GHG emissions reductions.
139

Revenue diversification – 20.8% of total budget from self-generated revenue sources
11.8% increase with respect to 2014 |Target: 25% by 2015

In-kind support – $125,857 in-kind community support

100 Active Members
31% increase with respect to 2014 | Target: 120 by 2015

1,432 event participants
26.7% increase with respect to 2014 | Target: 1,400 participants
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone (Account 413-01) is funded by the
Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Peel and the City of Toronto. In addition, the
project self-generated 20.8% of its total revenue sources in 2015.Additional PPG financial details
can be found at http://ar2013.partnersinprojectgreen.com/results-financial/.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Present Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report to TRCA local and regional municipal
partners involved in Partners in Project Green.
Report prepared by: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 2, 2016
______________________________
140
RES.#A64/16 -
HURONTARIO-MAIN STREET LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT)
Proposed Etobicoke Creek Valley Alignment. Request from Brampton City
Council for a TRCA opinion on a proposed alignment of the
Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) system through the
Etobicoke Creek valley from just north of Nanwood Drive to Queen Street
and the Brampton Downtown GO Station.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Jim Tovey
THAT the City of Brampton letter (attached) requesting that Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide formal response to Brampton City Council’s
proposal of locating a section of the proposed Hurontario-Main Light Rail Transit (LRT)
within the Etobicoke Creek Valley Corridor, be received;
THAT TRCA staff recommend to the Authority that an LRT alignment through the
Etobicoke Creek Valley not be supported based on TRCA’s policies, permitting
requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06, our delegated role to represent the
provincial interest on natural hazards, previously approved work with the Province and
City of Brampton on risk reduction within Downtown Brampton and the increased risk to
life, property and infrastructure that an LRT would pose within the valley;
THAT TRCA does not support a surface, tunnel or elevated LRT route within the Etobicoke
Creek valley, on land which is owned by TRCA, which is subject to significant risk from
flooding and erosion, and which provides one of the few contiguous natural heritage
corridors within the City;
THAT should the City of Brampton proceed with further investigations for an LRT
alignment through Etobicoke Creek Valley, despite TRCA’s recommendations to the
contrary, an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) be completed due to the scope
and level of work that will need to take place to ensure an integrated study between this
transit initiative, flood remediation efforts, hazard risks and land use planning/growth
implications, and that the IEA be subject to approval by the Minister of the Environment
and Climate Change as is provided for in the legislation;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Brampton, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister of the Environment and Climate
Change, Minister of Transportation, and the Chair of Metrolinx, be so advised.
AMENDMENT
Moved by:
Seconded by:
John Sprovieri
Gino Rosati
THAT item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) be referred to Brampton
staff until an Individual Environmental Assessment is complete.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
WITHDRAWN
141
RECORDED VOTE
Kevin Ashe
Maria Augimeri
Jack Ballinger
Ronald Chopowick
Vincent Crisanti
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Michael Di Biase
Jennifer Drake
Chris Fonseca
Jack Heath
Jennifer Innis
Colleen Jordan
Matt Mahoney
Giorgio Mammoliti
Glenn Mason
Mike Mattos
Frances Nunziata
Linda Pabst
Anthony Perruzza
Gino Rosati
John Sprovieri
Jim Tovey
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the City of Mississauga and City of Brampton, in consultation with TRCA staff and other
interested stakeholders, initiated the Master Plan for the future proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT)
system from Port Credit in the City of Mississauga to the Downtown GO Station in the City of
Brampton. The Master Plan recommended a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system along
Hurontario-Main Street between downtown Brampton and the Port Credit waterfront. The
recommendation included a one way loop in Downtown Brampton that would turn west on
Wellington Street then north on George Street and pass through a new tunnel under the CN rail
corridor/GO tracks to the downtown Brampton GO station. The LRT would then turn south on
Main Street north of the rail corridor and continue south on Main-Hurontario Street into
Mississauga. A new LRT maintenance and storage facility was also identified on the southeast
corner of Hurontario Street and Highway 407 in the City of Brampton.
In 2014, the City of Mississauga, City of Brampton and Metrolinx in consultation with TRCA staff
and other interested stakeholders completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) through the
Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). Through further refinement of the 2008 alignment,
the TPAP identified the preferred LRT alignment along Hurontario-Main Street to the downtown
Brampton GO station. A Notice to Proceed was issued by the Minister of the Environment and
Climate Change on August 25, 2014 allowing the Hurontario-Main Street LRT to proceed to the
implementation phase of work from Port Credit GO to Brampton GO.
142
Prior to TPAP approval, Brampton City Council advised that it had concerns with the option of the
LRT along Hurontario-Main Street north of Steeles Avenue, and asked City of Brampton staff to
develop their own assessment of possible alignments including investigation of an alignment
through the Etobicoke Valley Corridor. During 2014 and 2015, TRCA staff provided detailed
comments on the considerable deviation of this option from our policies, permitting requirements
under Ontario Regulation 166/06, our delegated role to represent the provincial interest on natural
hazards and previously approved work with the Province and City of Brampton on risk reduction
within Downtown Brampton. In addition, TRCA staff advised that construction of an LRT within
the flood plain, paralleling the main Etobicoke Creek would increase risk to life, property and
infrastructure as outlined in this report, to both staff and council, including a presentation to
council on July 8, 2015. On October 27, 2015, Brampton City Council only approved the
Hurontario-Main LRT from Brampton’s southern boundary to the Gateway Terminal at Steeles
Avenue, and permanently removed the LRT surface alignment on Main Street from further
consideration north of Etobicoke Creek through Downtown Brampton.
On March 9, 2016, Brampton City Council directed Brampton staff to examine three alternatives,
including the Etobicoke Valley option (Route 3), “…with the purpose of the study being to
recommend to Council a route that will provide the most intensification opportunities in the central
area and the most economic benefit to the City of Brampton”. Council also directed Brampton
staff to “…work with Toronto Region Conservation staff to come to an agreement on Route 3 –
Etobicoke Creek Valley, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter be brought forward to
the Toronto Region Conservation Board of Directors.” TRCA and City of Brampton staff met on
April 28, 2016 to further discuss a potential alignment through the valley. On May 5, 2016, TRCA
staff received a request from the City of Brampton to proceed with a report to the Authority for a
formal position on the Etobicoke Creek valley alignment.
RATIONALE
TRCA staff has significant concerns related to construction of a transit system through a valley
corridor. This includes flood plain, flood control and natural heritage management, as well as
provincial and TRCA policy implications. Furthermore, as the Downtown Brampton SPA update
did not assess the implications of risk to life and property as a result of the introduction of new
transit infrastructure through the valley corridor, there are potential limitations to future
development and flood remediation opportunities in downtown Brampton.
DOWNTOWN BRAMPTON PLANNING INITIATIVES
Special Policy Areas
Portions of the City of Brampton (Downtown Brampton and Bram East) are located within the
flood plain and Special Policy Area (SPA) of the Etobicoke Creek (Figure 1). SPAs are planning
mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that exist within
flood vulnerable areas to allow for continued social and economic viability and revitalization of
these areas. Any changes to the boundaries or official plan policies of SPAs must be approved
by both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Natural Resources and
Forestry because they reflect a relaxation of provincial natural hazard policies for flood-related
events, where this is deemed appropriate.
143
Downtown Brampton SPA Updates
On April 30, 2014, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Natural
Resources and Forestry approved the Downtown Brampton Special Policy Area: Comprehensive
Flood Risk and Management Analysis. The SPA update was a collaborative effort between the
City of Brampton, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and TRCA. It resulted in updates to the land use permissions,
policies and boundary of the Downtown Brampton SPA through amendments to the City of
Brampton’s Secondary Plan and Zoning By-Law adopted by City of Brampton Council. The
Authority also endorsed the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment
to implement the updated SPA policies and boundaries on January 31, 2014 (RES.#A224/13).
These site specific SPA policies are used by TRCA staff to inform and guide TRCA’s regulatory
permitting responsibilities under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act.
The comprehensive SPA update was premised on a strategy to reduce the risk to life, property
and infrastructure. The following is a summary of some of the key outcomes of the SPA update:
 a clear vision for the rehabilitation and revitalization of Downtown Brampton
 a comprehensive analysis of land use and current flood risk characterization based on
technical updates by TRCA
 a reduction in overall risk through strategic planning of new development and strategic
redistribution of permitted development to areas with lower flood risk and emergency access
 a comprehensive set of technical requirements to support flood risk management in
conjunction with development approvals
 no increase in development permissions above what is currently allowed within the SPA
 no substantial increase to the costs associated with potential flood damages
 a plan for addressing flood mitigation for the Regulatory Storm
These updates allow Brampton Council to approve development applications that conform to the
revised Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law without the need for further Provincial review and
approval within the SPA. The update does not allow for increased intensification above what is
already permitted within the revised Secondary Plan and will not allow further intensification until
such time as studies to further reduce the flood risk have been completed. Further, the update
incorporates the City’s original Transportation Master Plan which does not recognize the valley as
a key transit spine and intensification corridor, but rather Queen Street and Hurontario-Main
Street. It also did not assess the implications of risk to life and property with the introduction of
new transit infrastructure through the valley corridor.
Bram East SPA Comprehensive Update
The City of Brampton is currently undertaking a similar comprehensive update to the Bram East
SPA (Figure 1) in collaboration with MMAH, MNRF and TRCA. As per provincial requirements,
all opportunities to reduce the risk to life, property and infrastructure will need to be explored
through this review process.
Flood Remediation Work and Future Intensification
TRCA is working with the City of Brampton on Phase 2: Integrated Riverine and Urban Flood Risk
Analysis and Urban Drainage Study, which was informed by the SPA update and is a technical
review of flood remediation alternatives for the Downtown Brampton SPA. The City's long term
vision for revitalization and intensification of the historic downtown hinges on engineering studies
already undertaken through the SPA update which did not account for an LRT within the valley,
and potential uninterrupted conveyance of flows through the Etobicoke Creek valley. The
Downtown Etobicoke Creek Flood Mitigation and Revitalization project is a major initiative in the
144
City of Brampton to provide long term solutions to flooding issues while creating new public space
and amenities and enable revitalization of a designated urban growth centre. An LRT through
this corridor may limit the viability and flood remediation options currently being studied to further
reduce the flood risk from adjacent lands within Downtown Brampton.
TRCA AND PROVINCIAL POLICIES
The Conservation Authorities Act provides the legal basis for TRCA’s mandate to undertake
watershed planning and management programs that prevent, eliminate, or reduce the risk to life
and property from flood hazards and erosion hazards, as well as encourage the conservation and
restoration of natural resources. TRCA also has a delegated responsibility to represent the
provincial interest on natural hazards under Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
2014. An LRT through the Etobicoke Creek valley contradicts TRCA’s infrastructure policies as
identified within TRCA’s The Living City Policies, as approved by the Authority on November 28,
2014 (RES #A186/14). In addition, provincial and TRCA policies for natural hazards do not allow
for new development and site alteration within a floodway. Construction of an LRT through the
Etobicoke Creek valley would be contrary to TRCA policies and the tests under Ontario
Regulation 166/06 for natural hazards, intrusion into and losses to the natural heritage system
and safety standards relating to flood depths, velocities and emergency access into the valley
during times of natural hazards.
TRCA is a commenting agency under both the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment
Act, and a regulatory agency under the Conservation Authorities Act. In cases where land use
approvals under the Planning Act require coordination with infrastructure approvals under the
Environmental Assessment Act, an integration of the planning processes and approvals under
both Acts may take place, provided the intent and requirements of both Acts are met as identified
in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). TRCA also has a responsibility as a regulatory agency
to provide comments to agencies in the planning and EA process where it involves a TRCA
regulated area, given that development, infrastructure and site alteration within regulated areas
requires a TRCA permit. Should an LRT through the valley be pursued, an integrated approach
will be required in order to ensure that both the land use planning and infrastructure approvals
meet Provincial and TRCA policies and requirements as noted above.
EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE
There are currently two (2) critical pieces of flood control infrastructure within the City: the
Brampton by-pass channel (Etobicoke Creek) and the Brampton flood protection berm located in
the Bram East SPA and within the Etobicoke Creek valley. The by-pass channel is a major flood
conveyance system which has the capacity to convey flows for up to the 350-year storm event.
Preliminary assessment of the flood protection berm located downstream of Downtown
Brampton, but within the Bram East SPA and valley indicates that it serves to hold back flood
waters close to the 350 year storm event. Currently, as part of on-going flood remediation work,
TRCA and City staff are completing engineering studies on the function of the berm. Not only
would an LRT within this system present an increased risk to human life, but it would also put any
existing or new infrastructure at risk due to significant flood and erosion hazards. As the owner
and operator of the LRT, the City would in part be held accountable for any damage to life,
property or infrastructure occurring as a result of these hazards.
145
The PPS and TRCA’s Living City Policies both identify climate change as a potential increased
risk associated with natural hazards. The severity and frequency of storm events within the
Greater Toronto Area should not be overlooked but rather incorporated into development and
infrastructure planning to reduce risks to life and property associated with these types of natural
hazards. Given our experience with adverse impacts to historic infrastructure within valley
corridors through flooding, erosion and risk to human life, the City should be examining ways to
reduce these risks rather than bringing people and infrastructure into a major flood conveyance
channel, particularly when there are alternate locations for an LRT system.
TRCA LANDS AND THE NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM
The valley system associated with this subject area is a part of TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural
Heritage System and is recognized as a significant valleyland/watercourse corridor within the City
of Brampton. This land is owned by TRCA, under management agreement with the City of
Brampton, and provides one of the few contiguous natural heritage corridors within the City.
Construction of an LRT would not only result in degradation to the ecological function of this
system, but also undermine public investments in community-based restoration projects that are
established and/or planned within this valley system.
As identified in the City of Brampton’s Official Plan (Section 4.5.7 – Valleylands and Watercourse
Corridors):
“It is the responsibility of the City, in consultation with the Region of Peel and the area
Conservation Authorities to ensure that the natural heritage features, functions, linkages
and hazards associated with the valleylands and watercourse corridors are respected”.
It is also noted that:
“Public ownership of the valleylands and watercourse corridors will permit the long term
protection of these important components of the natural heritage system to ensure
environmental, economic and social values that will improve the quality of life in the City”
and that “Lands designated as Valleylands/Watercourses Corridors… are intended
primarily for the preservation and conservation of the natural features, functions and
linkages”.
Public ownership of these valley systems ensures that they are protected over the long-term,
restored and enhanced and available for conveyance of flood waters during storm events to
protect development areas. These lands are also made available to the public to foster the
inter-dependent relationship between humans and the natural environment and are integral in
forming complete communities. Construction of an LRT through this valley system and parkland
will have an impact to public enjoyment of the parkland and cannot be constructed without
disturbance to natural features and ecological functions within the valley corridor.
TRCA POSITION
Revitalization of the Downtown Etobicoke Creek is a major initiative in the City of Brampton to
provide long-term solutions to flooding issues while creating new public space and amenities, and
enable revitalization of a designated Urban Growth Centre. An LRT through this corridor may
limit the viability and flood remediation options currently being studied to further reduce the flood
risk from adjacent lands within Downtown Brampton. The SPA update and resultant
Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis introduces policies that refine the
distribution of growth strategically to reduce risk to life, property and infrastructure and fulfill the
City’s vision for residential and employment growth contributing to a vibrant downtown, as
identified in the City of Brampton’s Official Plan.
146
The City of Brampton is one of the first municipalities to receive Provincial approval of
modifications to its SPA since the new Provincial guidelines were released in 2009. There has
been a significant level of work already completed by the City, Province and TRCA to study the
downtown core, update the SPA and develop a revitalization and risk management strategy.
The decision to move forward with a study to locate an LRT within the Etobicoke Creek Valley
would be contrary to previous approvals and investment both in time and money from the City,
Province and TRCA. In addition, because the SPA update did not include the presence of an
LRT within the valley, significant additional engineering work would be required to reassess the
impacts to Downtown Brampton, flooding in current neighbourhoods, and the extent of potential
changes to all of the previous provincially, TRCA and City-approved studies.
TRCA is not supportive of an LRT route through the Etobicoke Creek Valley for all of the reasons
noted above. Should the City of Brampton decide to move forward with further studies for an
LRT alignment through Etobicoke Creek Valley, despite our recommendations to the contrary, it is
suggested that:
 an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) be completed due to the scope and scale of
work that will need to be completed
 the IEA integrates the land use planning needs as it relates to flood risk, emergency
management, flood remediation, redevelopment and intensification objectives of the City
 the City incorporates and updates as part of the study the land use permissions, policies,
boundary of the Downtown Brampton SPA and amendments to the City of Brampton’s
Secondary Plan and Zoning By-Law, as adopted by City of Brampton Council, based on the
implications of the proposed LRT
The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is required to approve the Terms of
Reference for any IEA. Should the Minister approve the Terms of Reference, the development
of an IEA is a lengthy and expensive process, requiring detailed technical studies and extensive
public consultation generally involving a technical advisory committee and a separate stakeholder
advisory committee. An IEA would require a comprehensive review of public policy issues and
would need to involve a number of provincial ministries to obtain their feedback regarding their
opinion and support for this alignment. As such, the Ministries of Natural Resources and Forestry
(as related to provincial hazard management policies, SPA designations and natural heritage);
Municipal Affairs and Housing (as related to SPA and secondary plan designations), Environment
and Climate Change (as related to the environmental assessment process), Ministry of
Transportation (as related to provincial transportation policies), and Metrolinx (as related to
provincial transit policies), will need to be engaged. Once the IEA document is complete, it is
submitted for approval by the Minister. The Minister has options to approve, approve with
conditions or refuse the IEA. The Minister may also make the decision to refer the IEA to
mediation or to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing.
TRCA staff is concerned that the level of effort and funding required to both study this option, and
provide opportunity for meaningful consultation with the public, as well as provincial agencies and
TRCA, has not been thoroughly considered. It is TRCA staff opinion that the required studies
must be done as part of an integrated approach to planning through provisions in both the
Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act, that an update to the Downtown SPA will be
required and that current strategies for growth in the downtown core will require re-examination.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that approval under Ontario Regulation 166/06
under the Conservation Authorities Act must be obtained, and it must be recognized that this
project is not supported by TRCA.
147
NEXT STEPS
This report will be provided to City of Brampton staff, City of Brampton Council, the Minister of the
Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Transportation, and the Chair of Metrolinx.
Report prepared by: Sharon Lingertat, extension 5717
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 17, 2016
Attachments: 2
148
149
150
RES.#A65/16 -
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
2016 Transportation Master Plan. The Regional Municipality of York (York
Region) draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the
2009 TMP, has removed Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural
Environment and Cultural Heritage, has included a potential linkage of Pine
Valley Drive within the Boyd Conservation Area, and does not have
adequate provisions linking implementation objectives and actions
between the draft 2016 TMP and the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP).
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Di Biase
Gino Rosati
WHEREAS the draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP,
has removed the objectives, policies and actions regarding the natural environment,
proposes new road crossings of the natural heritage system (NHS), including through the
former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance, and provides no policy direction on
climate change adaptation;
AND WHEREAS the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance between
Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road contains provincially significant environmental
resources, a prominent valley feature, cultural resources for which the Huron-Wendat
First Nation has expressed a desire to protect, was closed and declared surplus by the
City of Vaughan, and was conveyed by the City of Vaughan to TRCA in 2009 to be
managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft
2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the
draft 2016 TMP, to include a summary of the key NHS policies of the ROP in the TMP, and
to re-instate those policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and
Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage, that are not clearly incorporated
within the ROP and also not included in the draft 2016 TMP, and consider including those
same policies and actions in the ROP when it is updated in the future;
THAT York Region be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
does not support the connection of Pine Valley Drive between Rutherford Road and
Clubhouse Road through TRCA Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts on the
natural environment, as well as the importance of the area’s cultural heritage;
THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to remove all explicit
references to the Pine Valley Drive connection between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse
Road from the text and schedules;
THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS, including
Teston Road between Keele and Dufferin Street, as well as Kirby Road between Bathurst
Street and Dufferin Street, and 15th Sideroad between Keele Street and Highway 400, given
that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region for study, each be
required to undertake environmental assessments that include a detailed network study
to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions;
151
THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to add a policy that all new crossings of the NHS be
designed using innovative approaches for mitigation of impacts to the NHS, inclusive of a
strong commitment to restoration and compensation for losses of the NHS;
THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly support climate
change adaptation measures through objectives, policies, or actions;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and the Huron-Wendat First Nation be so advised.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A66/16
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Michael Di Biase
Gino Rosati
THAT the third paragraph of the main motion be amended to read:
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft
2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the
draft 2016 TMP and consider including the policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under
Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage and green
infrastructure solutions, in the ROP, when it is updated in the future;
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS the draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP,
has removed the objectives, policies and actions regarding the natural environment,
proposes new road crossings of the natural heritage system (NHS), including through the
former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance, and provides no policy direction on
climate change adaptation;
AND WHEREAS the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance between
Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road contains provincially significant environmental
resources, a prominent valley feature, cultural resources for which the Huron-Wendat
First Nation has expressed a desire to protect, was closed and declared surplus by the
City of Vaughan, and was conveyed by the City of Vaughan to TRCA in 2009 to be
managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft
2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the
draft 2016 TMP and consider including the policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under
Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage and green
infrastructure solutions, in the ROP, when it is updated in the future;
152
THAT York Region be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
does not support the connection of Pine Valley Drive between Rutherford Road and
Clubhouse Road through TRCA Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts on the
natural environment, as well as the importance of the area’s cultural heritage;
THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to remove all explicit
references to the Pine Valley Drive connection between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse
Road from the text and schedules;
THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS, including
Teston Road between Keele and Dufferin Street, as well as Kirby Road between Bathurst
Street and Dufferin Street, and 15th Sideroad between Keele Street and Highway 400, given
that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region for study, each be
required to undertake environmental assessments that include a detailed network study
to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions;
THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to add a policy that all new crossings of the NHS be
designed using innovative approaches for mitigation of impacts to the NHS, inclusive of a
strong commitment to restoration and compensation for losses of the NHS;
THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly support climate
change adaptation measures through objectives, policies, or actions;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and the Huron-Wendat First Nation be so advised.
BACKGROUND
The 2009 TMP 2009 was based on the sustainability principles of healthy communities,
sustainable natural environment, and economic vitality, each with principles, goals, and
performance measures, with Principle 3 being to “protect and enhance natural and cultural
environment”, including detailed policies and action items. TRCA was very supportive of this
document, and advised York Region at Authority Meeting #7/09, (Res. #A151/09) in part, as
follows:
AND WHEREAS TRCA recognizes that overall, the Region’s draft TMP is comprehensive,
forward thinking, innovative and in particular, the sustainability principles are reflective of
TRCA's objectives for The Living City;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA fully supports the Region's draft TMP
commitment to exceeding the requirements of the environmental assessment process by
ensuring local and adjacent municipalities minimize infrastructure needs while enhancing
natural heritage and environmental features;
The draft 2016 TMP includes both an update to the 2009 TMP as well as the 2008 Pedestrian and
Cycling Master Plan. The draft 2016 TMP was initiated in 2013 and is part of the Region’s
Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process that also includes a review of the Growth
Management Strategy, specific Regional Official Plan policies, and the Water and Wastewater
Master Plan. As part of the update to the TMP, TRCA staff has participated in four Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The draft 2016 TMP was sent to TRCA staff on April 27,
2016 for comment. TRCA staff is aware that York Region staff is preparing a report to Regional
153
Council that will request endorsement of the draft document in June of this year, and as such an
expedited review and comment process was requested.
The draft 2016 TMP is based on current and detailed transportation modelling studies and
provides detailed schedules of road, transit and active transportation infrastructure needs through
the year 2041. The five objectives of the draft 2016 TMP are: create a world class transit system;
develop a road network fit for the future; integrate active transportation in urban areas; maximize
the potential of employment areas; and making the last mile work.
The Regional approach of the triple bottom line of requiring gains to each of the social, economic
and natural environments for all projects was first introduced in the 2007 Sustainability Strategy.
Climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts support each of the three environments of the
triple bottom-line approach. York Region and TRCA have been working together and separately
since 2009 on several projects to advance climate change “mitigation – actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions - and adaptation – actions to cope with the potential effects of climate
change” (LCP, 40). York Region prepared a draft Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan that
was received by Regional Council November 17, 2011. TRCA, through the Ontario Climate
Consortium, completed a project with York Region to advance the climate change adaptation
action planning in York Region. Vision 2051 contains actions and the 2010 Regional Official Plan
(ROP) contains objectives, policies and actions, specific to climate change mitigation and
adaptation.
RATIONALE
The system of linear transportation infrastructure impacts, and is impacted by, the various natural
systems. The objectives, policies and actions of a Transportation Master Plan provide an
opportunity to implement the vision of a municipality regarding how they will manage the
interactions between linear transportation infrastructure, green infrastructure and natural
systems.
Triple Bottom Line
The draft 2016 TMP is framed around only social and economic goals, and does not bring forward
the triple bottom-line (TBL) approach. The TBL requires gains to each of the social, economic and
natural environments. This approach was the basis for not only the 2009 TMP, but also the 2010
ROP, Vision 2051, and it supports various objectives and policies of the TRCA Living City
Policies. TRCA staff recommends that the draft 2016 TMP be revised to be clearly framed around
the triple bottom line approach.
2010 Regional Official Plan (previous Provincial and municipal decisions)
The ROP is foundational to the draft 2016 TMP and contains policies applicable to transportation
infrastructure projects. Based upon discussions with York Region staff, staff has been advised
that the objectives, policies and actions regarding the NHS were not included in the draft 2016
TMP because of reliance on the 2010 ROP.
The 2010 ROP states that:
 “infrastructure design and construction be sensitive to the features and functions of the
greenlands system” (s.1.10 (12)) and
 “that the planning, design and construction of infrastructure within the Regional
Greenlands System shall enhance the Regional Greenlands System” (2.1.10 (13)).
154
These two broad policies are the main commitments in the ROP related to roads infrastructure,
and similar policies were also included in the 2009 TMP. TRCA staff, in its letter response to York
Region dated May 16, 2016, has requested that:
1. York Region clearly re-state the two above noted policies from the 2010 OP into the 2016
TMP to provide consistency with the 2009 TMP, and to ensure there is clear direction for
all Environmental Assessments (EAs) for projects identified in the 2016 TMP.
2. The draft 2016 TMP be revised to clearly state the relationship of the 2010 ROP policies to
the 2016 TMP and all EAs that follow on from the draft 2016 TMP.
The 2010 ROP and the 2009 TMP both contain environmentally-based transportation planning
objectives, policies, and actions. However, they are inconsistently applied in Environmental
Assessments for transportation infrastructure. Most of the environmentally-based transportation
objectives, policies, and actions from the 2009 TMP have not been integrated in the 2010 ROP.
Missing are specific policies for infrastructure regarding avoiding significant natural heritage
features, where possible; consideration of stormwater management and water balance; and the
enhancement of natural heritage and environmental features and functions through consideration
of eco-passages, minimizing impacts, development of best management practices, other
measures to reduce vehicular-animal interaction, directional lighting, and consideration of
seasonal speed signs in high wildlife mortality zones. As such, TRCA staff has recommended to
York Region in its letter response that the 2016 TMP re-integrates those policies and actions from
the 2009 TMP into the 2016 TMP. Additionally, staff has recommended York Region add an
action item to the 2016 TMP to investigate and provide opportunity to include green infrastructure
best management practices as they are developed and as appropriate.
Under the immediate actions of 0-2 years for the 2009 TMP are the goals of avoiding or
enhancing the natural environment for all road projects, and taking the opportunity to improve
environmental functions and habitat connectivity through upgrades to existing crossing
structures. In the medium (5-10) year term are the goals to “monitor natural heritage and
environmental feature impacts resulting from transportation projects and publish a bi-annual
report card” and to design transportation infrastructure to celebrate the environment. TRCA staff
in its letter response advised that it supports these goals, noted that they are not part of the 2010
ROP or draft 2016 TMP, and requested that they be re-stated in the 2016 TMP through its letter
response.
Climate Change Adaptation
Given the large capital expense to design, construct and maintain transportation infrastructure,
and that the life-span of infrastructure built today faces the uncertainty of a changing climate,
TRCA staff recommends that it is in the best interests of York Region to reduce their exposure to
the associated economic, social and environmental risks. Based on evidence from other
jurisdictions on the significant damage to transportation infrastructure York Region is vulnerable
to increased flood and erosion risks that may affect transportation infrastructure, including
bridges, culverts and roads. Risks can be reduced through improving the resiliency of
transportation and natural systems. TRCA staff recommends that the 2016 TMP be revised to
include objectives, policies and actions that support climate change adaptation measures.
Pine Valley Drive Special Study Area
The former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance crosses the Pine Valley Forest
Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) in Boyd Conservation Area. The ESA contains high
quality habitat, a distinctive valley, and areas of groundwater recharge and discharge, and it
functions as a regional corridor for terrestrial and aquatic life. The Pine Valley forest is also
designated as a Provincially Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
155
(ANSI). Significant cultural resources in the vicinity suggest a high likelihood that significant
cultural resources exist within the former unopened road allowance. The Huron-Wendat First
Nation has expressed concerns for potential impacts on cultural resources in the area from a
connection of Pine Valley Drive.
The connection of Pine Valley Drive through the unopened road allowance was considered
through a Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment by the City of Vaughan,
initiated in 2002. However, the Minister of the Environment prevented the filing (completing) of the
EA and required that the City of Vaughan undertake a more comprehensive Individual EA (known
as a part 2 order). The City of Vaughan and York Region subsequently initiated the West
Vaughan Transportation Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment (West Vaughan IEA),
which examined transportation solutions for a much broader road network in the City of Vaughan.
The first step in an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) is preparation of a Terms of
Reference (TOR) outlining how the study will proceed, which must be approved by the Minister of
the Environment and Climate Change (formerly the Minister of the Environment). The Minister of
the Environment, in their approval of the TOR in 2006, removed consideration of the connection of
Pine Valley through the unopened road allowance. Subsequently, the City of Vaughan declared
the Pine Valley Drive road allowance between Rutherford Road and Club House Road surplus in
2007 and authorized the conveyance of those lands to TRCA for the express purpose of the
protection and enhancement of the surrounding natural environment, and authorized the stop up
and closure of the unopened road allowance. The conveyance was completed August 29, 2009.
It is the recommendation of TRCA staff that the Authority respectfully requests that York Region
remove all references to the Pine Valley Drive extension from the text, schedules and project
sheets of the 2016 TMP, and furthermore that text be added that states that the Pine Valley Drive
connection through Boyd Conservation Area not be considered due to unmitigable impacts to
significant natural and cultural resources It should further be recognized in the text of the 2016
TMP that the land is in the ownership of TRCA and managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area.
New Crossings of the Natural Heritage System
TRCA staff note that ecological impacts were not generally considered when much of the existing
road network was designed and built, and using the existing condition from which to measure
impacts will not be adequate to achieve the shared goal of TRCA and York Region for the
long-term sustainability of our natural systems, and may play a major role in the continued decline
in the health and resiliency of our natural systems. Water quality and quantity, stream channel
processes and dynamics, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality and connectivity are key
elements that will need to be identified and improved as we strive to accommodate urban growth
across the region while maintaining biodiversity and healthy natural systems and communities,
especially under the exacerbating stress of climate change.
TRCA staff recommends that the 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the
NHS each be required to undertake an environmental assessment that includes a detailed
network study to support an analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative
solutions. Further details on specific new crossings are outlined here:
Teston Road
The Teston Road unopened road allowance is proposed in the 2016 TMP to be opened between
2022 and 2026. The extension is within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Area, and will have
significant impacts on the form and function of the existing NHS.
156
At Authority Meeting #7/09, held on September 25, 2009, Resolution #A151/09 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Region be requested to amend the TMP to include the recommendation that an
Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) that includes a comprehensive network
analysis and an environmental impact assessment be completed to determine a preferred
transportation strategy for the area, was committed to in the Region’s recommendations
for the final 2003 Teston Road Class EA;
TRCA notes that York Region is preparing a TOR for the IEA for the area of the Teston Road
unopened road allowance. TRCA staff anticipates extensive involvement throughout the EA. It is
the recommendation of TRCA staff that York Region revise the text of the 2016 TMP to require
that the study of the Teston Road unopened road includes a detailed network study to support an
analysis of the need for the project and an analysis of alternative solutions.
Kirby Road and 15th Sideroad
The Kirby Road unopened road allowance is proposed in the 2016 TMP to be opened between
2027 and 2031 and the 15th Sideroad unopened road allowance is proposed to be opened by
2041. Both roads are currently under the jurisdiction of the local municipality, and both are being
considered for uploading to York Region.
Regardless of the proponent, a connection of either of the unopened road allowances could have
significant impacts on the form and function of the existing NHS. TRCA staff anticipates extensive
involvement throughout each EA. It is the recommendation of TRCA staff that York Region revise
the text of the 2016 TMP to require study of the Kirby Road and 15th Sideroad unopened road
allowances, given that they are uploaded from the local municipality to York Region and that the
projects be studied through separate EAs that include detailed network studies to support
analysis of the need for each project and analysis of alternative solutions to the problem.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
 TRCA staff will continue to liaise with York Region staff to finalize the 2016 TMP.
 TRCA staff, through the Environmental Assessment Planning section, will participate in the
EAs for projects included in the 2016 TMP that potentially impact the Programs and Policies of
TRCA.
 TRCA staff, through the Planning and Policy section, will participate in the review of the
update to the 2010 Regional Official Plan.
Report prepared by: Scott Smith, extension 5758
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Beth Williston, 416-388-7460
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 17, 2016
______________________________
157
RES.#A67/16 -
SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD RETROFIT ACTION PLAN (SNAP)
PROGRAM FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Report on Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan program
achievements and future program directions.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Chris Fonseca
Jack Heath
WHEREAS Building The Living City, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA)
2013 Strategic Plan, identified the expansion of sustainable community building and
market transformation programs, including the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit
Action Plan (SNAP) program, as a key action to achieve regional sustainability within
TRCA’s watersheds;
WHEREAS SNAP projects deliver on multiple objectives including those identified as
priorities by federal, provincial and municipal governments, such as climate action, grey
and green infrastructure renewal, human health, building community capacity and
resilience, and the strategic objectives of the watershed plans;
AND WHEREAS TRCA’s SNAP projects have been recognized and supported by a broad
spectrum of partners as being an effective neighbourhood-based model for facilitating
integrated urban retrofits for greater impact;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the future SNAP program, as outlined in the
staff report, be endorsed as the framework for advancing implementation of
neighbourhood-scale sustainability actions within TRCA’s watersheds;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to work with municipalities and other
neighbourhood partners toward the successful development and implementation of SNAP
plans and knowledge sharing;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on an annual basis.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA introduced the SNAP projects in 2009 to accelerate sustainable community building
through urban retrofit opportunities in close collaboration with municipal and community partners.
The SNAP projects bring an innovative neighbourhood-based approach to sustainable urban
renewal, providing place-based solutions and directions for achieving greater impact. The
projects consist of integrated neighbourhood action plans and strategic implementation projects,
programs and events. SNAPs contribute measureable outcomes toward the implementation of
bigger picture plans and strategies. Guided by locally established targets and retrofit strategies,
the SNAPs contribute to:
 renewing grey and green infrastructure;
 reducing energy and greenhouse gases;
 restoring watershed, Great Lakes and human health; and
 building community capacity and resilience for a changing climate.
The SNAPs are also finding ways to overcome challenges to implementation. Individual
neighbourhood SNAP pilots generate lessons learned and prototypes that can be more broadly
applied. The SNAP model is effective because it:
158






