Authority Meeting #4/16 Was Held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, May 27, 2016

Authority Meeting #4/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, May 27, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.

PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Frances Nunziata Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member

ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Justin Di Ciano Member Maria Kelleher Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member

RES.#A55/16 - MINUTES

Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Kevin Ashe

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/16, held on April 22, 2016, be received. CARRIED ______

CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD

Ronald Chopowick was nominated by Jack Heath.

110

RES.#A56/16 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS

Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be closed. CARRIED

Ronald Chopowick was declared elected by acclamation as the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/17.

______

DELEGATIONS

5.1 A delegation by Martin Medeiros, Regional Councillor, City of Brampton, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.2 A delegation by Andrew deGroot, One Brampton, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.3 A delegation by Michael Faye, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.4 A delegation by Christopher 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 8.3- Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.6 A delegation by Eloa Doner, resident, in regard to item 8.3-Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.7 A delegation by Natalia Korneeva, resident, in regard to item 8.3-Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.8 A delegation by Charles A. Brooks, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.9 A delegation by Micheal Perrault, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.10 A delegation by Sheila Morris, resident, in regard to item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT).

5.11 A delegation by Coco Papoi, resident, in regard to item 9.2 - Public Record Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Regarding an Appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. (Formerly Eugene and Lillian 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: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey

THAT above-noted delegations 5.1 – 5.10 be heard and received. CARRIED RES.#A58/16 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT above-noted delegations 5.11 – 5.15 be heard and received. 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: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti

THAT above-noted presentation 6.1 be received. CARRIED

112 RES.#A60/16 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey

THAT above-noted presentation 6.2 be received. 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: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted correspondence 7.1 – 7.17 be received. CARRIED ______

114 CORRESPONDENCE 7.1

ZhouR <> 25/05/2016 11:33 To "[email protected]" , AM 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 <> To "[email protected]" , cc 25/05/2016 11:36 AM 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 AM To , 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]" , 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 To "[email protected]" , Please respond to cc zheng Connie <> Subject Strong objection to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON

Dear Ms. Stranks, We wish to make you aware of our strong objections regard to the Proposed Development Plan on open space lands at 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, Vaughan ON (the “Open Space Lands”). We are the resident at 103 Maverick Cres. As an immediate neighbor to the site of the Proposed Development Plan, we are of the view that the Proposed Development Plan will have a serious impact on our standard of living. And it also does not obviously comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, and Vaughan City Plan Policies. First, according to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001: “ The decisions of provincial ministers, ministries and agencies made under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, are required to conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 establishes the following objectives for the Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Plan: (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]" Cc: "[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]" 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: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti

THAT Councillor Frances Nunziata be recognized as a City of Toronto Member of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until December 31, 2016 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a Member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #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: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Michael Di Biase

THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report Highlights be received for information;

AND FURTHER THAT the Partners in Project Green 2015 Annual Report be provided to TRCA’s local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green. CARRIED BACKGROUND Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone was developed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 2008 in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), the Region of Peel, and cities of Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga, to build and activate the largest eco-business community in the world. Partners in Project Green actively supports Building The Living City, TRCA’s 2013 – 2022 Strategic Plan through Leadership Strategy #1: Green the Toronto region’s Economy by helping the business community transform the way it operates and instill lasting change in the Etobicoke-Mimico and Humber watersheds through long-term renovation, retrofit and redevelopment in the region’s major employment lands.

Partners in Project Green’s 2015 Annual Report captures the achievements and results of Partners in Project Green activities in 2015, and includes a variety of impressive energy, water and waste reduction achievements throughout the Pearson Eco-Business community. The report also profiles members of Partners in Project Green Executive Management Committee and Performance Area Committees.

Partners in Project Green’s results for 2015 speak to a simple truth: we are all stronger, we are more effective and we can achieve so much more when we choose to work together.

The full report can be found online at http://ar2015.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: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey

THAT the City of Brampton letter (attached) requesting that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) provide formal response to Brampton City Council’s proposal of locating a section of the proposed Hurontario-Main Light Rail Transit (LRT) within the Etobicoke Creek Valley Corridor, be received;

THAT TRCA staff recommend to the Authority that an LRT alignment through the Etobicoke Creek Valley not be supported based on TRCA’s policies, permitting requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06, our delegated role to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards, previously approved work with the Province and City of Brampton on risk reduction within Downtown Brampton and the increased risk to life, property and infrastructure that an LRT would pose within the valley;

THAT TRCA does not support a surface, tunnel or elevated LRT route within the Etobicoke Creek valley, on land which is owned by TRCA, which is subject to significant risk from flooding and erosion, and which provides one of the few contiguous natural heritage corridors within the City;

THAT should the City of Brampton proceed with further investigations for an LRT alignment through Etobicoke Creek Valley, despite TRCA’s recommendations to the contrary, an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) be completed due to the scope and level of work that will need to take place to ensure an integrated study between this transit initiative, flood remediation efforts, hazard risks and land use planning/growth implications, and that the IEA be subject to approval by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change as is provided for in the legislation;

AND FURTHER THAT the City of Brampton, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Minister of Transportation, and the Chair of Metrolinx, be so advised.

