Authority Meeting #11/16 Was Held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 27, 2017

Authority Meeting #11/16 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 27, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m.

PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member Jim Tovey Member

ABSENT David Barrow Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member John Sprovieri Member

RES.#A215/16 - MINUTES

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jim Tovey

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______

640 DELEGATIONS

4.1 A delegation by John Zipay, Agent, in regard to item 7.2 - Ontario Municipal Board Participation.

4.2 A delegation by Glenn Lucas, Planner, Dufferin Vistas Ltd., in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-Law Amendment.

4.3 A delegation by Anne Sabourin, Associate, Donnelly Law, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-Law Amendment.

RES.#A216/16 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT above-noted delegations 4.2 and 4.3 be added to the agenda. CARRIED RES.#A217/16 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT above-noted delegation 4.1 be received. CARRIED RES.#A218/16 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Michael Ford

THAT above-noted delegations 4.2 and 4.3 be received. CARRIED ______

PRESENTATIONS

5.1 A presentation by John Tracogna, Chief Executive Officer and Robin Hale, Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Zoo, in regard to item 7.8 - Toronto Zoo.

RES.#A219/16 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED ______

641 CORRESPONDENCE

6.1 A letter dated January 25, 2017 from David Bronskill, solicitor, Goodmans LLP, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-Law Amendment. Attachment

6.2 A letter dated January 26, 2017 from David R. Donnelly, solicitor, Donnelly Law, in regard to item 7.3 - OMB Participation Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-Law Amendment.

RES.#A220/16 - CORRESPONDENCE

Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti

THAT above-noted correspondence 6.1 and 6.2 be received. CARRIED

642 Correspondence 6.1

643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 Correspondence 6.2

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB [email protected]

January 26, 2017

Via e-mail to [email protected]

Jonathan Wigley Gardiner Roberts LLP Bay Adelaid Centre – East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3600 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3

Dear Mr. Wigley,

Re: OMB File No. PL160978, Dufferin Vistas Residential Development Appeal TRCA Meeting January 27, 2017

Donnelly Law represents residents concerned with the above-referenced development applications. We are in the process of incorporating the residents as a not-for-profit corporation that will represent their interests and request party status in the above- noted matter. We write in advance of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (“TRCA”) meeting tomorrow with several requests for the meeting that will be the subject of our client’s deputation.

Land Purchase or Exchange At its October 14, 2016 meeting, TRCA passed a unanimous motion to ask the City of Vaughan to consider purchasing 230 Grand Trunk Avenue and/or a land exchange to protect the ecological health of the site. Will there be a report at the meeting on Vaughan’s response? Will TRCA direct Staff to work with Vaughan on securing the land purchase or exchange?

TRCA Position on Phase 1 and 2 Lands We have reviewed the agenda materials and TRCA’s Preliminary Issues List. Do TRCA’s issues apply to both the Phase 1 (Low Rise Residential) and Phase 2 (Low Rise Residential – Special Study Area) lands? Further, does TRCA’s review of the application consider the impact of Phase 1 development on Phase 2 lands?

Location of Proposed Grand Trunk Road Extension TRCA Preliminary Issues 6 and 7 address the proposed alignment of the Grand Trunk extension. What are TRCA’s specific concerns with the alignment and are alternative alignments feasible?

t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1 P 692 A G E

In particular, it seems the March 22, 2017 OMB hearing will deal with these issues and so far, no studies of any kind have been provided to our clients. Has TRCA received updated environmental studies?

TRCA Site Visit of January 25, 2017 We understand Staff visited the subject lands on January 25, 2017. Can TRCA confirm whether or not key natural heritage features and sensitive hydrological features exist on the Phase 1 lands? Will a report of the site visit be provided at the meeting?

We note the Ontario Municipal Board decision in Scianella v. Vaughan (City), [2003] O.M.B.D. No. 1163 found at paragraph 9:

Based on mapping provided by the Province, the City passed OPA 604, to bring their Official Plan into conformity with the ORMCP. On Schedule 24 of OPA 604, the woodlot on Mr. Iacobelli’s property is shown as a significant woodlot. That Official Plan Amendment and an accompanying zoning bylaw, the Oak Ridges Moraine By-law No. 242-2003 which zones the woodlot as OS-5, have been forwarded to the Minister for approval.

Our client would like to know TRCA’s position: is there a significant woodlot on the subject lands? If not, did TRCA consider restoration instead of development before entering into this agreement?

It may be the habit of some municipalities to embrace the “it is easier to obtain forgiveness than it is permission” principle in land use planning: surely this is not the policy of TRCA? Why then is the destroyed regenerating woodland on the subject lands not given the opportunity to be restored as part of the woodland network? We are aware of evidence of blatant and wilful destruction of the replanted forest.