delivers on multiple objectives;
coordinates private and public realm actions;
leverages planned capital projects for greater value;
engages communities through local networks using guidance from market research;
demonstrates and tests innovative approaches; and
fosters delivery partnerships and innovation.
Within the first six years of the SNAP program, action plans have been completed and
implementation projects underway in five pilot neighbourhoods in Brampton, Mississauga,
Toronto, Richmond Hill and Markham. Innovative SNAP projects have achieved the following:
 Reimagined public infrastructure renewal projects, to achieve multiple sustainability
objectives by taking an integrated neighbourhood scale approach and raising innovative
funding to support implementation. More than a half dozen major park, road and
stormwater pond projects are complete or underway, including Brampton’s boulevard
bioswale and Upper Nine Stormwater Pond retrofit and golf course irrigation concept, and
Markham’s Glencrest Park renewal.
 Reached hard-to-engage homeowners and increased participation in undertaking green
home renovation, harvest and skills sharing and landscaping actions through locally
tailored programs. These programs have seen double the rate of uptake of mass
marketed programs and established relationships with over 1,000 homeowners to date,
representing channels to market for additional sustainability products and services.
 Demonstrated new partnerships for privately-owned public space renewal. Partnerships
with private commercial and multi-unit residential landowners, community social
enterprise and tenants have resulted in a de-pave project at the Russet Housing
Cooperative (Mississauga) and numerous revitalization initiatives as part of the San
Romanoway Revival Project (Toronto).
 Generated socio-economic benefits, alongside environmental outcomes, including skills
training, income opportunities for residents, active living and other health benefits,
community connections and food sharing, among others.
 Leveraged municipal capital budgets to raise over $2 million dollars for SNAP program
development and implementation.
 Engaged 4,000 people in over 100 programs and events, and formed over 140
partnerships. These activities have brought people of diverse cultures and age’s together
and helped people connect with nature and each other, quite possibly in sustained ways.
In 2014, TRCA staff conducted a Five Year Program Review with input from a wide spectrum of
partners, and confirmed strong partner support with good feedback for future SNAP work.
Results of the Program Review are summarized in the report: SNAP Five Year Program Review
2009-2014, Transforming Neighbourhoods – Place-based solutions and directions for greater
impact (TRCA, 2014). Report and video of innovation highlights are available on
www.sustainableneighbourhoods.ca/wp/publications/.
The recommendations arising from the Review provided directions for a refined planning model,
scaling up residential programs, scaling up lessons from public infrastructure renewal concepts,
sharing knowledge and identification of future SNAPs in association with municipal infrastructure
priorities. At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A40/14 approved
recommendations from the Program Review and directed staff to continue to work with partners
toward the implementation of SNAP plans and development of new retrofit plans. Since 2014,
the recommendations of the Program Review have been incorporated into ongoing work and
identified as part of future program activities.
159
Attachment 1 contains a full summary of the many key achievements since 2014 and planned
activities within each of the SNAP neighbourhood projects.
Learnings, Gaps and Barriers
The SNAP model has had some great successes, however there are still challenges to the
implementation of even common urban retrofits, let alone innovative sustainability projects.
These challenges have been identified by project teams and during the Program Review. Key
challenges include:
 Integrated approaches, collaborative arrangements and behaviour change take time,
therefore longer timeframes are needed to measure outcomes.
 Perceived cost and effort of multi-objective designs relative to single-purpose quick fixes,
for which cost is often still a barrier. This suggests that new methods of measuring and
reporting are needed that can evaluate and rationalize cost sharing for the overall project
benefits for a range of partner programs (e.g. socio-economic as well as environmental).
 Misalignment of various departmental workplans and budgets can limit the ability to take
advantage of timely opportunities for integrated projects and fall short of realizing full
potential outcomes. Integrated project opportunities need to be identified earlier in the
capital works planning cycle.
 Need for new approaches to access additional innovative thinkers and secure partner
commitment to create the space and culture for experimentation.
Context for the Future SNAP Program Direction
Based on partner feedback during the Five Year Program Review in 2014 and further project
experience and consultations during 2015, strategic directions and key program areas have been
defined to guide future SNAP Program activities. This turning point marks a shift from a series of
pilot projects to a longer term program commitment by TRCA.
Approval of the future SNAP program will confirm support for the growth of the program, its
strategic directions and areas of focus. This will enable staff to respond effectively and
appropriately to interest expressed by prospective partners. The program will also clearly
communicate the services TRCA provides and strengthen TRCA’s position to develop projects.
The strategic directions of the future SNAP program will align TRCA staff to assist in overcoming
further barriers to urban retrofits.
TRCA Strategic Priorities
Building The Living City, TRCA’s 2013 Strategic Plan identified the expansion of community and
market transformation programs, including SNAP, as a key action to accelerate the retrofit of
communities needed in developing a sustainable city region.
TRCA’s watershed plans demonstrate that sustainable design must be implemented in new
greenfield development and in retrofits of existing urban areas, simply to maintain watershed
conditions, let alone improve them.
The Living City Policies contain direction for TRCA’s advocacy role in the process of building
sustainable communities and recommendations for TRCA’s work with its partners. SNAPs
provide a forum for partnerships that can demonstrate, test, evaluate and learn from innovative
approaches and help existing communities become more sustainable.
160
Current and Emerging Government Policy Priorities and Opportunities
The future SNAP program will assist TRCA in advocating the role SNAP can play in providing
on-the-ground action in response to current policy priorities. There is an increasingly urgent
need for urban retrofits to address a wide range of issues. For example:
 The Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card
found that one third of Canada’s municipal infrastructure is at risk of rapid deterioration,
and noted that investments in repair and upkeep are needed in the short term to prevent a
rapid decline in the condition of municipal assets (Jan 2016).
 The Ontario Government’s Climate Change Strategy states that greenhouse gas
emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 2o C rise in average global temperatures.
If the world does not take strong action within the next decade, we are on track to see a 4o
C rise, at which point the damage from climate change would be irreversible. It is crucial
that we take steps today to fight climate change, protect the environment, build a
low-carbon, high-productivity economy and ensure strong communities for the future
(November 2015).
 Partner municipalities face the overwhelming task of implementing numerous plans and
strategies, including: municipal energy plans, climate vulnerability assessments and
adaptation strategies, infrastructure asset management plans, stormwater management
(SWM) retrofits, basement flood protection priorities, neighbourhood improvement
strategies and many other public policy objectives.
Best Practices and Trends in Urban Renewal
There is a growing community of practice that recognizes the effectiveness of a neighbourhood,
or “ecodistrict”, scale approach to urban renewal. The Ecodistricts movement, which emerged
from Portland, Oregon around the same time as the inception of TRCA’s SNAPs, promotes a very
similar holistic planning approach as SNAP and is gaining global recognition. The Canadian
Green Building Council has indicated an interest in promoting the Ecodistricts model in Canada.
SNAPs are already well-positioned to serve as a local delivery agent of this neighbourhood-based
planning model.
A “collective impact” approach is becoming recognized as essential for promoting large scale
social change and dealing with complex problems, such as the implementation of sustainable
urban retrofits. Collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff,
and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous
communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants (Kania and Kramer,
2011). TRCA and our SNAP partners are already providing a collective impact approach, and the
SNAP program will continue to support, strengthen and learn from this approach to accelerate
sustainable urban retrofits.
Social innovations refer to new concepts and practices, some of which are system-changing,
which resolve existing social, cultural, economic and environmental challenges for the public
good (Centre for Social Innovation, 2016). Increasingly these necessary innovations are coming
from initiatives that foster an intersection of the for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors. SNAPs
are creating a space for such social innovations to occur.
Future SNAP Program
Goal
The continuing goal of the SNAP program is to accelerate the creation of sustainable
neighbourhoods in older urban areas.
161
Principles
Taking a neighbourhood-based approach to urban retrofits, finding ways to overcome barriers to
implementation and achieving multi-functional outcomes from planned activities will continue to
be underpinning principles of the program.
Strategic Directions
The following strategic directions will guide future program activities:
 build on the partnerships already established in the pilot neighbourhoods to deliver even
greater impact toward targets;
 incorporate approaches to address continuing challenges that hinder urban retrofit
implementation;
 build capacity among SNAP partners for additional innovation and implementation
activities;
 expand the application of successful innovations, including the neighbourhood model
itself;
 strengthen the partnership and facilitate knowledge sharing;
 work toward achieving financial sustainability.
Program Areas
The Program will consist of four Areas:
1. Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning and Design (Enable): This Program Area involves
the provision of planning and advisory services, which will enable the development of new
SNAP plans within and external to TRCA’s jurisdiction. The work includes: site
selection, scoping and workplan development, action planning, community engagement,
market research and fundraising. TRCA staff will provide this role on a fee for service
basis. Roles and associated fees and funding arrangements are determined on a case
by case basis, depending on project scale and scope, data availability and the capacity of
the partner to dedicate resources (staff, technical studies etc.). TRCA staff regularly
receives enquiries from municipalities, other conservation authorities (CA) and other
groups within and beyond TRCA’s jurisdiction who are interested in applying the SNAP
planning model or learning from TRCA’s innovative approaches on component projects.
Provision of this service will allow TRCA to share the experience we have gained and
grow the SNAP program. A greater number of SNAPs will increase the impact of the
strategic neighbourhood approach and improve the potential for attracting more
substantial partnerships due to increased market potential and networks.
2. Sustainable Neighbourhood Implementation and Facilitation (Innovate): Projects within
this Program Area advance implementation and demonstrations in the five pilot SNAP
“innovation labs”, as well as in new SNAP neighbourhoods as action plans are prepared.
Selection of projects is based on their ability to address action plan priority outcomes, their
strategic role in engaging key stakeholders, the opportunity to demonstrate new
approaches and the availability of necessary resources. Priority projects and TRCA’s
role are determined in consultation with SNAP Neighbourhood Project Management
Teams, and can range from facilitation of multiple SNAP implementation projects with a
variety of delivery partners to direct responsibility for leading specific implementation
projects in coordination with internal TRCA departments. Funding for implementation is
project specific and often derives from a combination of sources, including planned
capital, innovative private and public sector grants and in-kind partnerships and
donations.
162
3. Knowledge Sharing and Think Tanks (Advance): Projects within this Program Area aim
to strengthen SNAP program effectiveness by facilitating intra-SNAP dialogue, knowledge
sharing and connections with extended partner networks. These efforts increase the
potential for garnering more significant resources, expertise and support for testing new
approaches. Initiatives within this Area will also tackle persistent implementation
challenges shared by many of TRCA’s partners, in order to advance the practice of
sustainable urban retrofits. Additional expertise, thought-leaders and research are
brought together to inform issues in one or more SNAPs, and use the SNAPs as case
studies to guide industry directions. To a large degree these initiatives will complement
ongoing neighbourhood projects, and therefore will be considered as part of project
budget development. It is anticipated that these forums will also position SNAP to access
additional special grants and sponsorships.
4. Scaling up (Export): Projects within this Program Area aim to provide guidance for
expanding and exporting proven solutions. Successful innovations within neighbourhood
SNAPs are scaled up to achieve greater impact and realize additional return on
investment in other locations having similar characteristics. This Area also includes
initiatives to assist partners in identifying locations which could benefit from an integrated
neighbourhood-based approach to urban retrofit. These initiatives will be supported
through a combination of fee for service and other special project funding arrangements.
Specific projects within each Program Area will be chosen to reflect priorities identified by
municipalities and other partners through various initiatives, including watershed plans, climate
action plans, infrastructure renewal plans and other strategies, and through consultation with
relevant groups (e.g. neighbourhood SNAP Project Management Teams, SNAP Program
Advisory Group, residents etc.). Projects will only be launched when necessary funding,
resources and partnerships can be secured to ensure the project’s viability.
Current projects within the four Program Areas are described under the Details of Work to be
Done section of this report.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Municipal capital funding from regions of Peel and York, and City of Toronto has formed the core
budget for SNAP neighbourhood planning and implementation projects to date. This capital
funding has been critical in leveraging two to four times more funding from other private and public
sector partners, depending on the project and year. For example, in 2015 the total SNAP budget
was $1 million, with 60% ($600,000) from regional municipal capital and 40% ($400,000) derived
from other sources. The other sources included a local municipality (City of Markham), private
foundations via The Living City Foundation (e.g. Weston Foundation, RBC Blue Water, Metcalf,
Boise Project Up), federal (FCM Green Municipal Fund) and provincial (Local Food Fund, Great
Lakes Community Guardian Fund, Trillium). In addition, significant in-kind products and services
are contributed from implementing partners, including municipalities, community groups and
organizations, and private sector businesses.
Staff will continue to work towards improving private and public funding support for
implementation activities associated with TRCA’s SNAP program and individual SNAP
neighbourhood projects. Staff anticipates opportunities to complement current budgets through
alignment with priority government initiatives and associated funding programs, such as:
 federal green infrastructure, affordable housing and energy efficiency;
 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund;
163