AMENDMENT

Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Gino Rosati

THAT item 8.3 - Hurontario-Main Street Light Rail Transit (LRT) be referred to Brampton staff until an Individual Environmental Assessment is complete.

THE AMENDMENT WAS WITHDRAWN

141 RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Frances Nunziata Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea

THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED CARRIED

BACKGROUND In 2008, the City of Mississauga and City of Brampton, in consultation with TRCA staff and other interested stakeholders, initiated the Master Plan for the future proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) system from Port Credit in the City of Mississauga to the Downtown GO Station in the City of Brampton. The Master Plan recommended a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system along Hurontario-Main Street between downtown Brampton and the Port Credit waterfront. The recommendation included a one way loop in Downtown Brampton that would turn west on Wellington Street then north on George Street and pass through a new tunnel under the CN rail corridor/GO tracks to the downtown Brampton GO station. The LRT would then turn south on Main Street north of the rail corridor and continue south on Main-Hurontario Street into Mississauga. 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: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Gino Rosati

WHEREAS the draft 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as an update to the 2009 TMP, has removed the objectives, policies and actions regarding the natural environment, proposes new road crossings of the natural heritage system (NHS), including through the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance, and provides no policy direction on climate change adaptation;

AND WHEREAS the former Pine Valley Drive unopened road allowance between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road contains provincially significant environmental resources, a prominent valley feature, cultural resources for which the Huron-Wendat First Nation has expressed a desire to protect, was closed and declared surplus by the City of Vaughan, and was conveyed by the City of Vaughan to TRCA in 2009 to be managed as part of Boyd Conservation Area;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the draft 2016 TMP, to include a summary of the key NHS policies of the ROP in the TMP, and to re-instate those policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage, that are not clearly incorporated within the ROP and also not included in the draft 2016 TMP, and consider including those same policies and actions in the ROP when it is updated in the future;

THAT York Region be advised that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) does not support the connection of Pine Valley Drive between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road through TRCA Boyd Conservation Area due to significant impacts on the natural environment, as well as the importance of the area’s cultural heritage;

THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to remove all explicit references to the Pine Valley Drive connection between Rutherford Road and Clubhouse Road from the text and schedules;

THAT the draft 2016 TMP be revised to specify that all new crossings of the NHS, including Teston Road between Keele and Dufferin Street, as well as Kirby Road between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street, and 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: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Gino Rosati

THAT the third paragraph of the main motion be amended to read:

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT York Region be requested to revise the draft 2016 TMP to clearly connect the 2010 Regional Official Plan (ROP) NHS policies to the draft 2016 TMP and consider including the policies and actions from the 2009 TMP under Principle 3: Protect and Enhance Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage and green infrastructure solutions, in the ROP, when it is updated in the future;

THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

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 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;

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: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Jack Heath

WHEREAS Building The Living City, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) 2013 Strategic Plan, identified the expansion of sustainable community building and market transformation programs, including the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) program, as a key action to achieve regional sustainability within TRCA’s watersheds;

WHEREAS SNAP projects deliver on multiple objectives including those identified as priorities by federal, provincial and municipal governments, such as climate action, grey and green infrastructure renewal, human health, building community capacity and resilience, and the strategic objectives of the watershed plans;

AND WHEREAS TRCA’s SNAP projects have been recognized and supported by a broad spectrum of partners as being an effective neighbourhood-based model for facilitating integrated urban retrofits for greater impact;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the future SNAP program, as outlined in the staff report, be endorsed as the framework for advancing implementation of neighbourhood-scale sustainability actions within TRCA’s watersheds;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to work with municipalities and other neighbourhood partners toward the successful development and implementation of SNAP plans and knowledge sharing;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on an annual basis. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA introduced the SNAP projects in 2009 to accelerate sustainable community building through urban retrofit opportunities in close collaboration with municipal and community partners. The SNAP projects bring an innovative neighbourhood-based approach to sustainable urban renewal, providing place-based solutions and directions for achieving greater impact. The projects consist of integrated neighbourhood action plans and strategic implementation projects, programs and events. SNAPs contribute measureable outcomes toward the implementation of bigger picture plans and strategies. Guided by locally established targets and retrofit strategies, the SNAPs contribute to:  renewing grey and green infrastructure;  reducing energy and greenhouse gases;  restoring watershed, Great Lakes and human health; and  building community capacity and resilience for a changing climate.

The SNAPs are also finding ways to overcome challenges to implementation. Individual neighbourhood SNAP pilots generate lessons learned and prototypes that can be more broadly applied. The SNAP model is effective because it:

158  delivers on multiple objectives;  coordinates private and public realm actions;  leverages planned capital projects for greater value;  engages communities through local networks using guidance from market research;  demonstrates and tests innovative approaches; and  fosters delivery partnerships and innovation.