What is TRCA doing to ensure this reforestation takes precedence over development? Has TRCA requested a section 47 Minister’s Zoning Order to ensure ecological destruction is never a successful strategy for obtaining approval of a land use planning application.

TRCA Position on Timing of Hearing Do Staff anticipate being able to complete their review of the Phase 1 lands in time for the March 22, 2017 hearing? Residents advise notice was provided on January 24, 2017. Given that TRCA has identified concerns with the proposed alignment, design and location of Grand Trunk, do Staff consider the hearing on Phase 1 zoning and plan of subdivision to be premature?

Archaeological Assessment A request to the developer’s counsel for an archaeological assessment of the subject property has not been answered.

t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1 P 693 A G E

We note that in the new draft of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, it is the position of the Government of Ontario that:

The Plan supports the identification, conservation, use and wise management of cultural heritage resources, including archaeological resources, to support the social, economic and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities.

Notwithstanding this clear direction regarding the identification of archaeological resources on the Moraine, the City and TRCA are bound to follow Policy 2.6 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, which states:

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved.

All of us, including the City of Vaughan, TRCA and local residents bear a responsibility for protecting archaeological resources and ancient First Nation’s sites. This cannot be done when properties are developed without proper study.

TRCA recognizes the area’s rich heritage and potential:

Recognizing the heritage value of the archaeological resources on its lands, the TRCA has prepared an Archaeological Master Plan that documents archaeological sites and makes recommendations for the proper management of these resources.

New sites and other cultural heritage landscapes continue to be found every year, and along with that, new educational opportunities offered to enhance local knowledge.1

With this letter, we copy the representatives of all First Nations that occupied the Toronto area. Local residents have long been told there is a village site and possible burial located on the subject lands. Did consultation with First Nations regarding the subject property?

If so, no doubt the TRCA and City of Vaughan will disclose the consultation record with First Nations (if one exists) before proceeding to the scheduled March 22, 2017 OMB hearing to confirm the Minutes of Settlement, dated June 23, 2015 and brought to light by Global TV.

1 https://trca.ca/conservation/archaeology/

t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1 P 694 A G E

One note: it is our legal opinion consultation is to occur with First Nations before a settlement is reached. Our client would be obliged to know if that is TRCA’s legal counsel’s opinion, as he is expected to be in attendance.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-572-0464, or by e-mail to [email protected] , cc’ing [email protected], should you have any questions or comments concerning this correspondence.

Yours truly,

David R. Donnelly cc. L. Lesage M. Dokis D. Mowat T. Cowie

t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1 P 695 A G E Section I – Items for Action Action

RES.#A221/16- THE LIVING CITY REPORT CARD 2016 UPDATE Progress of The Living City Report Card 2016.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT Authority Members provide written comments on the draft of The Living City Report Card 2016 to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff by February 6, 2017;

AND FURTHER THAT staff provide the completed The Living City Report Card 2016 to the Authority for endorsement, and officially release the Report Card, at Annual Meeting #1/17, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2011, TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto, supported by the Boston Consulting Group, produced the inaugural edition of The Living City Report Card to describe the state of the environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Greening Greater Toronto was an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance (now CivicAction) founded in 2008 to bring together a coalition of leaders from the public, business, labour and non-profit sectors – including the TRCA – to advance a vision of making the GTA the greenest city region in North America. The joint publication of The Living City Report Card fulfilled both TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto goals to report on environmental and sustainability progress at the regional scale. For TRCA, The Living City Report Card fulfilled an objective to provide a comprehensive snapshot of sustainability progress in its jurisdiction, as staff had been first directed in Resolution #A117/04 at Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004. For Greening Greater Toronto (it fulfilled an objective to report on progress towards the elements of the vision the coalition had set out for a greener Greater Toronto. This partnership was approved by the Authority at Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, in Resolution #A121/10 as follows:

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to partner with Greening Greater Toronto, an initiative of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, to produce the first edition of The Living City Report Card in conjunction with the Greening Greater Toronto Score Card;

THAT TRCA staff continue to produce brief report cards on the health of individual watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction on a five year cycle following the production of The Living City Report Card subject to data availability, funding and staff resources;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff make provisions in the 2012-2021 capital budget forecast for producing report cards.

696 The final framework of indicators and measures to be used in The Living City Report Card was approved at Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010 in Resolution #A213/10 and the full The Living City Report Card was presented to the board and received at Authority Meeting #2/11, held on February 25, 2011 (Resolution #A20/11). According to this framework, the report card measures, tracks and reports on six key themes: carbon, air quality, waste, land use, water and biodiversity. The inaugural edition of The Living City Report Card was published in February 2011 (http://www.thelivingcity.org/lcrc4/) and had a significant impact on the dialog in the Toronto region about sustainability and environmental issues and the need for sustainability action at the regional scale. All 2,000 copies of the print version have been distributed and there have been over 24,000 website visits since it was launched in February 2011. Several media outlets, including the National Post and the Toronto Sun, produced stories about the issues raised in the report card.