provincial climate action, greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade revenues,
infrastructure renewal, accessibility and health;
municipal infrastructure renewal, stormwater management fee revenue, social and health
programs, including those supporting the aging demographic.
TRCA will also continue to support the efforts of our municipal and community partners in the
preparation and securement of grants for joint projects.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A number of projects are currently underway or in planning stages for 2016, within the four
Program Areas:
Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning and Design
 SNAP Planning and Advisory Service – starting a new SNAP in Caledon and working to
expand services to groups external to TRCA through a pilot partnership with Credit Valley
Conservation, Brampton and Peel.
 Collaboration with Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) on Ecodistricts – exploring
the service TRCA could provide as a local delivery agent for Ecodistricts.
Sustainable Neighbourhood Implementation and Facilitation
 Strategic Projects and Programs – Attachment 1 contains a summary of ongoing and
planned projects determined in coordination with local SNAP Project Management
Teams. Especially innovative projects include:
 Stormwater management pond retrofit design to provide local irrigation water
supply as a public-private win-win (County Court SNAP, Brampton);
 Suburban park renewal as a new model for integrated infrastructure renewal and
catalyst for community engagement in home retrofit action (County Court SNAP,
Brampton and Bayview Glen SNAP, Markham);
 Multi-unit residential (MUR) revitalization through partnerships with private
landowners, tenant engagement and community groups and utilizing
multi-functional design (Black Creek SNAP, Toronto);
 Capacity building for local social enterprise (Black Creek SNAP, Toronto);
 Greening infill development through builder engagement, best practices guidance
and demonstration partnerships (Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill);
 Home retrofit programs delivering on multiple-objectives through a locally-tailored
one-window approach and fostering neighbor to neighbor connections
(Burnhamthorpe SNAP, Mississauga; Bayview Glen SNAP, Markham and others);
 Streamlined SNAP Action Planning (Caledon SNAP, Caledon).
Knowledge Sharing and Think Tank Forums
 SNAP Program Advisory Group – convening municipal staff liaisons 1-2 times per year to
facilitate intra-SNAP knowledge sharing.
 Annual SNAP communication strategies – preparing an updated communications strategy
for the future SNAP Program, including SNAP’s strong contributions to climate action.
 Socio-economic metrics project – leading a project to refine metrics and provide
preliminary assessment of socio-economic impacts of SNAPs.
 Suburban Park Renewal – planning an initiative to engage innovative thought-leaders in
one or more case study SNAP park renewal projects to identify new ideas to address
challenges.
164
Scaling Up and Future SNAPs
 Workplans identifying future integrated infrastructure projects – discussions are
underway with prospective partners to develop a project that would help municipalities
enhance the impact of planned capital projects, identify priority locations for future
SNAP projects and support long term workplanning and budgeting for integrated
projects.
 Black Creek SNAP Harvest the Rain Home Retrofit Program expansion – piloting the
delivery of this program to TRCA’s Erosion Remediation program clients and exploring
further applications in other similar neighbourhoods.
 Mount Dennis Eco-Neighbourhood – exploring TRCA’s role in supporting the Mount
Dennis Community Association in its initiative to develop an eco-neighbourhood.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, 416-661-6600, extension 5253
Email: [email protected]
For information contact: Sonya Meek, 416-661-6600, extension 5253
Email: [email protected]
Date: April 14, 2016
Attachments: 1
165
Attachment 1
Key Accomplishments and Planned Activities within Each SNAP Neighbourhood
Key accomplishments of each SNAP during 2009-2015 are briefly identified. Planned activities
for 2016 are listed. TRCA is the lead partner for 2016 activities, unless otherwise noted.
Dozens of partners are involved in the delivery of these initiatives.
Black Creek SNAP, Toronto
Key Accomplishments:
 Action Plan completed, including design concepts.
 Installation of San Romanoway naturalization areas, community amenities, Sunshine
Community Vegetable Garden and Fruit Tree Orchard (Toronto’s largest urban orchard
creation).
 Approximately 150 balcony gardens in five towers.
 Multiple skills training programs and income opportunities for residents.
 Connected tower tenants and single family home residents through intergenerational
skills sharing, backyard sharing and social enterprise.
 Surplus harvest donation program from the single family homes to the towers.
 Single family homes (SFH) residential retrofit program “Harvest the Rain” engaged
11% of hard-to-reach population and achieved significant home retrofits.
 Installed rainharvested supported gardens and low impact development (LID) at MUR
and ICI properties.
 Grants awarded by RBC Blue Water, Great Lakes Community Guardian Fund, Local
Food Fund, Metcalf Foundation, Boise Project Up, Trillium Foundation and Weston
Foundation.
Planned Activities 2016:
 Residential home retrofit program “Harvest the Rain” - encouraging homeowners to retrofit
their homes and properties, addressing SWM, basement flooding protection, tree canopy
coverage, energy efficiency and harvest donation.

Urban Agriculture Initiatives - fostering community resiliency and building capacity by
promoting food security and skills development in this food desert. Includes harvest
donation pick-up and delivery to meal programs, skills sharing, backyard sharing, fruit tree
care services, etc.

San Romanoway Tower Revival - precedent-setting private/public partnership to
sustainably revitalize property grounds and implement indoor energy efficiency retrofits,
while improving community’s socio-economic conditions Phase 1 (63 plot allotment
garden, fruit tree orchard, pollinator gardens, naturalization areas) constructed in 2015 Phase 2 (orchard expansion, additional naturalization, art installations, skills training
expansion) being installed in 2016.
166
County Court SNAP, Brampton
Key Accomplishments:
 Action Plan completed, including design concepts.
 Cutting-edge community engagement (80 events, 1,700 people).
 Brampton’s first bio-filter swale constructed.
 Grants awarded by FCM, RBC Blue Water, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC), others.
 Green Home Makeover demonstration shows significant energy and water savings
(44% and 41% respectively).
 Green Home retrofits promoted neighbourhood-wide.
Planned Activities 2016:
 Upper Nine SWM Pond Retrofit Design and Environmental Assessment (EA) (City of
Brampton lead, TRCA advice and support) - Legacy project to address critical public
infrastructure retrofit and create community destination and improved sense of place.
Integrated design process and community involvement. Testing new approaches to
integrate enhanced stormwater treatment, natural heritage, public amenities (e.g.
entrance, boardwalk, meeting area, lookouts, public art installations, signage).
Concept developed, detailed design in 2016, construction following.

Stormwater Irrigation Project final technical studies (Brampton Golf Club lead; TRCA
advice and support) - Rainwater harvesting from Upper Nine SWM pond to irrigate golf
club, reducing tap water use by 50%, up to 100% over time. Golf Club seeking
approval from their board in 2016 to undertake final technical assessment / system
master plan and approvals and monitoring of water quality prior to usage.
Construction would follow pond retrofit.

Neighbour-to-Neighbour Connections - Building a foundation of community cohesion,
capacity and leadership for home improvement and resilience. Deep engagement of
culturally diverse residents, and activities to support leadership capacity (e.g. local
discussions, formation of local group, neighbour-led retrofit parties, etc.). Ongoing in
2016.

Bioretention with boulevards (City lead; TRCA monitoring) - Support community
education and appreciation. Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP)
2016-2017 monitoring. Meadow establishment and signage design/installation in
2016.
Burnhamthorpe SNAP, Mississauga
The Action Plan was completed and endorsed by the City of Mississauga Council in September
2015. The Plan supports environmental resilience and active lifestyles over three major areas of
focus: Residential Resilience through increased uptake in lot level stormwater and energy
actions; Food-Tower Connection for food security and greater neighbourhood connections
through local food production; and Occupying the Street through creating greener, more vibrant
streets over time.
167
Key Accomplishments:
 Action Plan completed, including design concepts.
 Community engagement established via school network.
 Depave Paradise Project.
 Community Garden Project.
 Grants awarded by FCM, Green Communities Canada, RBC Blue Water.
Planned Activities 2016:
 Residential home retrofit program – a “one water” based approach by fostering
collaborative promotions of lot level stormwater management actions to address the City
of Mississauga’s new SWM charge program and the Region of Peel’s downspout
disconnection rebate program, with other retrofits to be promoted in subsequent years.

Raingarden installation at Sheridan Garden Centre – a partnership project with Sheridan
Nurseries, Ecosource and TRCA to create a living showcase aimed at promoting
homeowner participation in the residential home retrofit.

Environmental movie nights (Community led; TRCA support).
Caledon SNAP, Caledon
Key Accomplishments:
 Neighbourhood selected to address multiple partner priorities.
 Project management team established.
 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund application submitted.
Planned Activities 2016:
 Action Plan Development (Town/TRCA lead).

Community Engagement - Engagement of local leaders and community champions;
leading inspiring engagement activities with residents, local groups, schools, students;
nurturing of a local neighbourhood team to support long term ownership; building
awareness of the SNAP project in the community; cross promotion of other projects.

Social Research - Delivery of residents surveys, focus groups and interviews as part of
residential program design.
Lake Wilcox SNAP, Richmond Hill
Key Accomplishments:
 Action Plan completed.
 Two Eco-Landscaping Front Yard Makeover Demonstrations.
 LID performance monitoring shows rain gardens and soakaways can capture 13 mm rain
events.
 Residential eco-landscaping program has engaged over 500 people, including over 300
households generating double the rate of uptake on partner programs in SNAP area as
Town-wide.
 Bond Lake Public School bio-swale installed.
168
Planned Activities 2016:
 Residential Eco-Landscaping - cross promotion of available workshops and tools to
assist homeowners in implementing low maintenance, eco-friendly landscaping.

Sustainability Best Practice Guidance for Infill Site Redevelopment – exploring
partnership with Town of Richmond Hill using Lake Wilcox SNAP as a pilot.
Bayview Glen SNAP, Markham
The Action Plan was completed and endorsed by the City of Markham Council in May 2016. The
plan leverages public infrastructure renewal projects addressing local flooding, through enhanced
designs that achieve synergies with municipal and watershed objectives and community benefits.
Inspiring green and healthy living, key project areas include road right of way alternatives,
integrated park concepts, aging urban forest and succession planning, and a locally tailored
program for green home improvement. This SNAP was the recipient of a 2016 National Award of
Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects.
Key Accomplishments:
 Action Plan completed, including design concepts.
 Community engagement established via school network.
 Grants awarded by FCM, RBC Blue Water and CMHC.
Planned Activities 2016:
 Glencrest Park Renewal (City of Markham lead; TRCA coordination, advice and role in
implementation) – installation of raingarden, naturalization plantings, pollinator
garden, looped trail and other features that add beauty, community amenities and
environmental function to rehabilitation works associated with a stormwater
infrastructure project for flood remediation.

Residential home retrofit program – pilot program will focus on promoting solar
powered heaters for swimming pools, ash tree removal and replacement and cross
promotion of available programs for other home retrofit priorities, including water and
energy conservation.