Within the first six years of the SNAP program, action plans have been completed and implementation projects underway in five pilot neighbourhoods in Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Richmond Hill and Markham. Innovative SNAP projects have achieved the following:  Reimagined public infrastructure renewal projects, to achieve multiple sustainability objectives by taking an integrated neighbourhood scale approach and raising innovative funding to support implementation. More than a half dozen major park, road and stormwater pond projects are complete or underway, including Brampton’s boulevard bioswale and Upper Nine Stormwater Pond retrofit and golf course irrigation concept, and Markham’s Glencrest Park renewal.  Reached hard-to-engage homeowners and increased participation in undertaking green home renovation, harvest and skills sharing and landscaping actions through locally tailored programs. These programs have seen double the rate of uptake of mass marketed programs and established relationships with over 1,000 homeowners to date, representing channels to market for additional sustainability products and services.  Demonstrated new partnerships for privately-owned public space renewal. Partnerships with private commercial and multi-unit residential landowners, community social enterprise and tenants have resulted in a de-pave project at the Russet Housing Cooperative (Mississauga) and numerous revitalization initiatives as part of the San Romanoway Revival Project (Toronto).  Generated socio-economic benefits, alongside environmental outcomes, including skills training, income opportunities for residents, active living and other health benefits, community connections and food sharing, among others.  Leveraged municipal capital budgets to raise over $2 million dollars for SNAP program development and implementation.  Engaged 4,000 people in over 100 programs and events, and formed over 140 partnerships. These activities have brought people of diverse cultures and age’s together and helped people connect with nature and each other, quite possibly in sustained ways.

In 2014, TRCA staff conducted a Five Year Program Review with input from a wide spectrum of partners, and confirmed strong partner support with good feedback for future SNAP work. Results of the Program Review are summarized in the report: SNAP Five Year Program Review 2009-2014, Transforming Neighbourhoods – Place-based solutions and directions for greater impact (TRCA, 2014). Report and video of innovation highlights are available on www.sustainableneighbourhoods.ca/wp/publications/.

The recommendations arising from the Review provided directions for a refined planning model, scaling up residential programs, scaling up lessons from public infrastructure renewal concepts, sharing knowledge and identification of future SNAPs in association with municipal infrastructure priorities. At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A40/14 approved recommendations from the Program Review and directed staff to continue to work with partners toward the implementation of SNAP plans and development of new retrofit plans. Since 2014, the recommendations of the Program Review have been incorporated into ongoing work and identified as part of future program activities.

159

Attachment 1 contains a full summary of the many key achievements since 2014 and planned activities within each of the SNAP neighbourhood projects.

Learnings, Gaps and Barriers The SNAP model has had some great successes, however there are still challenges to the implementation of even common urban retrofits, let alone innovative sustainability projects. These challenges have been identified by project teams and during the Program Review. Key challenges include:  Integrated approaches, collaborative arrangements and behaviour change take time, therefore longer timeframes are needed to measure outcomes.  Perceived cost and effort of multi-objective designs relative to single-purpose quick fixes, for which cost is often still a barrier. This suggests that new methods of measuring and reporting are needed that can evaluate and rationalize cost sharing for the overall project benefits for a range of partner programs (e.g. socio-economic as well as environmental).  Misalignment of various departmental workplans and budgets can limit the ability to take advantage of timely opportunities for integrated projects and fall short of realizing full potential outcomes. Integrated project opportunities need to be identified earlier in the capital works planning cycle.  Need for new approaches to access additional innovative thinkers and secure partner commitment to create the space and culture for experimentation.

Context for the Future SNAP Program Direction Based on partner feedback during the Five Year Program Review in 2014 and further project experience and consultations during 2015, strategic directions and key program areas have been defined to guide future SNAP Program activities. This turning point marks a shift from a series of pilot projects to a longer term program commitment by TRCA.

Approval of the future SNAP program will confirm support for the growth of the program, its strategic directions and areas of focus. This will enable staff to respond effectively and appropriately to interest expressed by prospective partners. The program will also clearly communicate the services TRCA provides and strengthen TRCA’s position to develop projects. The strategic directions of the future SNAP program will align TRCA staff to assist in overcoming further barriers to urban retrofits.

TRCA Strategic Priorities Building The Living City, TRCA’s 2013 Strategic Plan identified the expansion of community and market transformation programs, including SNAP, as a key action to accelerate the retrofit of communities needed in developing a sustainable city region.

TRCA’s watershed plans demonstrate that sustainable design must be implemented in new greenfield development and in retrofits of existing urban areas, simply to maintain watershed conditions, let alone improve them.

The Living City Policies contain direction for TRCA’s advocacy role in the process of building sustainable communities and recommendations for TRCA’s work with its partners. SNAPs provide a forum for partnerships that can demonstrate, test, evaluate and learn from innovative approaches and help existing communities become more sustainable.