The Living City Report Card 2016 Update When The Living City Report Card 2011 was produced, TRCA and Greening Greater Toronto agreed that it would be updated on a five-year cycle. TRCA made provisions in its capital budget forecast to this end, and in 2014 staff initiated activity in support of the 2016 Report Card. However, due to capacity and funding constraints, CivicAction, Greening Greater Toronto and Boston Consulting were not able to provide resources and expertise to support the 2016 Report Card, although they continued to support The Living City Report Card and its regular updates in principle. TRCA staff believed it was still important to produce the 2016 update of The Living City Report Card as it remains an important component of TRCA’s efforts to lead and facilitate regional discussion and action on sustainability, per the priorities to “Measure Performance” and “Facilitate a Regional Approach to Sustainability” articulated in the 2013-2022 TRCA strategic plan. The Living City Report Card is a key element of a regional approach to sustainability, providing a venue for routine measurement that helps assess whether the collective actions of governments, business and society in the GTA are leading to desired environmental outcomes, and to generate important conversations about what we can do better.

TRCA staff has focused the majority of their efforts for the 2016 Report Card on indicators where data was available from TRCA’s regional monitoring programs or other sources; primarily on indicators related to water, land use and biodiversity. Although the resources and expertise from the previous Greening Greater Toronto partnership were not available to report in detail on the other indicators, staff has established partnerships with local environmental leaders and experts, including Clean Air Partnership, The Atmospheric Fund, Smart Prosperity, The Neptis Foundation and Dr. Virginia Maclaren from the University of Toronto, to provide summary updates on progress in those areas. Further, the World Council for City Data, Evergreen and Jeb Brugmann of The Next Practice have contributed longer documentaries about the ongoing importance of a regional approach to sustainability and sustainability reporting in the Toronto region. TRCA has also contracted the Resilience Design Lab from the Ontario College of Art and Design University to distill the complex topics into infographics to increase the readability of the report, facilitate the visualization of complex information and highlight key messages for the public, stakeholders and decision-makers.

697 The Living City Report Card 2016 will be published in February 2017, with the launch scheduled for the TRCA Annual Authority meeting, scheduled to be held on February 24, 2017. It will report on the six themes that formed the framework for the inaugural The Living Report Card 2011. The 2016 Report Card will be positioned as a progress report without specific letter grades assigned to each of the indicators because of the aforementioned inability of the original The Living City Report Card partners to provide resources and expertise to conduct detailed analysis for some indicators. As a result, there is variation in the level of detail and quantification across indicators that is not conducive to a consistent grading system. However, staff is confident that the text provides a clear overview of the current state of progress with respect to each indicator along with important and relevant insights into future courses of action.

For each indicator, the 2016 report will include an infographic and a narrative about the current state of, and progress related to, the subject issue (see example in Attachment 1). The infographics highlight three key dimensions of the narrative for that indicator: Why is this important?, What’s happening?, and What can we do? along with graphics to help convey key messages. The text provides a more detailed discussion about current conditions, progress toward short and long-term goals established in the 2011 Report Card, the activities needing to help achieve those goals, examples of key efforts aimed at improving current conditions, and new short-term targets for 2021 (where applicable). As noted above, the 2016 report will also feature three essay-type articles on the importance of regional action on sustainability, standardized measurement and reporting, and benchmarking.

The Living City Report Card 2016 will be presented in three formats: 1. Hard-copy report – 8.5 x 11 inch paper report similar to the previous report 2. Website – an interactive, animated website dedicated to the 2016 progress report 3. Digital PDF – available from the website or by email

The Living City Report Card 2016 Report Overview Staff is continuing to edit the text and graphics of the report before publication, but the general content, structure and format of the 2016 report is available as an internal draft document at (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ypibxv0gcgmkjlf/AABRV1cH1Rz-Jv8paOPFGYvGa?dl=0). Authority Members are requested to download and review the document and provide comments to staff by February 6, 2017. Attachment 2 summarizes the key issues and progress toward targets by indicator. An outline of the report content and key messages is provided below:

1. Introduction  The introduction summarizes the current state of the environment along with a call for collective action by local government, the business community, NGOs and citizens, to renew their collective efforts to improve environmental health and sustainability.  The introduction will be signed by Brian Denney and Maria Augimeri on behalf of TRCA, along with John Allard on behalf of The Living City Foundation.  The introduction includes a message of support from CivicAction. 2. Themes & Indicators a. Carbon  Transportation fuel use and natural gas consumption for heat remain the two largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the GTA.  Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal-generated electricity which has significantly reduced carbon emissions but more must be done locally to curb carbon emissions from transportation and heating.