Community engagement and animation – through school network; handprinting and
animal footprinting, planting and other events are planned.
______________________________
169
RES.#A68/16 -
MUD CREEK REACH 2 PROJECT
Contract #10001004 – Design/Build Services for the Construction of a
Pedestrian Crossing. Award of Contract #10001004 for the supply of all
labour, equipment, materials, design, and engineering services necessary
for construction of a pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek Reach 2, in the
City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ronald Chopowick
Jennifer Drake
THAT Contract #10001004 for the supply of all labour, equipment, materials, design and
engineering services necessary for construction of a pedestrian crossing at Mud Creek
Reach 2 in the City of Toronto be awarded to McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. at a
total cost of $231,969.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10%
of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;
THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded design
builder, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other
design builder that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting
TRCA specifications;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is
necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the
signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been undertaking channel restoration
works along Mud Creek on behalf of the City of Toronto since 2011. TRCA has also been involved
with recent trail infrastructure development within the Don Valley Brick Works (DVBW) Park
located adjacent to Mud Creek.
Since 2014, the City of Toronto’s Urban Forestry group has made significant improvements to the
trail system and user circulation throughout the DVBW. New ecologically sustainable trails have
been built, unofficial trails have been closed, and existing trails improved. New interpretive
signage and wayfinding has also helped to improve visitor circulation.
Currently, there is no formal entrance to the north end of the DVBW, which has resulted in a
number of issues for the park, park users, and local residents. Informal trail development has
degraded sensitive habitats and has caused significant erosion along the fragile North Slope and
along the newly stabilized banks of Mud Creek. Some of these informal trails also lead
pedestrians across private property.
170
In 2015, City of Toronto staff asked TRCA for assistance in planning, designing, and
implementing a trail infrastructure project known as the DVBW North Entrance Project. The
objective of this project is to bring a formalized trail off of the Beltline Trail, across a new
pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek, and connect to the north-west corner of the park's existing
official trail system. TRCA retained a consultant in late 2015 to complete a hydraulic analysis and
fluvial geomorphic assessment to confirm the preferred location and dimensions for the proposed
pedestrian crossing structure. This project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will be
the development of the trail connection from the DVBW Park to the east bank of Mud Creek at the
proposed pedestrian crossing location. The second phase will be implementation of the proposed
pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek which will complete the trail connection.
Having one formal entrance and trail to the northwest end of the DVBW will help to funnel visitors
directly into the park and mitigate pedestrian traffic on sensitive areas and private property.
RATIONALE
A Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP) for design builders for Contract #10001004 was
publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/)
on Thursday, March 3rd, 2016. The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system
consisting of 65% technical criteria and the remaining 35% on the fee proposal. The evaluation
criteria included the following:





Experience, qualifications, and availability of Consultant and its employees proposed for
the Services;
Consultant’s understanding of the Services, Project and Scope of Work;
Proposed approach and methodology for the coordination of Services including an
assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them;
Proposed schedule, benchmarks, timelines and work plan, and ability to comply with
proposed schedule; and
Reasonableness of cost.
Request for Proposal documents were received by the following nine (9) general contractors:









Algonquin Bridge Inc.;
Bridgecon Construction Ltd.;
Bronte Construction Ltd.;
Dynex Construction Inc.;
Ground Force Foundations Inc.;
Hobden Construction Company Ltd.;
McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd.;
Newton Group; and
TBG Environmental Inc.
A mandatory site meeting was held on Tuesday March 15th, 2016. Proposals closed on March
31st, 2016 at 12:00pm and proposals were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee on
Thursday March 31st, 2016.
Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Ashour Rehana, Matt Johnston,
James Dickie and Mark Preston) reviewed the submitted proposals and evaluated them based on
the aforementioned criteria. The results of the evaluation are as follows:
171
BIDDERS
McPhersonAndrews
Contracting
Hobden
Construction
Bronte
Construction
Technical
Weighted
Score
(65%)
63.5
Technical Financial Financial
Ranking Weighted Ranking
Score
(35%)
1
24.5
2
Total
Weighted
Score
(100%)
88.0
Overall
Ranking
1
TOTAL
TENDER
AMOUNT
(Plus HST)
$231,969.00
51.6
2
35
1
86.6
2
$152,400.00
43.9
3
17.5
3
61.4
3
$277,800.00
Based on the evaluation of the received proposals, it was concluded that the combined technical
and fee proposal valued at $231,969.00 submitted by McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd.
offered the best service for value among the design builders and whose technical capacity
matched the project needs. Although Hobden Construction had the lowest fee proposal, their
technical proposal lacked critical details that staff feel is reflective of the low cost, and that to
engage them creates a risk of bringing the final cost up to or higher than the next lowest bidder, as
staff’s estimate for this contract was approximately $250,000.
Therefore staff recommend that McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. be awarded Contract
#10001004 at a total amount not to exceed $231,969.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended
as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST; it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA
specifications.
This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #3 under TRCA's current 10-year strategic plan,
which is to Rethink Greenspace to Maximize its Value. Installing the proposed pedestrian
crossing will encourage public access and help to appropriately direct pedestrian traffic away from
sensitive areas.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #186-38.
Report prepared by: Nivedha Sundararajah, 647-201-8463
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 13, 2016
Attachments: 1
172
M
ud
ee
Cr
GO
VE
RN
O
RS
BR
ID
GE
k
^
#
Proposed
Bridge
BAY VI
ive r
Don R
E
E W AV
Legend
^
!
!
!
!
!
!
Wa terc
ours
es
F
Fl
oodl
i
ne
Regul
a ti
onLi
mi
t
TRCAProperty
Pa rc
el
As
sess
ment
DURHAM
YORK
Bri
dgeLoc
a ti
on
0
37.
5 75
PEEL
TORONTO
150
Meters
173
©Queen’sPri
nter f
or Onta ri
oa ndi
tsl
i
c
ens
ors
.[
2005]Ma y NotbeReproduc
edw i
thout Permi
s
s
i
on.THI
SI
SNOTAPLANOFSURVEY
.
^
SITE
Lake Ontario
Key Ma p
RES.#A69/16 -
PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto. Approval of the “Project for the Construction of
an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA)”.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Jack Heath
THAT item 8.7- Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for
Toronto and region Conservation Authority, be deferred to Authority Meeting #5/16,
scheduled to be held on June 24, 2016.
RECORDED VOTE
Kevin Ashe
Maria Augimeri
Jack Ballinger
Ronald Chopowick
Vincent Crisanti
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Michael Di Biase
Jennifer Drake
Chris Fonseca
Jack Heath
Jennifer Innis
Colleen Jordan
Matt Mahoney
Giorgio Mammoliti
Mike Mattos
Frances Nunziata
Gino Rosati
John Sprovieri
Jim Tovey
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
Yea
______________________________
CARRIED
RES.#A70/16 -
BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE PARKING LOT EXPRESSION OF
INTEREST
Information Update. An information update on the status of the Black Creek
Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest referenced in Resolution
#A257/15, from Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ronald Chopowick
Jennifer Drake
THAT the staff report dated May 10, 2016 on the status of the Black Creek Pioneer Village
Parking Lot Expression of Interest be received;
174
AND FUTHER THAT staff be directed to report back at Authority Meeting #6/16, scheduled
to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcome of Phase 1.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) parking lot property is a 2.65 hectare (6.56 acre) gravel
and asphalt surfaced parking lot that primarily services BCPV. In 2006, 2008 and 2013, with the
support of the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff completed studies that considered this site as TRCA’s long
term head office location. This site was investigated based on its strategic location at the centre of
TRCA’s jurisdiction and its proximity to public transit, Black Creek Pioneer Village and institutional
partners such as York University.
In 2014, after examining the existing planning and zoning permissions it became apparent that
developing a new headquarters building on the BCPV parking lot site would involve a lengthier
and more challenging planning approval process, which would not be conducive to constructing a
new headquarters prior to the end of TRCA’s six year lease term for 101 Exchange Avenue.
Therefore, in 2015 DTAH was retained by TRCA to complete a two-phased planning and design
approach for 5 Shoreham Drive and the BCPV parking lot. Phase 1 established a master plan that
explored potential redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot and tested the capacity of the site to
support various development scenarios, while considering the ongoing operational needs of
Black Creek Pioneer Village. This master plan was presented at the July 24, 2015, Long Term
Office Accommodation Working Group (LTOAWG) meeting.
At the December 4, 2015 LTOAWG meeting staff was directed to prepare parameters for an
Expression of Interest (EOI) for the proposed development of all or a portion of the BCPV parking
lot. These parameters were submitted for review by the LTOAWG at the January 15, 2016
meeting, and followed by Authority approval on January 29, 2016. Furthermore, Resolution
#257/15 from the January Authority directed staff to proceed with the Expression of Interest (EOI)
for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site and report back at Authority Meeting #4/16.
RATIONALE
Prior to the release of the BCPV EOI, staff consulted with City of Toronto Planning staff on March
7, 2016 and formally submitted the BCPV EOI document for their review and comment on March
8, 2016. Based on City staff comments received on March 22, 2016, staff revised the BCPV EOI
document and re-submitted to the City for review on April 5, 2016. TRCA staff received supportive
final comments from the City on April 15, 2016, and proceeded with the release of the BCPV EOI
on May 3, 2016.
The purpose of the EOI for the BCPV parking lot property is to seek an innovative and
experienced partner(s) to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the redevelopment of the
property. As part of the response to this EOI, potential partner(s) may choose to present an
opportunity for how they may support TRCA in the development of a new Head Office at 5
Shoreham Drive, as part of the redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot. TRCA’s ideal partner(s)
will have both the vision and expertise to complete a master plan process that realizes a property
development that features opportunities for compatible recreational, cultural, and/or institutional
uses that complement Black Creek Pioneer Village and the surrounding community and
demonstrates sustainable, innovative and rich city building ideas and principles.
This EOI is comprised of two phases: Phase 1 is a Request for Qualifications to identify a list of
qualified potential partners; and Phase 2 is a Request for Proposals from those prequalified in
Phase 1, which will include submission of detailed business cases.
175
The Phase 1 EOI document issued on May 3, 2016 requests a high level summary of
respondents’ intent for the parking lot at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway and summary of
qualifications. The EOI was advertised on procurement websites Biddingo.com and Merx.com, as
well as through direct invitation. A mandatory property tour will be held by potential respondents to
attend on May 25, 2016, and the submission deadline is June 21, 2016.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the EOI phases will be provided through the Major Facilities Capital Projects, account
code 006-50.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Complete tasks associated with Phase 1 of the EOI and report back to report back at Authority
Meeting #6/16, scheduled to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcomes of Phase 1 of the BCPV
EOI.
Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 11, 2016
______________________________
176
RES.#A71/16 -
CRITICAL EROSION AND FLOODWORKS PROJECTS
Proposed 2016 Workplan. Submission of TRCA’s proposed 2016 Critical
Erosion and Floodworks Projects in accordance with the City of Toronto’s
Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan (2014).
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ronald Chopowick
Jennifer Drake
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff reported on the
management of erosion and slope stability hazards related to the July 8, 2013 severe
weather event at Authority meetings #6/13 held on July 26, 2013, #11/13 on January 31,
2014, #6/14 on July 25, 2014, #10/14 on January 9, 2015 and #7/15 on July 24, 2015;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff was directed at Authority Meeting #7/15 under Resolution
#A136/15 to continue with the implementation of several ongoing and new priority
projects described in the revised 2015 workplan;
AND WHEREAS staff were directed at Authority Meeting #7/15 under Resolution #A136/15
to allocate a portion of each year's funding to lower priority sites where proactive works
may prevent significant future damage to or loss of property;
AND WHEREAS staff has raised a number of concerns enforcing TRCA’s Private
Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy
through the implementation of several critical erosion projects since 2014;
AND WHEREAS some property owners requesting assistance with erosion control works
have expressed concerns of their properties being flagged as ‘at-risk’ though TRCA’s
investigations;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be authorized to commence with the
implementation of new projects as outlined in the 2016 workplan described herein;
THAT staff be directed to report back at a future Authority Meeting with proposed
revisions to TRCA’s Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and
Maintenance Program policy;
THAT staff be directed to seek legal advice regarding the disclosure of information
collected through TRCA’s erosion investigations that involve private property;
THAT staff be directed to keep the 2017-2026 works forecast for private properties waiting
for assistance confidential until further legal direction has been obtained regarding the
disclosure of information and a staff report with recommendations is brought back to a
future Authority Meeting for approval;
THAT staff be directed to pursue additional sources of funding from the Province for
erosion control works;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be provided to Toronto Water in compliance
with the City of Toronto’s 2014 Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan.
CARRIED
177
BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2013 an intense downpour rolled through the Toronto area, causing wide-spread
flooding, surcharges of water infrastructure, and significant damage to the river and valley
systems including extensive damage to park trails and pedestrian bridges, numerous debris jams,
and an unprecedented number of slope failures on hundreds of private properties that border
these natural areas. TRCA Restoration Services (now Restoration and Infrastructure) staff
became the first responders to flood and erosion related damage following this event,
inventorying and assessing more than 500 sites over the course of several months.
TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years
under various program names and special projects, but the July 8, 2013 event significantly
increased the number of hazards in the Toronto area, requiring TRCA to rethink its approach to
erosion management in its jurisdiction to more effectively deal with the effects of climate change.
On July 26, 2013 staff brought the first post-storm erosion damage report to Authority Meeting
#6/13, providing an overview of the information collected to date with recommendations for further
action. At that time, only 141 properties had been inspected and the full extent of damage was not
known, however six sites were flagged as requiring immediate action due to the perceived level of
risk to houses and/or municipal infrastructure. Staff acted quickly to initiate engineering
investigations at these and other top priority sites to determine the appropriate course of action
using reallocated 2013 funding.
At Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014, staff provided an update to the Authority
detailing the work completed to date, and the estimated cost of each major activity. By this time,
the total number of sites inspected had risen to 482, and the preliminary estimate of damages was
approximately $37 million. It is noted that this estimate included only those properties reported to
and inspected by TRCA, and excluded damages to municipal lands and infrastructure, which
TRCA's municipal partners reported on separately to avoid double-counting.
Also presented at Authority Meeting #11/13 was a workplan outlining a list of projects
recommended for remedial works in 2014 using 2014-2015 Critical Erosion and Floodworks
funding from the City of Toronto, which also provided funding for priority projects not related to the
July 8, 2013 flood; and 2014-2015 core erosion management funding from the Region of Peel. In
accordance with TRCA's Erosion Management Program, all work proceeded on a priority basis, to
ensure the most hazardous sites be addressed first.
In the spring of 2014 the City of Toronto requested TRCA’s assistance with the drafting of a
Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan to be received by the Public Works and
Infrastructure Committee from the General Manager of Toronto Water. The purpose of the Plan
was to advise City Council of the existing programs in place to manage watercourse erosion risks
and to respond to damage caused by accelerated erosion during intense storms; and to request
that Council uphold the principles of watercourse management in Toronto. One of the principles
included a requirement that Toronto Water continue to report to City Council, as part of the annual
Toronto Water budget submission, the 10 year TRCA/Toronto Water coordinated capital plan of
erosion improvement works. To uphold this principle, TRCA and Toronto Water meet regularly to
review priorities and TRCA provides Toronto Water with an annual workplan for all projects
proposed to be completed with the Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding prior to proceeding, to
promote collaboration and cost savings through coordinated planning, design and construction
processes.
178
As an update to the January 2014 workplan, a mid-year report was brought to Authority Meeting
#6/14 on July 25, 2014 to outline the in-year adjustments that were required following the receipt
of more detailed information from engineering studies, additional storm damage at already known
sites, and project delays due to stalled erosion agreements with individual property owners. It was
noted that the workplan was neither a rigid nor exhaustive list, but a framework to approach what
was, and continues to be, a large backlog of sites requiring erosion control works in the Toronto
region.
On January 9, 2015 at Authority #10/14, staff provided an overview of the erosion restoration work
completed or in progress as of December 31, 2014 with 2014 Critical Erosion and Floodworks
funding from the City of Toronto, and 2014 core erosion management funding from the Region of
Peel. In the same report staff also requested approval of the 2015 workplan, allowing staff to
continue on with this important work at additional priority sites identified in previous reports to the
Authority.
At Authority #7/15 on July 24, 2015 staff provided an update on the Critical Erosion and
Floodworks projects in progress, and highlighted the need to diversify its approach to erosion
management in Toronto by allocating a portion of each year’s funding to proactive and minor
works to realize the economic and social benefits of preventing further damage from occurring
during future storm events.
Since the last report to the Authority in July 2015, TRCA’s erosion management team has worked
diligently to complete a number of priority projects, and to reassess all other sites waiting for
assistance, for both major and minor/proactive works to develop the 2016 workplan outlined
herein. To comply with the principles of the City’s Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan,
the workplan was presented to Toronto Water in April 2016 and it is understood that all proposed
projects have Toronto Water support.
RATIONALE
2016 Workplan
As an update to the last workplan presented at Authority Meeting #7/15, the current status of each
project currently in progress and proposed with 2016 Critical Erosion and Floodworks funding is
described in the 2016 workplan provided as Attachment 1. As in 2014 and 2015, some in-year
adjustments to the workplan may be required as more detailed information is received from
engineering studies, subsequent storm events worsen conditions at certain sites, and other
projects are delayed due to legal negotiations and other factors.
Of note is the Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy which aims to identify properties on and
adjacent to Toronto’s ravines and watercourses that are highly vulnerable to erosion during
severe weather events like the July 8, 2013 event; to develop a preliminary priority for hazard
mitigation works; and to recommend the desired repair horizon (e.g. 5, 10, 25 years) and funding
level to mitigate all hazards identified through the study in the recommended repair horizon.
Minor and Proactive Works
As the primary objective of the TRCA’s Erosion Management Program is to reduce risk to life and
property from the hazards of erosion, the majority of funding continues to be allocated to sites
where significant damage has already occurred. However, since receiving direction by the Board
at the July 24, 2015 Authority Meeting #7/15 to allocate a portion of each year’s funding to lower
priority sites where proactive and minor works may prevent significant future, staff have initiated
an extensive review of potential candidate sites to inform the appropriate portion of annual
funding that should be allocated to this category of work. As illustrated in Attachment 1, the
179
proposed allocation to minor/proactive works in 2016 is approximately $200,000 or 5% of the total
available budget for valley erosion hazards. It is noted that the proposed allocation is small due to
a significant backlog of high priority repairs ongoing from 2015.
For 2017 however, the proposed allocation to minor/proactive works is proposed to be increased
to15% as several top priority sites are expected to be completed in 2016. As all of the low priority
sites will be captured and assessed under the Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the
recommended portion for 2018 onwards will be determined through the strategy, tentatively
scheduled to be completed in December 2017. In all funding years it is noted that the allocation to
minor/proactive works is approximate, and may be increased or decreased as needed to balance
reactive and proactive works as appropriate.
Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program
With several erosion control agreements negotiated since the July 8, 2013 event, it is staff’s
opinion that TRCA’s current policy for erosion control works benefiting private property
(Attachment 2) requires updating to address a number of concerns raised by staff in enforcing this
policy, including but not necessarily limited to the issued described below:
1.
Amount of financial contribution from the benefiting landowner
Currently where there is no conveyance of land in exchange for the work, the financial
contribution from private landowners is roughly equal to 10% of the project costs for residential
properties and 15% for commercial properties. As there is no conveyance of land with this option
and the owner maintains ownership of the completed works, there is generally limited benefit to
the broader public. Therefore, the financial contribution is recommended to be increased to allow
TRCA to complete a greater number of projects in a given year.
2.
Language regarding determination of contribution method
The current language of the policy suggests that the property owner can choose the contribution
method (i.e. land conveyance or financial contribution) however where the works are highly
engineered and require specialized monitoring and maintenance, or where the works span
multiple properties, conveyance is preferable. Therefore it is recommended the contribution
method be at TRCA’s discretion.
3.
Lack of hybrid contribution method
Currently the policy specifies land conveyance or financial contribution. Where the scope of work
includes components beyond erosion control and/or slope stabilization measures, such as
structural repairs to buildings and foundation underpinning; consideration should be given to a
hybrid contribution method that requires the benefiting property owner to pay the full cost of such
works while still being bound to the financial contribution or conveyance requirements of the
erosion control works.
180
4.
Inclusion of Reimbursement Option
Where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with erosion control works but is unable or
unwilling to implement the work with its own forces for any reason, the option to reimburse
landowners in specific cases should be made available to expedite the backlog of repairs across
TRCA’s jurisdiction, subject to all necessary conditions and the execution of agreements. In this
scenario, the eligible amount would be determined based on staff’s estimate of the cost to
construct the work with its own forces, minus the property owner’s financial contribution as
determined through the contribution formula if no land conveyance is included.
To solicit comments on these concerns and the corresponding recommended changes, staff
recommends formally circulating the current policy internally to key groups including but not
limited to Property and Legal Services, as well as externally to Toronto Parks, Forestry &
Recreation, and Toronto Water. Pending the receipt of comments, TRCA staff request direction to
bring a draft revised policy forward to a future Authority Meeting for approval.
Disclosure of Information Collected related to Private Property
Although TRCA has been assisting private landowners with erosion control works for more than
30 years, prior to the July 8, 2013 storm, this assistance was typically limited to one or two
projects per year. And while there was always a long list of sites waiting for assistance, there was
never a lengthy delay between completing the detailed geotechnical investigations and
proceeding with the stabilization works as exists today.
Since the July 8 storm, TRCA has completed more than 150 detailed geotechnical investigations
to assess the extent of risk to participating properties and help prioritize the implementation of
repairs. While a large number of studies can be completed with the available funding, only a
handful of properties have been able to be repaired in 2014 and 2015 due to the cost of the
repairs at each project site. The concern that some residents have raised is that the detailed
investigations have flagged their property as being ‘at-risk’, and that this determination has
effectively devalued their property and/or complicated their ability to sell the property.
Furthermore, since the cost of repairs are typically beyond the financial means of the average
homeowner, many owners are upset that their property is not forecasted to receive assistance for
several years while higher priorities are addressed.
In response to these concerns, staff recommends having a legal review of all information
collected regarding private property through its Erosion Management Program and how it is
disclosed pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The
purpose of this review is to advise what changes are recommended to TRCA’s verbal and written
communications, if any, to ensure that property owners wishing to receive assistance with erosion
control works have been duly advised of what information is collected, who it may be disclosed to,
and how it may be used.
Until the aforementioned legal direction has been received, staff recommends treating the
2017-2026 forecast of projects involving private property as confidential. Following completion of
the legal review, staff are prepared to bring a report to a future Authority Meeting outlining the
recommended changes to TRCA’s communications for review and approval.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
In the fall of 2015 TRCA staff completed a state of good repair (SOGR) backlog analysis for all
existing erosion control structures and known hazard sites requiring work in the City of Toronto to
support its capital budget submissions for 2016-2025.
181
The total cost to mitigate all known Toronto erosion hazard sites on TRCA and private property is
currently estimated at $32.6 million, in addition to the $32.7 million in outstanding repairs required
to TRCA’s existing erosion control infrastructure along Toronto’s ravines and watercourses, and
$51.8 million in outstanding repairs to TRCA’s existing erosion infrastructure along the Toronto
waterfront.
The total budget for Critical Erosion and Floodworks Projects in 2016 is $7 million; Attachment 1
shows how the $7 million is allocated across the priority projects. Some adjustments to individual
projects funded under this capital works program were proposed to and accepted by Toronto
Water in April 2016, and it is noted that the allocations are subject to further revisions as the work
progresses.
All funding for Critical Erosion and Floodworks Projects is provided by the City of Toronto within
the accounts listed in Attachment 1, except where noted otherwise. Some funding is expected to
be received from benefiting landowners on select projects, and the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Forestry (MNRF) through the 2016-2017 Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI)
Program on approved major maintenance work to existing flood and erosion control structures.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Please refer to the 2016 workplan (Attachment 1) for the details of work to be done for each
project.
Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 17, 2016
Attachments: 2
182
Attachment 1
Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring
and Maintenance Program
(a)
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will require a minimum of a permanent easement
over the private property for the work area and access routes where it has been determined that title to
the property is not required. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be
required;
(b)
Where the property involved would meet other TRCA objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to
TRCA as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash contribution;
(c)
Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 100% of
the cost of the works.
(d)
Where works are carried out on TRCA-owned land for the protection of private property, the cash
contribution will be waived;
(e)
In all cases, the TRCA will require some form of binding indemnification agreement signed by the
benefiting owner(s) which may be registered on title;
(f)
The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to the Authority, Executive Committee, or any
advisory board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in accordance with
procedures adopted by Authority Resolution #18/80;
(g)
Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting owner(s) will be based on the following
schedules:
OWNER CONTRIBUTION SCHEDULE
Procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and
Maintenance Program policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance.
183
Attachment 2
Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan
Funding
Account
107-24
135-01
175-01
133-99
133-01
2015 Year
End
Balance
Project Name
Flood Control Channel Maintenance
• Black Creek Channel (Jane to Scarlett 2016)
(Ward 11)
• Yonge-York Mills Channel (Ward 25)
441-449 Guildwood Parkway Erosion Hazard
Mitigation (Ward 43)
1 Midland - 81-83 Fishleigh Erosion Control
Project (Ward 36)
738,762
120,000
1,137,476
2016
Approved
Capital
Funding
1,000,000
600,000
0
2016
Revised
Capital
Funding*
Other
Funding
1,000,000
1,738,762
230,000
350,000
370,000
Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy
(2016-2017)
300,00
150,000
Valley Erosion Hazards (including July 8 storm
0
3,800,000
3,950,000
sites)
Program management, monitoring, legal support, minor works (multiple Wards)
2016
Proposed
Budget
1,507,476
150,000
400,000
4,350,000
Status
Ongoing from 2014
Ongoing from 2013
Ongoing from 2014
New 2016
Project Details
•Black Creek: continue with sediment and vegetation removal from the limits of the
channel from Jane St. to Scarlett Rd.
•Yonge-York Mills Channel: remove sediment and vegetation from the limits of the
channel (Donino Ave. to Knightswood Rd.)
•Stabilization works at 449 not viable due to severity of erosion and site constraints
•Stabilization works at 447 not viable if house at 449 remains
•Stabilization works at 441 possible but low priority if other two properties cannot be
protected
•Preferred hazard mitigation method is phased acquisition, with 449 being first priority
for 2016, then 447 and 441
•Proposed acquisition year(s) for 447 and 441 currently under review
•Reallocation of 370K to Fishleigh Drive Project to fund completion of shoreline
stabilization work
•1 Midland Avenue acquired in 2014
•Construct shoreline stabilization works June - Dec 2016 pending receipt of approval
•Currently assessing market value of 81 and 83 Fishleigh Drive for potential future
acquisition as per Board direction at Authority Meeting #6/15 held on June 25, 2015
under Resolution #A118/15
•Buttress on hold following direction to pursue acquisition and receipt of information
regarding endagered species habitat along bluff face
•Reallocation of 370K to Fishleigh Drive Project to fund completion of shoreline
•Identify potential future erosion 'hot spots' in Toronto by modeling the July 8, 2013
event over select ravines in Toronto that have been identified as vulnerable based on
site characteristics and other data collected
•2017 will involve using the information collected in 2016 to develop a comprehensive
strategy to idenfity locations, type and costs of proactive hazard mitigation
•Final report (target Decemeber 2017) will inform the prioritization of proactive/minor
works for future capital budget submissions for 2018 onwards
•Reallocation of 150K to ongoing emergency works at the Jennifer Court-Whitburn
Crescent sector of Downsview Dells Park, as majority of services required for
strategy can be obtained in house
See information by subproject in italics below
Ongoing from 2014
•General program management
•Annual re-inspection of all participating properties
•Legal support to execute agreements
•Minor works such as downspout extensions/redirections, removal of unstable
structures, regrading, plantings (approximate allocation: $200,000 for 2016)
520,000
Ongoing from 2014
Black Creek in Downsview Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 111 Whitburn Crescent
Emergency Works (Ward 9)
•Includes 150K reallocation from Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy (133-99)
•Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water
infrastructure and private property at the top of slope
•2016 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work
at 111-117 Whitburn Crescent
•Other is property owner financial contribution toward cost of work (111-117
Whitburn Crescent)
200,000
1,415,000
Ongoing from 2014
Riverhead Drive Emergency Works (Ward 2)
375,000
184
Ongoing from 2014
•Stabilization works from 1 Katrine Road and 69 - 53 Riverhead Drive complete
(Phase 1)
•2016 involves completing stabilization works at 47-49 Riverhead Drive (Phase 2)
•Remaining participating properties along Riverhead Drive to be studied at more
detailed level in 2017 (tentative)
Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan
Funding
Account
Project Name
2016
2016
Revised
Approved
Capital
Capital
Funding*
Funding
5 Old Yonge incl 14-16 Brookfield (Ward 25)
2015 Year
End
Balance
Other
Funding
85,000
2016
Proposed
Budget
Status
375,000
Ongoing from 2014
1025 Scarlett (Toronto Community Housing apartment complex) (Ward 2)
•Work at 5 Old Yonge substantially complete
•Work at 14-16 Brookfield involves removing landslide and restoring slope
•Should TRCA be unable to implement the work due to lack of available resources
when all approvals have been obtained, owners have requested approval to retain
own contractor to complete work and submit invoices for reimbursement (up to
maximum estimated by TRCA staff minus owner financial contribution)