160 Current and Emerging Government Policy Priorities and Opportunities The future SNAP program will assist TRCA in advocating the role SNAP can play in providing on-the-ground action in response to current policy priorities. There is an increasingly urgent need for urban retrofits to address a wide range of issues. For example:  The Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card found that one third of Canada’s municipal infrastructure is at risk of rapid deterioration, and noted that investments in repair and upkeep are needed in the short term to prevent a rapid decline in the condition of municipal assets (Jan 2016).  The Ontario Government’s Climate Change Strategy states that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 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: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake

THAT Contract #10001004 for the supply of all labour, equipment, materials, design and engineering services necessary for construction of a pedestrian crossing at Mud Creek Reach 2 in the City of Toronto be awarded to McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. at a total cost of $231,969.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;

THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded design builder, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other design builder that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been undertaking channel restoration works along Mud Creek on behalf of the City of Toronto since 2011. TRCA has also been involved with recent trail infrastructure development within the Don Valley Brick Works (DVBW) Park located adjacent to Mud Creek.

Since 2014, the City of Toronto’s Urban Forestry group has made significant improvements to the trail system and user circulation throughout the DVBW. New ecologically sustainable trails have been built, unofficial trails have been closed, and existing trails improved. New interpretive signage and wayfinding has also helped to improve visitor circulation.

Currently, there is no formal entrance to the north end of the DVBW, which has resulted in a number of issues for the park, park users, and local residents. Informal trail development has degraded sensitive habitats and has caused significant erosion along the fragile North Slope and along the newly stabilized banks of Mud Creek. Some of these informal trails also lead pedestrians across private property.

170 In 2015, City of Toronto staff asked TRCA for assistance in planning, designing, and implementing a trail infrastructure project known as the DVBW North Entrance Project. The objective of this project is to bring a formalized trail off of the Beltline Trail, across a new pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek, and connect to the north-west corner of the park's existing official trail system. TRCA retained a consultant in late 2015 to complete a hydraulic analysis and fluvial geomorphic assessment to confirm the preferred location and dimensions for the proposed pedestrian crossing structure. This project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will be the development of the trail connection from the DVBW Park to the east bank of Mud Creek at the proposed pedestrian crossing location. The second phase will be implementation of the proposed pedestrian crossing over Mud Creek which will complete the trail connection.

Having one formal entrance and trail to the northwest end of the DVBW will help to funnel visitors directly into the park and mitigate pedestrian traffic on sensitive areas and private property.

RATIONALE A Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP) for design builders for Contract #10001004 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Thursday, March 3rd, 2016. The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 65% technical criteria and the remaining 35% on the fee proposal. The evaluation criteria included the following:

 Experience, qualifications, and availability of Consultant and its employees proposed for the Services;  Consultant’s understanding of the Services, Project and Scope of Work;  Proposed approach and methodology for the coordination of Services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them;  Proposed schedule, benchmarks, timelines and work plan, and ability to comply with proposed schedule; and  Reasonableness of cost.

Request for Proposal documents were received by the following nine (9) general contractors:

 Algonquin Bridge Inc.;  Bridgecon Construction Ltd.;  Bronte Construction Ltd.;  Dynex Construction Inc.;  Ground Force Foundations Inc.;  Hobden Construction Company Ltd.;  McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd.;  Newton Group; and  TBG Environmental Inc.

A mandatory site meeting was held on Tuesday March 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

Technical Technical Financial Financial Total Overall TOTAL Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking TENDER BIDDERS Score Score Score AMOUNT (65%) (35%) (100%) (Plus HST) McPherson- 63.5 1 24.5 2 88.0 1 $231,969.00 Andrews Contracting Hobden 51.6 2 35 1 86.6 2 $152,400.00 Construction Bronte 43.9 3 17.5 3 61.4 3 $277,800.00 Construction

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 C re e k

GOVERNORS BRIDGE Proposed ^ # Bridge

BAYVIEW AVE

i v

Legend

DURHAM YORK ^ BridgeLocation Wa tercourses PEEL !!!!!! Floodline

RegulationLimit F TORONTO SITE TRCAProperty ^ Lake Ontario 0 37.5 75 150 ParcelAssessment Meters KeyMa p © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2005] Ma©Queen’s [2005] yNotPrinterOntarioReproducedbe for licensors. and its NOTwithout THIS ISPLANA Permission. OF SURVEY. 173 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: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT item 8.7- Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and region Conservation Authority, be deferred to Authority Meeting #5/16, scheduled to be held on June 24, 2016.

RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Nay Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Nay Mike Mattos Yea Frances Nunziata Nay Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea

CARRIED ______

RES.#A70/16 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE PARKING LOT EXPRESSION OF INTEREST Information Update. An information update on the status of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest referenced in Resolution #A257/15, from Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake

THAT the staff report dated May 10, 2016 on the status of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Expression of Interest be received;

174 AND FUTHER THAT staff be directed to report back at Authority Meeting #6/16, scheduled to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcome of Phase 1. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) parking lot property is a 2.65 hectare (6.56 acre) gravel and asphalt surfaced parking lot that primarily services BCPV. In 2006, 2008 and 2013, with the support of the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff completed studies that considered this site as TRCA’s long term head office location. This site was investigated based on its strategic location at the centre of TRCA’s jurisdiction and its proximity to public transit, Black Creek Pioneer Village and institutional partners such as York University.