698 b. Air Quality  At the regional scale air quality has improved over the past few decades, with a dramatic decrease in the number of smog days in the GTA. However, air pollution is still a major public health issue in the region and better local area monitoring is needed to understand how air quality is affecting individual communities and neighbourhoods. c. Waste  Residential waste diversion rates in the GTA have not improved over the past five years and diversion rates for multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) are poor and need to be improved. d. Water  There has been an increase in the percentage area with stormwater management but increase is due to controls installed in new developments rather than progress on retrofitting existing developed areas. Greater effort in this regard will reduce flood risk as well as improve water quality, stream flow and fish habitat.  Chloride and E. coli continue to be a significant water quality issue in our rivers and streams, and in Lake Ontario. e. Land Use  The rate of land consumption (urban sprawl) has decreased, but we continue to experience a decline in greenspace and agricultural land.  Realizing regional sustainability requires building complete, compact communities with denser development patterns linked by public transportation. This type of community can help foster regional economic growth while improving environmental sustainability and climate change resilience. f. Biodiversity  Although the quantity of natural cover has remained the same, the quality of our natural cover has declined and we have seen a decrease in aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. 3. Looking Forward  Three commentaries on why a regional approach to environmental sustainability is critical to the success of the Toronto region: a. Standardized Data by the World Council on City Data: A narrative on how and why standardized data can help cities and regions move forward on sustainability, including benchmarking performance against peers. b. Think Global, Act Regional by Jeb Brugmann - A commentary on how and why a regional approach to sustainability is necessary to achieve meaningful progress, including how regional sustainability tracking, reporting and benchmarking is critical to success. c. Collective Action in the Greater Golden Horseshoe by Evergreen and The Next Practice - A discussion of how multi-sectoral regional alliances could be formed and operationalized to help accelerate progress on regional sustainability.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to edit and refine the The Living Report Card 2016 content and finalize the graphic design over the next few weeks. The document will be printed and the website will be finalized in time to launch the Report Card at the TRCA Annual Meeting and to present it to the Authority for endorsement. Staff will also develop a communication strategy to guide how the Report Card will be disseminated and promoted following the launch.

699

FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff involvement in the development of the The Living City Report Card 2016 has been funded through TRCA capital accounts 129-92 and 416-40, which are dedicated to that purpose. Capital money for these accounts is provided by The City of Toronto and Peel and York regions. Staff activities in 2017 and beyond will be funded through capital account 416-40, which has been consolidated to support all TRCA environmental and watershed reporting and report card projects. Numerous partners have contributed in-kind support in the development of The Living City Report Card 2016 and will continue to provide in-kind support for communication activities in 2017. Staff will also continue to develop partnerships with other organizations to fund and contribute expertise to future versions of the Report Card.

Report prepared by: Ryan Ness, extension 5615 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Angela Wallace, extension 5917 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 11, 2017 Attachments: 2

700 30 The Living City Report Card 2011 Progress Report 2016 31 Attachment 1

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2016 WATER PROGRESS TARGET MET We need to do a better job managing stormwater Stormwater Management yes

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Currently, just 35% of the urbanized areas across the jurisdiction are served by effective stormwater 65% controls which help to manage water quality and prevent flooding. Untreated runoff, with its Effective stormwater control helps of urban areas don’t heavy load of dirt, road salt, pesticides, oil and grease and other pollutants, may rush directly prevent ﬂooding and manages have modern into a watercourse, or it may flood through local storm sewers before being discharged into a water quality. stormwater control lake, river or stream. The result is an increased risk of flooding, downstream erosion, water pollution and the destruction of wildlife habitat. Stormwater management controls are being installed in new developments but improvements can be made through the use of low impact development (LID) techniques and innovative retrofits in older communities. By installing LIDs PIPE such as permeable pavers in parking lots or directing runoff to grassy swales or soakway pits, runoff slowly seeps into the soil replenishing groundwater, removing pollutants, and reducing the amount of flow reaching the stream. Local and regional municipalities in collaboration with the province must continue to advocate for and develop policy requiring the use of LID. WHAT’S HAPPENING?