•Class EA complete and final approvals underway
•Work involves constructing a vegetated buttress at the toe of slope and relocating an
existing playground back from the slope crest to allow the upper slope to self-stabilize
•Other funding is from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Water
and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program
115,000
690,000
Ongoing from 2015
Black Creek between 14 Appletree and Seeley Drive (Ward 9)
•Class EA underway
•Phase 1 work scheduled to commence fall 2016 pending receipt of all approvals
230,000
Ongoing from 2015
30 Northline Road (Ward 31)
•Class EA underway for remainder of 2016 to identify preferred solution
60,000
Ongoing from 2015
Hudson Drive at Mud Creek Reach 6 (Ward 27)
•Preliminary designs for upper slope below Hudson Drive to try and align with
PF&R/Toronto Water's Mud Creek Reach 6 Restoration Work
35,000
Phase 2 detailed geotechnical assessments
Heath Crescent (Ward 27)
Storer Drive (Ward 7)
Clarinda Drive (Ward 24)
Gwendolen Crescent (Ward 23)
Roslin Avenue (Ward 25)
Royal York Road (Ward 5)
Project Details
New 2016
•Detailed geotechnical investigations to confirm extent of risk and prioritize assistance
with erosion control works
•Specific addresses omitted pending legal review of program communications to
protect homeowner privacy
650,000
New 2016
•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property
owner participation
- 2015 project ON HOLD
Ridge Point Crescent (Ward 12)
- 2015 project ON HOLD
Ridgegate Crescent (Ward 5)
•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property
owners' participation
•Site currently being assessed for interim works (e.g. downspout
extensions/redirections; removal of unstable structures) with minor works funding
•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property
owner participation
- 2015 project ON HOLD
Topcliff Avenue (Ward 8)
•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities
- 2015 project ON HOLD
Bucksburn Road (Ward 1)
•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities
- 2015 project ON HOLD
134-25
241-20
Denison Drive West (Ward 11)
WesternWaterfront Major Maintenance
Strategy (Wards 6, 13, 14)
0
300,000
300,000
Accelerated from 2018
•Proposed reallocation of 300K from Western Waterfront Major Maintenance Strategy
to fund completion of work ongoing from 2015 under TRCA's Erosion Major
Maintenance Program (for repair of existing works)
•Work involves replacing failed armourstone wall with new wall to higher elevation to
protect tableland and homes along Denison Drive West
•Proposed reallocation of 300K to Denison Drive Project following review of
information collected for other projects (i.e. projected cost of strategy has been
reduced following review of available information)
500,000
200,000
200,000
185
New 2016
Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan
Funding
Account
241-01
2015 Year
End
Balance
Project Name
Waterfront Major Maintenance & Remedial
Works
2016
Approved
Capital
Funding
2016
Revised
Capital
Funding*
Other
Funding
2016
Proposed
Budget
Status
Project Details
Other is funding from core capital funding for minor maintenance
(5,210)
800,000
800,000
Program admin & monitoring
188,000
982,790
New 2016
75,000
Annual
400,000
Ongoing from 2015
133,000
New 2016
•Program management and annual re-inspection of structures
Bellamy Ravine (Ward 36,43)
•Completion of channel stabilization works and minor trail improvements
Guild Inn revetment repair (Ward 43)
•Repairs to existing revetment to protect access road
Marie Curtis Park Bioswale (Ward 6)
•Major repairs to bioswale to improve drainage
150,000
New 2016
Bluffers SW hardpoint major maintenance (Ward 36)
•Detailed design, approvals
•Implementation of interim works until permanent repairs can be completed
154,790
New 2016
Rebar cleanup (waterfront-wide)
•Removal of exposed rebar from engineered beaches
•Priority areas are Col. Sam Smith Park, Humber Bay Parklands
50,000
Annual
Rotary Park (Ward 6)
Totals
1,991,028
7,000,000
7,000,000
*Revised as presented to and supported by Toronto Water on April 13, 2016.
•Completion of detailed design and receipt of approvals required for construction
•Construction timing to be determined through W. Waterfront Major Maintenance
Strategy
588,000
20,000
9,579,028
186
Ongoing from 2015
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#A72/16
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jack Heath
Gino Rosati
THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 8.10 – Wild Water
Kingdom.
CARRIED
RISE AND REPORT
RES.#A73/16
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Frances Nunziata
THAT the committee rise and report from closed session.
CARRIED
RES.#A74/16 -
WILD WATER KINGDOM
Update on the Upgrade and Revitalization of the Water Park. Update on
lease negotiations with Premier Parks, LLC regarding upgrades and
revitalization of the water park at Claireville Conservation Area.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jack Heath
John Sprovieri
THAT confidential item 8.10 – Wild Water Kingdom be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made
public.
CARRIED
______________________________
187
RES.#A75/16 -
PUBLIC RECORD - DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010
BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN
IACOBELLI)
230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street)
Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road,
City of Vaughan, York Region. Reporting of a Decision respecting one
appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) and information respecting the Official Plan policies supported by
the TRCA and landowner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., as approved by the OMB.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Mike Mattos
THAT the following Resolution #A142/15 approved at Authority Meeting #7/15, held on
July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record:
THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a
party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re-affirmed as it relates to the
subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of
Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk
Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), in the City of Vaughan.
THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal
before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural
heritage and Provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard
lands);
THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of
Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The
Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended (Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
are met;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of
York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the
outstanding OMB appeal and for their information.
AMENDMENT
RES.#A76/16
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Mike Mattos
THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:
188
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of
Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement
the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan
Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered
Species Act and the Provincial Policy Statement;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the implementation
of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
THAT the following Resolution #A142/15 approved at Authority Meeting #7/15, held on
July 24, 2015, be received and become a public record:
THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a
party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be re-affirmed as it relates to the
subject appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010) on lands on the west side of
Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk
Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street), in the City of Vaughan.
THAT TRCA staff be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal
before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural
heritage and Provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard
lands);
THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of
Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The
Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended (Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
are met;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Regional Municipality of
York and the Province of Ontario for the purposes of updating them on the
outstanding OMB appeal and for their information.
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request that the Province of
Ontario and the Region of York work with City of Vaughan and TRCA staff to implement
the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Official Plan
Amendment as it relates to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Endangered
Species Act and the Provincial Policy Statement;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that the City of Vaughan confirm the implementation
of the policy requirements within future Decisions under the Planning Act.
189
RATIONALE
The purpose of this report is to provide a status update for the information of the Authority on the
OMB appeal of the “Natural Areas – Core Features” designation of 230 Grand Truck Avenue by
Dufferin Vistas Ltd. The report also outlines the policy requirements supported by the OMB,
TRCA and Dufferin Vistas.
History Details:
Since Resolution #A142/15 was approved on July 24, 2015, TRCA staff worked with the appellant
to negotiate a settlement which ensures the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA’s
Ontario Regulation 166/06, ORMCP and PPS will be met as the development foot print is defined
(relative to any historical or existing features on site). Given the appellant had not completed any
detailed technical review of the site, policies were included that require study of the natural
features on the property as part of future development planning proposals (i.e., Draft Plan of
Subdivision and/or Zoning By-Law Amendment Applications). The requirements for further
technical review and assessment of natural heritage features on the site was requested and
included within the detailed site specific Official Plan Amendment for the subject site.
A copy of the OMB Decision (dated March 9, 2016) including the site specific amendment is
attached. The following is a summary of the policy requirements that were included:
The property is divided into 3 segments, each subject to different policies based on the features
present.
Eastern: The eastern parcel was recognized as containing natural heritage and hazard features
including a watercourse associated with the Don River, along with wetland areas and significant
vegetation including endangered species. An approximate extent was agreed to; however the
precise limits of this area will be finalized through the future Natural Heritage Evaluation.
Middle: The mid-portion of the site was recognized as potentially containing natural heritage and
hazard features which would require further assessment and review as part of the future
development review process. As such, this portion was designated Low Rise Residential Special
Study Area; necessitating further study before development, if any, would be permitted.
Technical studies (examining existing features) that are required include:
 A Natural Heritage Evaluation;
 Geotechnical/Slope Stability Analysis;
 Hydrogeological Study/Analysis;
 Water Balance;
 Landscape Restoration Plan;
 Functional Servicing Report (FSR); and
 Planning Report, including Oak Ridges Moraine Conformity.
The submission of these studies which will determine the extent of the natural features and
hazards on the site, if any, will be required prior to the consideration of any site alteration or
development approvals on the property. The future development patterns and features for
preservation/conservation including the ways and means to achieve this will be determined
through the submitted studies and recognized through the zoning by-law and future development
planning processes. The final boundary between the Natural Area and Low-Rise Residential
Special Study Areas will be determined through the above-noted studies and through staking of
the natural features which has yet to be completed.
190
Western: The west side of the property was designated for low-rise residential development. The
TRCA does not regulate this portion of the property and acts as technical advisors to both the City
and the Regional Municipal of York. The policies require appropriate technical studies and ORM
Conformity.
The City of Vaughan, Region of York and the Province of Ontario did not participate in the
protection of the natural features nor in the development of the OP policies approved by the OMB.
They did not present any witnesses at the OMB hearing.
Residents in the area were involved in the OMB process. Since the Decision was released, TRCA
staff have been contacted by residents and media. Several residents advised that their concerns
were not reflected in the OMB Decision. Much of the discussion took place in closed session due
to the legal nature of the process and therefore information available is limited.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The appellant has recently submitted a Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (19T-16V001) to the
City of Vaughan. A copy of the application along with some of the technical studies have been
circulated for TRCA review. TRCA technical review is continuing at this time and comments will
be submitted to the City accordingly.
TRCA staff will continue their review and to dialogue with the applicant, City staff and their
consultants to ensure the policies approved by the OMB are implemented and respected and that
the appropriate protections are put in place for natural features on the site.
Report prepared by: Kevin Huang, extension 5307
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Kevin Huang, extension 5307 and June Little, extension 5756
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Date: May 27, 2016
Attachments: 3
191
Attachment 1
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales
de l’Ontario
ISSUE DATE:
CASE NO(S).:
March 9, 2016
PL111184
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Appellant:
Appellant:
Appellant:
Subject:
Municipality:
OMB Case No.:
OMB File No.:
OMB Case Name:
1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre)
1096818 Ontario Inc.
11333 Dufferin St et al
1191621 Ontario Inc.; and others
Failure to announce a decision respecting
Proposed New Official Plan
City of Vaughan
PL111184
PL111184
Duca v. Vaughan (City)
Heard:
October 14, 2015 in Vaughan, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Dufferin Vistas Ltd.
D. Bronskill
City of Vaughan
D. Jubb
Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
J. Wigley
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
192
2
PL111184
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This is the decision for an appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (“Appellant”) regarding a
proposed new Official Plan for the City of Vaughan (“City”) known as Vaughan Official
Plan (2010). This appeal involves lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue and it has been
identified as appeal No. 21 among a number of appeals that were filed regarding
Vaughan Official Plan (2010). The various appeals are in the process of being resolved
through a number of Board proceedings.
[2]
At the beginning of the proceeding, David Bronskill informed the Board that there
was a settlement among the parties based upon proposed changes to the Official Plan.
However, the Board heard that a number of residents of the area wanted to present
evidence.
[3]
Michael Smirnov, Sergei Lifchits, Codruta Papoi, Nick Shlepov and Peter Badali,
on behalf of the Eagle Hills Community Association, requested participant status which
was granted by the Board on consent.
[4]
The subject property is approximately 4.5 hectares (“ha”) in size and is located
north of Rutherford Road and west of Dufferin Street. The lands to the north have been
developed with low density residential uses. The lands to the south adjacent to the
western part of the property are also developed with low rise residential uses. There
are woodlands abutting the south eastern part of the property that are part of the
Carrville Centre Secondary Plan area.
[5]
Grand Trunk Avenue, which is a municipal road, currently ends at the north limit
of the property. Plans are for the road to extend through the subject property and
continue to the south along the western boundary of the Secondary Plan area to
connect with Rutherford Road.
193
3
PL111184
EVIDENCE
[6]
The Board heard evidence in support of the settlement from Paul Lowes,
Principal with SGL Planning and Design Inc. Mr. Lowes is a Registered Professional
Planner with approximately 30 years of experience. He was qualified by the Board as
an expert in land use planning.
[7]
The Board also heard evidence in support of the settlement from Tom Hilditch,
President and CEO with Savanta. Mr. Hilditch has more than 20 years of experience
carrying out natural heritage studies. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in
ecology.
[8]
Mr. Badali expressed support for the settlement on behalf of the Eagle Hills
Community Association.
[9]
Mr. Smirnov, Mr. Lifchits, Ms. Papoi and Mr. Shlepov were opposed to the
settlement and supported the proposed Official Plan designations for the property.
[10]
Mr. Lowes testified that the subject property is identified as being within a
settlement area in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”). He
indicated that the ORMCP allows urban development in settlement areas, but it may be
restricted by the presence of natural features. Natural heritage studies are required to
identify and evaluate natural features and determine any required buffers.
[11]
According to the evidence, the property is identified as Urban Area in the
Regional Structure of the York Region Official Plan and it is not shown as being within
the Regional Greenlands System (Exhibit 96). Mr. Lowes indicated a small area of the
property is identified as woodland in Map 5, Woodlands, of the York Region Official
Plan.
[12]
A wooded feature is also shown on a portion of the property on Schedule 24 of
Official Plan Amendment No. 604 which was intended to incorporate the policies of the
194
4
PL111184
ORMCP into the Official Plan. In this context, Mr. Lowes stated that woodlands larger
than 4 ha. are considered significant, but that the woodland on the property now is
smaller than 4 ha.
[13]
In the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) the subject property is identified as Natural
Area and Countryside. In Schedule 2, Natural Heritage Network, the site is shown as
having Core Features. In Schedule 13, Land Use, the property is designated as Natural
Area. Mr. Lowe stated that the designations in Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were
appealed by the previous owner of the subject property and are being carried forward
by the Appellant.
[14]
The Board heard that a Natural Heritage Network Study was completed for the
City which does not identify a significant woodland on the property or any other
significant feature. It does show a stream corridor to the east of the property (Exhibit
99).
[15]
Mr. Lowes explained that in the late 1990’s, there was more of a wooded feature
in the eastern portion of the property. Many of the trees were removed by a former
owner who was charged and ordered to replant. It is Mr. Lowes’ understanding that the
Court accepted the replanting.
[16]
There was also a greater concentration of trees in the western part of the
property which were removed in the early 2000’s by a previous owner. According to Mr.
Lowes no charges were laid in that case.
[17]
The Board heard that Mr. Hilditch undertook a number of natural heritage studies
for the property. He also reviewed previous natural heritage work for the area. Mr.
Hilditch’s studies included investigations in the disciplines of botany, Ecological Land
Classification, and breeding bird studies. Mr. Hilditch indicated that a number of field
visits of the property were undertaken in conjunction with his work. In addition, staff of
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) visited the site to review its
natural heritage characteristics.
195
5
[18]
PL111184
Mr. Hilditch stated that there was evidence that the site had been historically
disturbed. He indicated that key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrogeological
features, which had been referenced in other documents, do not exist on the western
part of the property. However, there are some features in the eastern part of the
property which may warrant protection and require further studies. The eastern part of
the property contains an intermittent watercourse, an off-line pond and some wetland
features. There are four butternut trees in this area, and also green frog and bull frog
were found. Mr. Hilditch indicated that these are significant species and they were
found in the portion of the property that is intended to remain designated as Natural
Area. He also indicated that the eastern wood pewee was heard in the vicinity, but off
site.
[19]
The presence of these features indicates that there may be significant wildlife
habitat and significant woodlands on portions of the eastern section of the property and
off-site adjacent to this area.
[20]
As a result of these findings, Mr. Lowes indicated that modifications to Vaughan
Official Plan (2010) were proposed to deal with the possible presence of significant
natural heritage features as included in Exhibit 100. The modifications propose
changes to Schedule 13 of the Official Plan redesignating the land use for the subject
property from Natural Areas to Low Density Residential and Natural Areas. Schedule
14 of the Official Plan is also proposed to be modified to identify the property as being
subject to a site-specific plan.
[21]
The modifications also propose adding a new section 13.X to Vaughan Official
Plan (2010) which specifies a number of detailed studies that must be completed to the
satisfaction of the City in consultation with TRCA prior to development of the property.
[22]
Through s. 13.x.4 the land uses for the property are further delineated. For the
western part of the property, the modifications assign a Low Rise Residential
designation. The central portion of the property is identified as Low Rise Residential
196
6
PL111184
Special Study Area. The eastern part of the property is identified as Natural Area. The
modifications require that the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area can only be
developed if studies demonstrate that specified natural features and functions will be
protected. The intent is that the area identified as Natural Area will be protected and
that the boundary between the Low Rise Residential Special Study Area and the
Natural Area will be more clearly defined through the studies and field work.
[23]
Mr. Lowes’ expert planning opinion was that the proposed modifications conform
to the ORMCP. He also stated that identifying the property as Low Rise Residential
conforms to the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”).
[24]
Mr. Lowes indicated that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement (“PPS”). He indicated that through the modifications natural heritage
features will be protected as required in the policies of the PPS.
[25]
Mr. Lowes’ opinion was that the modifications protect the known significant
features and that they conform to the York Region Official Plan.
[26]
Mr. Lowes stated that the modifications represent good planning and are in the
public interest.
[27]
Dawne Jubb and Jonathan Wigley indicated support for the settlement on behalf
of the City and TRCA.
[28]
Mr. Badali supported the modifications and the settlement. He indicated that the
Eagle Hills Community Association is concerned about traffic issues and he contended
that the extension of Grand Trunk Avenue through the property will help alleviate traffic
problems.
[29]
The other participants expressed concern about the settlement and they
indicated that the Vaughan Official Plan (2010) designations for the property should not
be changed. The removal of trees on the property through the actions of the previous
197
7
PL111184
owner should not be a rationale to remove restrictions on the property. The Board
heard that the photomap submitted as Exhibit 93 appeared to be out of date and that
the tree cover on the property is more extensive than shown in the figure. Ms. Papoi
submitted two previous Board decisions for the property which recognized provisions to
protect the wooded areas on the property. They requested the Board to maintain the
designations for the property that are identified in Vaughan Official Plan (2010).
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[30]
The Board has carefully considered the evidence provided by the parties and
participants. The expert opinion evidence supporting the settlement is uncontradicted.
The professional planning opinion and the expert evidence regarding ecology and
natural heritage support the proposed redesignation of the lands, the identified limits
and character of the natural heritage features and the approach for delineating
development of the property as described in the modifications.
[31]
The Board accepts Mr. Hilditch’s opinion that the significant natural heritage
features are not located in the western part of the property which is proposed for low
density residential use. Based upon the evidence, the only potentially significant natural
heritage features are within the eastern part of the property, primarily in the area
designated as Natural Area in the modifications, and in adjacent areas off-site. The
Board accepts and agrees with Mr. Hilditch’s opinion that these areas can be protected
through the proposed studies and the land uses and policies included in the
modifications (Exhibit 100).
[32]
It is clear from the evidence that the property at one time contained more
extensive woodlands, a portion of which were identified as being worthy of protection.
However, it is difficult from the evidence to determine the exact extent of significant
woodlands that may have existed on the property in the past.
[33]
The Board shares some of the concerns expressed by participants that portions
of the wooded area of the property have been removed which may have affected its
198
8
PL111184
natural heritage significance. The Board in no way condones actions which contribute
to the removal of significant natural heritage features that may facilitate development.
The Board understands that the Appellant is in no way responsible for these actions and
is considering the potential for the property in its current condition.
[34]
Furthermore, the Board notes that the alignment for the municipal road, Grand
Trunk Avenue, has been planned to essentially bisect the property in a north to south
direction. Given this alignment, some impact on any environmental features that may
have existed previously in the central portion of the property must have been anticipated
and considered to be acceptable.
[35]
The Board has concluded from the evidence that the features of the site as they
exist must be the basis for its determinations. Therefore, the Board agrees with the
planning opinion provided by Mr. Lowes. The Board finds that the proposed
modifications comply with the ORMCP, the Growth Plan and the York Region Official
Plan. The Board finds that the modifications are consistent with the PPS. Furthermore,
the Board finds that the modifications represent good planning and are in the public
interest.
[36]
Mr. Bronskill indicated that during the hearing, the need for a minor revision to
Exhibit 100 was identified through which changes are required to Schedule 1 of the
Vaughan Official Plan (2010) to reflect the new designations of the lands. He indicated
that a revised Exhibit 100 would be provided to the Board. Subsequent to the hearing,
the Board received the revised Exhibit which is attached to this decision.
[37]
This decision in no way contradicts the previous Board decisions for the property
that were submitted in the evidence. The evidence in this appeal and particularly the
expert opinion evidence provided by the parties strongly supports the settlement. In the
Board’s decision Vaughan (City) Zoning By-law No. 489-2001 (Re) [2003] O.M.B.D. No.
1163, which was submitted by the participants, the significance of expert evidence was
emphasized.
199
9
[38]
PL111184
Based upon the above considerations, the Board will allow the appeal in part
based upon the modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) contained in the revised
Exhibit 100.
[39]
The appeal of Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is resolved in full by the settlement. However,
Mr. Bronskill noted that the provisions of Exhibit 100 do not address Vaughan Official
Plan (2010) Schedule 2 which identifies the City’s Natural Heritage Network. At the
time of the hearing, Schedule 2 had not been approved by the Board and Mr. Bronskill
indicated that he may be requesting some changes in the future to address the
Appellant’s interests and the results of the settlement.
ORDER
[40]
The Board orders that the appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is allowed in part and
Vaughan Official Plan (2010) is modified as set out in Attachment 1.
“C. Conti”
C. CONTI
MEMBER
If there is an attachment referred to in this document,
please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Ontario Municipal Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
200
ATTACHMENT 1
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
$WWDFKPHQW
210
16
$WWDFKPHQW3
211
17
RES.#A77/16 -
GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed
Kindwin (Brock) Developments Corporation, CFN 55650. Acquisition of
property located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue,
municipally known as 2095 Brock Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional
Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for
2016-2020," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek
watershed.
(Executive Res.#B32/16)
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gino Rosati
Mike Mattos
THAT 1.251 hectares (3.091 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Brock
Road and north of Finch Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 and
designated as Part 74 on the Draft M-Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes, Land Information
Specialists, Reference No. 13-25-795-03, dated January 19, 2016, municipally know as
2095 Brock Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased
from Kindwin (Brock) Developments Corporation;
THAT the purchase price be $2.00;
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the
land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;
THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the
earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land
transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action
to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and
execution of documents.
CARRIED
______________________________
RES.#A78/16 -
PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA-OWNED LAND - 360°KIDS SUPPORT
SERVICES
17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge
River Watershed, CFN 55757. Proposal from 360°kids Support Services
(360°kids) to enter into a 10 year lease and contribute capital assistance
in restoring a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned
heritage home located at 17 Mill Street, in the City of Markham, Regional
Municipality of York.
(Executive Res.#B33/16)
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jack Heath
Chris Fonseca
212
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease arrangement
with 360°kids Support Services to operate and manage a youth transition facility located
at 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed;
THAT the term of the lease be for 10 years;
THAT consideration be a nominal sum of $12.00 per annum along with an initial capital
investment of $120,000 for building restoration;
THAT the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and
solicitors;
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to
give effect thereto including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and
execution of documents;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the development of the program partnership
between TRCA and 360°kids at a future date.
CARRIED
______________________________
Section II – Items for Authority Information
RES.#A79/16 -
SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn Mason
Kevin Ashe
THAT Section II items 11.2.1 – 11.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee
Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received.
CARRIED
Section II Items 11.2.1 – 11.2.4, Inclusive
COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR TRCA STAFF
(Executive Res.#B34/16)
CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL AND ITS GREATER TORONTO CHAPTER
(Executive Res.#B35/16)
ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA
(Executive Res.#B36/16)
SEPTIC COLLECTION AND DUMPING SERVICES 2016 AND 2017
(Executive Res.#B37/16)
______________________________
213
Section III – Items for the Information of the Board
RES.#A80/16-
GOOD NEWS STORIES
Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from
January through March 2016.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim Tovey
Michael Di Biase
THAT the summary of Good News Stories from January through March 2016 be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for
from January through March 2016 are as follows:
January