In 2014, after examining the existing planning and zoning permissions it became apparent that developing a new headquarters building on the BCPV parking lot site would involve a lengthier and more challenging planning approval process, which would not be conducive to constructing a new headquarters prior to the end of TRCA’s six year lease term for 101 Exchange Avenue. Therefore, in 2015 DTAH was retained by TRCA to complete a two-phased planning and design approach for 5 Shoreham Drive and the BCPV parking lot. Phase 1 established a master plan that explored potential redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot and tested the capacity of the site to support various development scenarios, while considering the ongoing operational needs of Black Creek Pioneer Village. This master plan was presented at the July 24, 2015, Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group (LTOAWG) meeting.

At the December 4, 2015 LTOAWG meeting staff was directed to prepare parameters for an Expression of Interest (EOI) for the proposed development of all or a portion of the BCPV parking lot. These parameters were submitted for review by the LTOAWG at the January 15, 2016 meeting, and followed by Authority approval on January 29, 2016. Furthermore, Resolution #257/15 from the January Authority directed staff to proceed with the Expression of Interest (EOI) for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site and report back at Authority Meeting #4/16.

RATIONALE Prior to the release of the BCPV EOI, staff consulted with City of Toronto Planning staff on March 7, 2016 and formally submitted the BCPV EOI document for their review and comment on March 8, 2016. Based on City staff comments received on March 22, 2016, staff revised the BCPV EOI document and re-submitted to the City for review on April 5, 2016. TRCA staff received supportive final comments from the City on April 15, 2016, and proceeded with the release of the BCPV EOI on May 3, 2016.

The purpose of the EOI for the BCPV parking lot property is to seek an innovative and experienced partner(s) to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the redevelopment of the property. As part of the response to this EOI, potential partner(s) may choose to present an opportunity for how they may support TRCA in the development of a new Head Office at 5 Shoreham Drive, as part of the redevelopment of the BCPV parking lot. TRCA’s ideal partner(s) will have both the vision and expertise to complete a master plan process that realizes a property development that features opportunities for compatible recreational, cultural, and/or institutional uses that complement Black Creek Pioneer Village and the surrounding community and demonstrates sustainable, innovative and rich city building ideas and principles.

This EOI is comprised of two phases: Phase 1 is a Request for Qualifications to identify a list of qualified potential partners; and Phase 2 is a Request for Proposals from those prequalified in Phase 1, which will include submission of detailed business cases.

175

The Phase 1 EOI document issued on May 3, 2016 requests a high level summary of respondents’ intent for the parking lot at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway and summary of qualifications. The EOI was advertised on procurement websites Biddingo.com and Merx.com, as well as through direct invitation. A mandatory property tour will be held by potential respondents to attend on May 25, 2016, and the submission deadline is June 21, 2016.

FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the EOI phases will be provided through the Major Facilities Capital Projects, account code 006-50.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Complete tasks associated with Phase 1 of the EOI and report back to report back at Authority Meeting #6/16, scheduled to be held on July 22, 2016 with the outcomes of Phase 1 of the BCPV EOI.

Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: [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: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Drake

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff reported on the management of erosion and slope stability hazards related to the July 8, 2013 severe weather event at Authority meetings #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 2016 2016 2015 Year Approved Revised Other 2016 Project Name End Status Project Details Funding Capital Capital Funding Proposed Balance Account Funding Funding* Budget Flood Control Channel Maintenance •Black Creek: continue with sediment and vegetation removal from the limits of the • Black Creek Channel (Jane to Scarlett 2016) channel from Jane St. to Scarlett Rd. (Ward 11) •Yonge-York Mills Channel: remove sediment and vegetation from the limits of the • Yonge-York Mills Channel (Ward 25) channel (Donino Ave. to Knightswood Rd.) 107-24 738,762 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,738,762 Ongoing from 2014 •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 441-449 Guildwood Parkway Erosion Hazard stabilization work 135-01 Mitigation (Ward 43) 120,000 600,000 230,000 350,000 Ongoing from 2013 •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 1 Midland - 81-83 Fishleigh Erosion Control regarding endagered species habitat along bluff face 175-01 Project (Ward 36) 1,137,476 0 370,000 1,507,476 Ongoing from 2014 •Reallocation of 370K to Fishleigh Drive Project to fund completion of shoreline •Identify potential future erosion 'hot spots' in Toronto by modeling the July 8, 2013 event over select ravines in Toronto that have been identified as vulnerable based on site characteristics and other data collected •2017 will involve using the information collected in 2016 to develop a comprehensive strategy to 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 Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy Crescent sector of Downsview Dells Park, as majority of services required for 133-99 (2016-2017) 300,00 150,000 150,000 New 2016 strategy can be obtained in house Valley Erosion Hazards (including July 8 storm See information by subproject in italics below 133-01 sites) 0 3,800,000 3,950,000 400,000 4,350,000 Ongoing from 2014 Program management, monitoring, legal support, minor works (multiple Wards) •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 •Includes 150K reallocation from Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy (133-99) Emergency Works (Ward 9) •Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope •2016 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work at 111-117 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) •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) 375,000 Ongoing from 2014