Storm water rushes o roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots into pipes which discharge into streams. Without proper stormwater management, we risk: THE CURRENT SITUATION our streams, wetlands and groundwater resources.  Flooding The result, especially after a major storm, is an Currently, just 35% of the urbanized areas across  Erosion increased risk of flooding, downstream erosion, TRCA’s jurisdiction are served by effective stormwater  Water pollution water pollution and the destruction of wildlife controls which help to manage water quality and habitat. Despite advances in LID technologies prevent flooding. Increases in stormwater runoff is and implementation of stormwater charges in one the most serious environmental threats in urban several cities on Ontario, many municipalities face areas. Across the region, much of the rain water challenges related to maintenance and replacement of and melting snow flows off rooftops, parking lots, stormwater systems. LID ﬁlters, evaporates, cools, and retains roadways and other paved or impermeable surfaces stormwater runoff instead of going directly of the city and ends up in our streams and rivers. into streams. Techniques include rain gardens Stormwater runoff – with its heavy load of dirt, road and permeable pavements. salt, pesticides, oil and grease and other pollutants – may rush directly into a watercourse, or it may flood through local storm sewers before being discharged into a lake, river or stream. And that means much less water seeps into the ground to naturally recharge WHAT CAN WE DO?

Invest in better stormwater management

Develop policy to require green infrastructure, including LID 701 32 Progress Report 2016 Progress Report 2016 33

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE • The Pioneer Park Stormwater Management Pond TARGETS in Richmond Hill has been upgraded to replace Modern stormwater controls and low impact 2016 Target: Urban area with stormwater 30-year-old stormwater infrastructure and meet development (LIDs) techniques are used to manage management increases from 23% to 35%. modern standards of water quality treatment, both the quantity and quality of the runoff that erosion control and flood control. eventually reaches local rivers, streams and other Achieved? Yes. The amount of urban area with waterbodies. These systems can work in several ways: stormwater management has increased over the past • TRCA is working with our municipal and 5-years but this is mainly due to stormwater controls community partners on Sustainable Neighbourhood • By installing LIDs such as permeable pavers in in new developments. Retrofit Action Plans (SNAPs) to make sustainable parking lots or directing runoff to grassy swales, environmental improvements at the neighbourhood ditches or soakway pits, runoff slowly seeps into Target for 2021: Increase the percentage of the urban scale. Rain harvesting, eco-landscaping and green the soil, replenishing groundwater and maintaining area equipped with stormwater controls (for improved home projects are helping to divert, store and the ecosystem’s natural balance. water quantity, quality and erosion control) from 35 reuse runoff following rainstorms to 45%. • Cisterns and rain barrels can collect that water • The City of Toronto’s Wet Weather Flow Master diverted from storm drains for later reuse on Long-term target: Greater than 80 per cent of urban Plan (WWFMP) adopted by Toronto City Council gardens and lawns. areas with stormwater management controls. in 2003, is a 25-year-plan to better manage stormwater, improve water quality and protect • Instead of gushing down a downspout, green roofs infrastructure from flooding and erosion. Of the retain and reuse much of the water that falls on them. 170 projects identified in the plan, those currently

underway include the Don River and Central MEASURE • Runoff can be directed into large holding ponds Waterfront Project and the Earl Bales Park SWM The grade is based on the percentage of developed or tanks, where some of the contaminants are Pond Project. land across the region that is served by effective, removed or settle out, before the water is released modern stormwater controls to manage both the slowly to maintain the flow in our rivers or streams. quality and quantity of runoff discharged into watercourses across the jurisdiction.

WHAT WE ARE DOING • TRCA and its municipal partners require that all new developments provide modern stormwater controls. TRCA’s recently completed Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide and similar guideline documents encourage effective stormwater management.

• Almost all the municipalities across TRCA’s jurisdiction have begun stormwater retrofit studies to implement stormwater quality/quantity and erosion controls within urbanized areas that currently do not have such controls in place.

• A Toronto bylaw requires homeowners to disconnect their home’s downspouts from the city’s sewer system, while a second bylaw requires new commercial, institutional and high density residential developments to install green roofs. WATER 702 Attachment 2

Summary of The Living City Report Card Indicators & Results

2011 STT LTT Indicator &Measure Short-term target (STT) Long-term target (LTT) Current situation What needs to be done Comments Grade achieved Progress Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal-generated Adopt provincial and national policy at the electricity. Transportation fuel use and Carbon - Carbon dioxide Reduce emissions from 1990 Reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 local level. Improve public transportation. Qualitative commentary by D n/a ↗ natural gas consumption by homes and equivalents (CO2e). levels by ~18% by 2016. levels by 2050. Encourage alternative transportation The Atmospheric Fund.

Carbon businesses for heat remain the two options such as electric vehicles. largest sources of GHG emissions in the GTA.

On the large-scale, air quality has improved. The number of smog days in Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile Improve air quality monitoring at the local the GTA have decreased over the last Organic Compounds (VOCs), scale. Improve public transportation Qualitative commentary by D-C Varies by compound n/a Varies by compound ↗ decade. But, air quality can differ at the Particulate Matter (PM2.5), options and encourage active Clean Air Partnership. local scale, particularly in cities. There is Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) transportation. Air Quality Air limited air quality information at the local scale. Semi-quantitative commentary by Dr. V. The % of residential waste being Improve residential recycling, particularly Residential & ICI waste Residential: 75% diversion Residential & ICI: Approach zero Maclaren. Combined two C, D no ↔ diverted has remained steady around in multi-unit residential buildings diversion overall. ICI: 50% diversion waste diversion of > than 80 %. indicators together, mainly Waste 50%. ICI was not evaluated. (MURBs). Improve textile recycling. discusses residential waste issues.