Partnership developed with York Region to build uptake in their Water Saving and Protection
Incentives for Businesses program and boost potential implementation of capital
infrastructure projects designed to reduce operational footprint and wastewater discharge
issues. Partners in Project Green now working with Toronto and Peel on similar initiatives.
Multicultural Connections Program staff participated in the Family Literacy Day Fair in
Markham that welcomed 520 adults and children that were newcomers to Canada.
340 participants attended the launch of a new fat bike program at Albion Hills Conservation
Area, in partnership with Caledon Cycle and Chico Racing.
The City of Vaughan was awarded World Council on City Data Platinum Certification (ISO
37120 standard) for reliable and useful data. TRCA contributed biodiversity data from our
Regional Watershed Monitoring Program to support this designation.
TRCA published a peer reviewed journal article in the journal Freshwater Science on the
impact of chloride (road salt) on benthic invertebrates. Working with TRCA's Sustainable
Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), these results will be communicated to both the
public and private road salt applicators in order to promote reduction in de-icing materials.
TRCA staff co-authored an article on the principles for urban stormwater management to
protect stream ecosystems which refers to TRCA/CVC's (Credit Valley Conservation) low
impact design (LID) manual. Both articles are currently online now and will be formally
published in a special edition of Freshwater Science on Urban Ecology in March.
Report commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on of
an expert review of provincial land use policy and planning in light of climate change was
released and presented to the Crombie Panel by MOECC staff , to which the Ontario Climate
Consortium (OCC) was a co-author.
State of Climate Science in the Great Lakes Basin report published, representing the largest
compilation of climate change science for freshwater systems in this region. OCC was
retained by Environment to undertake the work.
TRCA, Ontario Climate Consortium and Conservation Ontario met with John Godfrey, Special
Advisor and Chair of the Province of Ontario's climate action group, to discuss the potential
role of conservation authorities (CA) in advancing Ontario's leadership and strengthen
collaboration with municipal governments to implement climate change adaptation priorities.
New planning and permitting fees and financial structure approved by the Authority. BILD
sent correspondence stating that they accept TRCA’s fees.
214