184 Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan 2016 2016 2015 Year Approved Revised Other 2016 Project Name End Status Project Details Funding Capital Capital Funding Proposed Balance Account Funding Funding* Budget 5 Old Yonge incl 14-16 Brookfield (Ward 25) •Work at 5 Old Yonge substantially complete •Work at 14-16 Brookfield involves removing landslide and restoring slope •Should TRCA be unable to implement the work due to lack of available resources when all approvals have been obtained, owners have requested approval to retain own contractor to complete work and submit invoices for reimbursement (up to maximum estimated by TRCA staff minus owner financial contribution) 85,000 375,000 Ongoing from 2014 1025 Scarlett (Toronto Community Housing apartment complex) (Ward 2) •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 New 2016 Phase 2 detailed geotechnical assessments •Detailed geotechnical investigations to confirm extent of risk and prioritize assistance Heath Crescent (Ward 27) with erosion control works Storer Drive (Ward 7) •Specific addresses omitted pending legal review of program communications to Clarinda Drive (Ward 24) protect homeowner privacy Gwendolen Crescent (Ward 23) Roslin Avenue (Ward 25) 650,000 New 2016 Royal York Road (Ward 5) •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owner participation - 2015 project ON HOLD Ridge Point Crescent (Ward 12) •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owners' participation •Site currently being assessed for interim works (e.g. downspout extensions/redirections; removal of unstable structures) with minor works funding - 2015 project ON HOLD Ridgegate Crescent (Ward 5) •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 •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 134-25 Denison Drive West (Ward 11) 0 300,000 300,000 Accelerated from 2018 •Proposed reallocation of 300K to Denison Drive Project following review of information collected for other projects (i.e. projected cost of strategy has been WesternWaterfront Major Maintenance reduced following review of available information) 241-20 Strategy (Wards 6, 13, 14) 500,000 200,000 200,000 New 2016

185 Table 1. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2016 Workplan 2016 2016 2015 Year Approved Revised Other 2016 Project Name End Status Project Details Funding Capital Capital Funding Proposed Balance Account Funding Funding* Budget Waterfront Major Maintenance & Remedial Other is funding from core capital funding for minor maintenance 241-01 Works (5,210) 800,000 800,000 188,000 982,790 New 2016 Program admin & monitoring •Program management and annual re-inspection of structures

75,000 Annual Bellamy Ravine (Ward 36,43) •Completion of channel stabilization works and minor trail improvements

400,000 Ongoing from 2015 Guild Inn revetment repair (Ward 43) •Repairs to existing revetment to protect access road 133,000 New 2016 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) •Completion of detailed design and receipt of approvals required for construction •Construction timing to be determined through W. Waterfront Major Maintenance Strategy 20,000 Ongoing from 2015 Totals 1,991,028 7,000,000 7,000,000 588,000 9,579,028 *Revised as presented to and supported by Toronto Water on April 13, 2016.

186

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A72/16

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati

THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 8.10 – Wild Water Kingdom.

CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A73/16

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Frances Nunziata

THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED

RES.#A74/16 - WILD WATER KINGDOM Update on the Upgrade and Revitalization of the Water Park. Update on lease negotiations with Premier Parks, LLC regarding upgrades and revitalization of the water park at Claireville Conservation Area.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: John Sprovieri

THAT confidential item 8.10 – Wild Water Kingdom be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. CARRIED ______

187 RES.#A75/16 - PUBLIC RECORD - DECISION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 BY DUFFERIN VISTAS LTD. (FORMALLY EUGENE AND LILLIAN IACOBELLI) 230 Grand Trunk Avenue (formerly 9500 Dufferin Street) Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road, City of Vaughan, York Region. Reporting of a Decision respecting one appeal of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and information respecting the Official Plan policies supported by the TRCA and landowner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., as approved by the OMB.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT the following Resolution #A142/15 approved at Authority Meeting #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: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: 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 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: March 9, 2016 CASE NO(S).: PL111184

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 11333 Dufferin St et al Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc.; and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed New Official Plan Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184 OMB Case Name: 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 J. Wigley Authority

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 PL111184

[18] Mr. Hilditch stated that there was evidence that the site had been historically disturbed. He indicated that key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrogeological features, which had been referenced in other documents, do not exist on the western part of the property. However, there are some features in the eastern part of the property which may warrant protection and require further studies. The eastern part of the property contains an intermittent watercourse, an off-line pond and some wetland features. There are four butternut trees in this area, and also green frog and bull frog were found. Mr. Hilditch indicated that these are significant species and they were found in the portion of the property that is intended to remain designated as Natural Area. He also indicated that the eastern wood pewee was heard in the vicinity, but off site.