Stormwater Management - % Increase in % urban area with Increase urban area with Only 35% of urban areas are served by Use of modern stormwater controls, with developed land with Greater than 80% of urban areas have SWM due to controls installed F stormwater management yes ↔ modern stormwater controls to manage particular emphasis on Low Impact stormwater controls in TRCA stormwater management in new developments, limited from 23 to 35 % water quality and prevent flooding. Development (LID) design. jurisdiction progress in urban retrofits. Flood risk management requires long- term thinking and action. TRCA Flood Risk - Number of flood Risk reduction measures in all of our Create clear flood warning procedures & continues work to reduce risk, vulnerable clusters (areas with No increase in the number of flood vulnerable clusters, whether messaging. Engage in flood risk mitigation, response, and recovery. a high concentration of flood-vulnerable clusters. through operational improvements, education. Improve ability to predict C yes ↗ Watershed conditions (urbanization, buildings and roads at risk Reduction in the number of upgraded flood forecasting and where & when a flood may occur. Identify soil type, slope, etc.) are factors in from flooding) in TRCA’s structures at risk. warning, or the construction of capital flood vulnerable areas. Implement flooding. Climate change is increasing jurisdiction projects to reduce flood risk. remedial works to mitigate risks. Water the frequency and severity of major storm events. Reduce per capita Canadians are among the highest Water Consumption - Per capita consumption of less than Qualitative text by Smart consumption by 10% from consumers of water per person in the Implement full-cost pricing for water. Residential consumption C n/a 300 Lpd (residential and non- ↗ Prosperity. No new data current levels, down to 347 world. Toronto residential water use Encourage water conservation. (L/day/pp) residential combined). analyzed. Lpd per person higher than similar cities. Levels of some pollutants have held No further deterioration of the Water quality for TRCA’s jurisdiction Water Quality - Water quality steady or decreased; but, chloride levels Reduce stormwater flow to watercourses. current water quality reaches an average WQI score of 70 or index (WQI) based on 8 C almost ↔ are increasing dramatically. E. coli (e.g. Reduce the use of and look for Microplastics are a new threat. conditions at all monitoring higher, with improvements seen in parameters combined sewer overflows) also alternatives to road salt. sites (WQI score of 50 to 59). each watershed. continues to be an issue.

Species richness scores for TRCA’s Tolerant fish may be replacing more Fish - Fish species richness No further loss of fish jurisdiction have >70% of the expected sensitive species. Development near Stormwater controls to preserve or Brook Trout populations (observed vs expected) - fish C biodiversity across TRCA's yes native species. Natural recruitment of ↔ headwaters may threaten sensitive improve water quality. Protect/restore thought to be declining and biodiversity reflects changes in jurisdiction. Atlantic salmon will be re-established species. Water pollution (including coldwater streams. need further investigation. ecosystem function & health. in the Duffins Creek, Humber River. warm water) an issue.