Ontario Association of Landscape Architects journal “Ground” included TRCA article on
ecological considerations in the urban environment.
Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) journal published article on TRCA’s award of
excellence in planning for The Living City Policies.
New parking system going in at Black Creek Pioneer Village thanks to a significant in-kind
donation through The Living City Foundation from Precise ParkLink.
"Restrictions on Dredging Activities" and "Degradation of Benthos" beneficial uses
re-designated as "not impaired" in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern, as per the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 2012.
February











Demolition of buildings at Bolton Camp had a diversion rate of 84%, well in line with our
corporate target of 80% diversion of waste by 2018.
The first TRCA/City of Vaughan project partnership has been negotiated after a decade of
ongoing issues related to stormwater runoff from Pine Valley Drive into the Boyd Conservation
Area, causing extreme erosion on the valley side, sedimentation of the roadway, and closure
of the public trail. The relationship, modelled after other TRCA - municipal partnerships, will
see the City of Vaughan commissioning the detailed design works and obtaining TRCA
permits, and TRCA being contracted to construct the project and rehabilitate the area. It will
be of benefit to park users and city residents.
A male fisher is investigating constructed nest box at Glen Major. Hoping a female fisher will
nest in the box TRCA installed. Nature of Things will possibly film as part of a documentary.
Presented Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) and Partners in Project
Green (PPG) at Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Cities Conference
in session on From Crazy to Common Sense: “Radical” Ideas Whose Time Has Come.
Well-received by municipal staff and elected officials from across Canada.
Archaeology and Greenspace Planning has moved into Swan Lake office and the lakeside
meeting rooms are available for booking creative workshops.
Launch of planning and permits section of the new TRCA website for use and feedback,
before launching other sections.
TRCA awarded grant by Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade
for employer engagement activities that improve integration and retention of new Canadians
within the workforce.
Close to 600 people attended the 60th Annual Authority meeting which had speakers from the
federal government, as well as both the ministries of the Environment and Climate Change,
and Natural Resources and Forestry. A highlight was a video of partners speaking about their
relationship with TRCA and what they see as TRCA’s value to the GTA.
Authority approved TRCA completing negotiations to conduct restoration work at Redelmeier
Pond, in Vaughan.
Scarborough Bluffs was profiled in a news video in the United States.
On February 4th, 23 new Canadians visited the Markham Museum to learn about wildlife
habitat and create bird feeders. This project is supported by the City of Markham's
Environmental Sustainability Fund.
March

77 municipal, academic and business representatives attended a webinar hosted by TRCA's
Partners in Project Green (PPG) and Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC), focussing on the
importance and first steps in creating adaptation strategies for businesses to address looming
climate hazards and vulnerabilities.
215














PPG staff participated in a panel hosted by Sustainable Waterloo Region ("Exploring
Sustainability Beyond Carbon") in which the perspectives of waste management, air quality
and water stewardship engagement with the Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I)
sector were explored.
Partners in Project Green successfully completed its nine-month "SmartWay Transport
Partnership" contract with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), recruiting five new corporate
program participants and securing as many Seneca College and University of Toronto
Mississauga student placements to help participants enhance their supply chain operations.
Through PPG's Materials Exchange program, TRCA has started a new recycling program that
captures and recycles a particularly difficult waste stream: used Keurig containers. The
partnership with GoJava helped TRCA divert 12 kgs of organics and plastics last month alone.
688 people attended the 5th annual TRIECA Conference on stormwater management,
erosion and sediment control and natural channel design.
MMAH providing $40,000 to Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) for
methodology to evaluate renewable energy technologies.
Secured a grant in the amount of $24,000 from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change's Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund to implement a demonstration rain garden
at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Working with BCPV staff, the Norfinch Adult Education
Centre and the Jane/Finch Community Centre, this grant will be used to install the garden on
site at Black Creek Pioneer Village and engage the surrounding community about stormwater
management and the importance of native plants.
Bayview Glen Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) won a National Award
of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects.
Black Creek SNAP received a grant from the City of Toronto through the “Investment in
Neighourhoods” program for up to four staff for a year, with option for up to three years of
renewals.
Secured $150,000 for the Caledon SNAP in partnership with Town of Caledon through
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund.
Through a revamped program, new marketing initiatives and a kids free offer, Black Creek
Pioneer Village doubled the number of visitors to its March Break program.
Undertaking Toronto-wide trail audit, work valued at about $300,000.
$50,000 gift to The Living City Foundation from Cadillac Fairview in support of the
Environmental Leaders of Tomorrow program. This gift will be matched by The W. Garfield
Weston Foundation.
Reached an agreement with DG (landowners) for up to $2.1 million to remove the dam and
restore the Redelmeier Pond in Vaughan.
Secured $300,000 through National Disaster program for flood risk assessments and 2D
modelling.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: [email protected]
For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264
Emails: [email protected]
Date: May 6, 2016
______________________________
216
Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended
RES.#A81/16 -
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jack Heath
Jack Ballinger
THAT item 11.4 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive
Committee Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received.
CARRIED
______________________________
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:47 p.m., on Friday, May 27, 2016.
Maria Augimeri
Chair
Brian Denney
Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
217