[19] The presence of these features indicates that there may be significant wildlife habitat and significant woodlands on portions of the eastern section of the property and off-site adjacent to this area.

[20] As a result of these findings, Mr. Lowes indicated that modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) were proposed to deal with the possible presence of significant natural heritage features as included in Exhibit 100. The modifications propose changes to Schedule 13 of the Official Plan redesignating the land use for the subject property from Natural Areas to Low Density Residential and Natural Areas. Schedule 14 of the Official Plan is also proposed to be modified to identify the property as being subject to a site-specific plan.

[21] The modifications also propose adding a new section 13.X to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) which specifies a number of detailed studies that must be completed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with TRCA prior to development of the property.

[22] Through s. 13.x.4 the land uses for the property are further delineated. For the western part of the property, the modifications assign a Low Rise Residential designation. The central portion of the property is identified as Low Rise Residential

196 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 PL111184

[38] Based upon the above considerations, the Board will allow the appeal in part based upon the modifications to Vaughan Official Plan (2010) contained in the revised Exhibit 100.

[39] The appeal of Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is resolved in full by the settlement. However, Mr. Bronskill noted that the provisions of Exhibit 100 do not address Vaughan Official Plan (2010) Schedule 2 which identifies the City’s Natural Heritage Network. At the time of the hearing, Schedule 2 had not been approved by the Board and Mr. Bronskill indicated that he may be requesting some changes in the future to address the Appellant’s interests and the results of the settlement.

ORDER

[40] The Board orders that the appeal by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. is allowed in part and Vaughan Official Plan (2010) is modified as set out in Attachment 1.

“C. Conti”

C. CONTI MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 $WWDFKPHQW

21016 $WWDFKPHQW3

21117

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: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT 1.251 hectares (3.091 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Brock Road and north of Finch Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 and designated as Part 74 on the Draft M-Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes, Land Information Specialists, Reference No. 13-25-795-03, dated January 19, 2016, municipally know as 2095 Brock Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Kindwin (Brock) Developments Corporation;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#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: Jack Heath Seconded by: Chris Fonseca

212

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease arrangement with 360°kids Support Services to operate and manage a youth transition facility located at 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed;

THAT the term of the lease be for 10 years;

THAT consideration be a nominal sum of $12.00 per annum along with an initial capital investment of $120,000 for building restoration;

THAT the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors;

THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to give effect thereto including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the development of the program partnership between TRCA and 360°kids at a future date. CARRIED ______

Section II – Items for Authority Information

RES.#A79/16 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Kevin Ashe

THAT Section II items 11.2.1 – 11.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 11.2.1 – 11.2.4, Inclusive COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR TRCA STAFF (Executive Res.#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: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Michael Di Biase

THAT the summary of Good News Stories from January through March 2016 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for from January through March 2016 are as follows:

January

 Partnership developed with York Region to build uptake in their Water Saving and Protection Incentives for Businesses program and boost potential implementation of capital infrastructure projects designed to reduce operational footprint and wastewater discharge issues. Partners in Project Green now working with Toronto and Peel on similar initiatives.  Multicultural Connections Program staff participated in the Family Literacy Day Fair in Markham that welcomed 520 adults and children that were newcomers to Canada.  340 participants attended the launch of a new fat bike program at Albion Hills Conservation Area, in partnership with Caledon Cycle and Chico Racing.  The City of Vaughan was awarded World Council on City Data Platinum Certification (ISO 37120 standard) for reliable and useful data. TRCA contributed biodiversity data from our Regional Watershed Monitoring Program to support this designation.  TRCA published a peer reviewed journal article in the journal Freshwater Science on the impact of chloride (road salt) on benthic invertebrates. Working with TRCA's Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), these results will be communicated to both the public and private road salt applicators in order to promote reduction in de-icing materials.  TRCA staff co-authored an article on the principles for urban stormwater management to protect stream ecosystems which refers to TRCA/CVC's (Credit Valley Conservation) low impact design (LID) manual. Both articles are currently online now and will be formally published in a special edition of Freshwater Science on Urban Ecology in March.  Report commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on of an expert review of provincial land use policy and planning in light of climate change was released and presented to the Crombie Panel by MOECC staff , to which the Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) was a co-author.  State of Climate Science in the Great Lakes Basin report published, representing the largest compilation of climate change science for freshwater systems in this region. OCC was retained by Environment to undertake the work.  TRCA, Ontario Climate Consortium and Conservation Ontario met with John Godfrey, Special Advisor and Chair of the Province of Ontario's climate action group, to discuss the potential role of conservation authorities (CA) in advancing Ontario's leadership and strengthen collaboration with municipal governments to implement climate change adaptation priorities.  New planning and permitting fees and financial structure approved by the Authority. BILD sent correspondence stating that they accept TRCA’s fees.