No further loss of terrestrial plants and animals (maintain No significant change in indicators Terrestrial biodiversity - 3 current abundance). Complete Terrestrial plants and animals Proactive action required. Work with Biodiversity between 2009 and 2013, but marked indicators: forest & wetland reforestation and wetland achieved moderate to high abundance partners to preserve habitat and stop C almost ↓ differences in biodiversity between flora; forest, wetland & habitat restoration for 750 ha of Species of Regional Conservation spread of invasive species. Invest in urban & rural areas. Threats to meadow birds; and frogs. across TRCA’s jurisdiction, and Concern conservation. diversity. manage non-native invasive species. On the large scale, the total amount of habitat quantity appears to be stable but the quality of the natural area has Natural cover - Quantity: % of Increase natural cover of TRCA’s TNHSS sets natural heritage protection Restore or reforest 750 ha of been declining. On the local scale, Losses may not be apparent land in natural cover (from jurisdiction to 30 % (80% forests, 10% objectives. 30% natural cover needed to wetland and forest areas critical habitat such as wetlands have due to the scale of aerial photos), and Quality: B almost meadow, and 10% open wetland). ↔ protect species of concern. 28,000 ha identified in the targeted been lost. Even if habitat is preserved, measurement and/or Quality of cover from habitat Increase quality of natural cover from need to be restored across TRCA region TNHSS the negative impacts of adjacent restoration activities. patch analyses fair to good. over next 100 years. urbanization will still decrease biodiversity and impair ecosystem services. All new buildings, developments and Maintain the current rate of major renovations are carbon neutral. Adopt policies requiring new buildings to Participation in green building growth of the green building They will implement innovative be built or managed to meet green Green Buildings - LEED and/or organizations & initiatives increasing. See Architecture 2030 - industry and increase interest almost sustainable design strategies and ↗ building certification criteria. Require BOMA certified buildings Renovating our existing building stock is Challenge in certification programs.+ 3 generate on-site power from large buildings to publically report energy most cost-effective way to cut GHGs. other specific targets renewable sources or purchase & water consumption. renewable energy. Greater than 40% intensification for Intensification - Intensification each upper tier municipality, or as Build compact, complete communities. Quantitative commentary by 40% intensification n/a ↗ The rate of urban sprawl has decreased. rate. outlined by the Government of Improve public transportation. The Neptis Foundation. Ontario Urban Forest - Leaf Area The urban forest is a key part of urban Land Use Land Several municipalities have Density (m2/m2) – total upper Develop targets for Leaf Area infrastructure. Several municipalities Increase diversity to build resilience. Need used different methods. If we leaf surface area divided by Density in each municipality as The average Leaf Area Density for have adopted urban forest to plan for the impacts of climate change. C somewhat ↗ want to compare LCRC data, the area in question. Note: urban forest management TRCA’s jurisdiction is greater than two. management plans. Insect pests and Forest studies should be repeated at new data collection needed No new data available for plans are developed. extreme weather events have affected regular intervals. (10-year cycle) analysis. structure. From 2006 to 2011 , the amount of Support regional municipalities in farm land across the TRCA’s jurisdiction updating their Official Plans to encourage Agriculture - The amount of decreased by 7.8%. Farm operating unified and effective policies to preserve No loss of farmland between A greater than 5% increase in the area farmland within the TRCA C no ↓ costs continue to rise. Development and support local agriculture. Continue 2006 and 2016. of land being farmed. jurisdiction. and urbanization continues to threaten research on effective ways to integrate the amount of agricultural land agricultural activities into the urban available. environment TRCA and other public There is a positive influence of Acquire and protect additional greenspace partners must acquire an greenspace on human and Greenspace - The number of in a strategic fashions (e.g. Terrestrial No new data analysis because additional 1,800 ha within the Enhance the current ratio of 8.4 ha environmental health, particularly in hectares of greenspace per C n/a ↘ Natural Heritage System Strategy no comprehensive GIS layer next 5 years to maintain its per 1,000 people. the context of urban landscapes. The 1000 people. (TNHSS)). Management of greenspace available. current ratio of 8.4 ha per amount of greenspace per person has requires funding. 1,000 people. likely decreased over the past 5 years.

703 RES.#A222/16 - ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD PARTICIPATION Zoning By-law Amendment Application – Z.15.035 Official Plan Amendment Application – OP.16.005 Site Plan Application - DA.15.085 Draft Plan of Condominium Application – 19CDM-16V001 Lot 10, Concession 7, Lot 8-12, Reg. Plan 65M-1113 8451 & 8457 Islington Avenue East Side of Islington south of Pine Grove Road City of Vaughan, York Region (Ravines of Islington Encore Inc.). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority participation as a Party at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be affirmed as it relates to the appeal of the Lack of Decision by Vaughan City Council for the Official Plan Amendment, Site Plan, Draft Plan of Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment for lands on the east side of Islington Avenue, south of Pine Grove Road, municipally known as 8451 and 8457 Islington Avenue, in the City of Vaughan;

THAT TRCA staff obtain legal counsel and be directed to appear on behalf of TRCA on the subject appeal before the OMB and to continue to represent TRCA on matters relating to natural heritage and provincial interest (landform, erosion, water management, hazard lands);

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work towards a settlement with City of Vaughan, the appellant and other parties to ensure that the requirements of The Living City Policies, TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are met. CARRIED BACKGROUND The purpose of these applications is to facilitate the development of 37 townhouse units connected by a common element road. Two single family dwellings are currently located on the subject lands. Refer to Attachment 1.

Description of the Area The subject property is located completely within the valley corridor of the East Humber River in the community of Woodbridge. This portion of the valley corridor has been urbanized and is designated as built-up valley lands by Vaughan’s Official Plan (VOP2010). The rear of the property has also been designated as Core Feature under the Natural Heritage Network of VOP2010. A woodlot contiguous with the East Humber River is located at the rear of properties. TRCA conducted a site staking exercise and provided preliminary comments throughout the concept development and application processes.

704 Issue Summary The applicant proposes removal of a woodland contiguous to the valley and a reduced setback of 6m from the staked top of bank, shown in orange on Attachment 1. The proposed townhouse footprint is also shown where it is proposed to intrude into the woodland and buffer from the top of bank.