214  Ontario Association of Landscape Architects journal “Ground” included TRCA article on ecological considerations in the urban environment.  Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) journal published article on TRCA’s award of excellence in planning for The Living City Policies.  New parking system going in at Black Creek Pioneer Village thanks to a significant in-kind donation through The Living City Foundation from Precise ParkLink.  "Restrictions on Dredging Activities" and "Degradation of Benthos" beneficial uses re-designated as "not impaired" in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern, as per the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 2012.

February

 Demolition of buildings at Bolton Camp had a diversion rate of 84%, well in line with our corporate target of 80% diversion of waste by 2018.  The first TRCA/City of Vaughan project partnership has been negotiated after a decade of ongoing issues related to stormwater runoff from Pine Valley Drive into the Boyd Conservation Area, causing extreme erosion on the valley side, sedimentation of the roadway, and closure of the public trail. The relationship, modelled after other TRCA - municipal partnerships, will see the City of Vaughan commissioning the detailed design works and obtaining TRCA permits, and TRCA being contracted to construct the project and rehabilitate the area. It will be of benefit to park users and city residents.  A male fisher is investigating constructed nest box at Glen Major. Hoping a female fisher will nest in the box TRCA installed. Nature of Things will possibly film as part of a documentary.  Presented Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) and Partners in Project Green (PPG) at Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Cities Conference in session on From Crazy to Common Sense: “Radical” Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Well-received by municipal staff and elected officials from across Canada.  Archaeology and Greenspace Planning has moved into Swan Lake office and the lakeside meeting rooms are available for booking creative workshops.  Launch of planning and permits section of the new TRCA website for use and feedback, before launching other sections.  TRCA awarded grant by Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade for employer engagement activities that improve integration and retention of new Canadians within the workforce.  Close to 600 people attended the 60th Annual Authority meeting which had speakers from the federal government, as well as both the ministries of the Environment and Climate Change, and Natural Resources and Forestry. A highlight was a video of partners speaking about their relationship with TRCA and what they see as TRCA’s value to the GTA.  Authority approved TRCA completing negotiations to conduct restoration work at Redelmeier Pond, in Vaughan.  Scarborough Bluffs was profiled in a news video in the United States.  On February 4th, 23 new Canadians visited the Markham Museum to learn about wildlife habitat and create bird feeders. This project is supported by the City of Markham's Environmental Sustainability Fund.

March

 77 municipal, academic and business representatives attended a webinar hosted by TRCA's Partners in Project Green (PPG) and Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC), focussing on the importance and first steps in creating adaptation strategies for businesses to address looming climate hazards and vulnerabilities.

215  PPG staff participated in a panel hosted by Sustainable Waterloo Region ("Exploring Sustainability Beyond Carbon") in which the perspectives of waste management, air quality and water stewardship engagement with the Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) sector were explored.  Partners in Project Green successfully completed its nine-month "SmartWay Transport Partnership" contract with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), recruiting five new corporate program participants and securing as many Seneca College and University of Toronto Mississauga student placements to help participants enhance their supply chain operations.  Through PPG's Materials Exchange program, TRCA has started a new recycling program that captures and recycles a particularly difficult waste stream: used Keurig containers. The partnership with GoJava helped TRCA divert 12 kgs of organics and plastics last month alone.  688 people attended the 5th annual TRIECA Conference on stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and natural channel design.  MMAH providing $40,000 to Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) for methodology to evaluate renewable energy technologies.  Secured a grant in the amount of $24,000 from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund to implement a demonstration rain garden at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Working with BCPV staff, the Norfinch Adult Education Centre and the Jane/Finch Community Centre, this grant will be used to install the garden on site at Black Creek Pioneer Village and engage the surrounding community about stormwater management and the importance of native plants.  Bayview Glen Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) won a National Award of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects.  Black Creek SNAP received a grant from the City of Toronto through the “Investment in Neighourhoods” program for up to four staff for a year, with option for up to three years of renewals.  Secured $150,000 for the Caledon SNAP in partnership with Town of Caledon through Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund.  Through a revamped program, new marketing initiatives and a kids free offer, Black Creek Pioneer Village doubled the number of visitors to its March Break program.  Undertaking Toronto-wide trail audit, work valued at about $300,000.  $50,000 gift to The Living City Foundation from Cadillac Fairview in support of the Environmental Leaders of Tomorrow program. This gift will be matched by The W. Garfield Weston Foundation.  Reached an agreement with DG (landowners) for up to $2.1 million to remove the dam and restore the Redelmeier Pond in Vaughan.  Secured $300,000 through National Disaster program for flood risk assessments and 2D modelling.

Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: [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: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger

THAT item 11.4 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/16, held on May 13, 2016, be received. CARRIED ______

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:47 p.m., on Friday, May 27, 2016.

Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer

/ks

217