The Living City Policies for TRCA recognize the woodland as part of the Natural System. This is consistent with York Region’s Official Plan and the City of Vaughan’s Official Plan 2010. The woodland is contiguous with the East Humber River and is located completely within the valley corridor. The policies of the City and TRCA recommend the protection of the woodland and a buffer of 10 metres. This area is represented by the green line on Attachment 1 with a 10 metre buffer added.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff to provide advice to the OMB and undertake to negotiate a resolution consistent with the relevant policies, if possible.

Report prepared by: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 1

705 Attachment 1 Proposed Development Plan

706 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A223/16

Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.3 – OMB Participation Draft of Subdivision & Zoning By-Law Amendment, as it pertains to ongoing legal matters. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A224/16

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick

THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED

RES.#A225/16 - OMB PARTICIPATION DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 230 Grand Trunk Avenue Planning Block 18, West of Dufferin Street and North of Rutherford Road City of Vaughan, York Region, Owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority participation as a Party at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT the participation of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a party before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be affirmed as it relates to the appeal of the Lack of Decision by Vaughan City Council for the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for lands on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road, municipally known as 230 Grand Trunk Avenue, in the City of Vaughan;

RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Jack Ballinger Yea Ronald Chopowick Yea

707 RECORDED VOTE Cont’d Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Michael Ford Yea Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Jim Karygiannis Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Ron Moeser Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea Gino Rosati Yea Jim Tovey Yea

THE MAIN MOTION WAS CARRIED

BACKGROUND This site has been discussed by the Executive Committee and Authority previously as it relates to an appeal of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (September 2013, July 3, 2015, July 24, 2015, and May 27, 2016) and a request from neighbouring residents for TRCA to encourage the City of Vaughan to purchase the site (October 14, 2016) which the Authority supported. The City has since responded acknowledging the sensitivity of the site and suggesting that TRCA purchase the property.

TRCA maintains an interest in this matter because the property is: Regulated under Ontario Regulation166/06, as amended, located on the Oak Ridges Moraine and designated in accordance with the OMB approved policies TRCA was key in determining.

TRCA staff believes that TRCA’s participation as a party in these proceedings is essential to ensure that matters relating to the public interest including natural heritage and Regulatory matters are appropriately addressed, as outlined in the OMB approved Official Plan Amendment that TRCA staff was instrumental in negotiating with the Appellant.

Site Context The subject parcel is 4.5 ha (11.1 ac) in total area and is located on the west side of Dufferin Street, north of Rutherford Road (Attachment 1). The property is located within Planning Block 18, which has a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) approved in 2003. The Block Plan envisioned that Grand Trunk Avenue would run north to south through the site and provide a connection to Rutherford Road. Throughout the planning and development process: Block 18 MESP, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) #600 and VOP 2010, this site is protected with environmental and open space designations and policies which recognize the existing, previous and potential natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions on the site.

708 OMB Approved OPA Requirements The approved Official Plan policies are consistent with all the other policy and Block plan recognitions. As studies were not complete at the time of the first Board Hearing, the OMB approved policies for this site that outline study requirements consistent with the requirements of VOP 2010 and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). They require consideration of the features and functions of the property from a regional and site specific perspective. The general section of the policies outline what must be considered for the entire site, whereas each land use designation section outlines what may happen on the site subject to accommodation of site specific and regional considerations. The designations are shown on Attachment 1.

The proposed development is included as Attachment 2. The appellant proposes to fill the existing valley landform to accommodate 42 townhouses on the central portion of the property, and on the portion west of Grand Trunk develop 32 single detached units. A connecting corridor is proposed to be created through the rear yards of the detached homes by creating conservation easements across each rear yard.

Attachment 3 includes the preliminary issues list to be presented to the OMB. The studies and information submitted to date fail to provide the answers to these questions which will form the basis for TRCA’s presentation to the OMB. Note that this is a preliminary list which may be subject to change.

TRCA’s role in the hearing is as an advisory body based on the Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of York for natural heritage and hazards. TRCA also has its regulatory mandate under the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) which governs issues relating to hazard lands, water management and the related liability. Regardless of the land use approvals granted under the Planning Act, the appellant would need to satisfy the tests established under O.Reg. 166/06, as amended, for site grading and/or development and alteration to a valley/wetland/watercourse on the property. All development approvals need to be consistent with the tests of the CA Act to enable the issuance of future permits.

Report prepared by: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: June Little, extension 5756 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 3

709 Attachment 1 Location & VOP 2010 Designation

710 Attachment 2 Proposed Development

711 Attachment 3

Preliminary Issues List

1. Does the proposed development appropriately reflect the policies and tests within: the Region of York Official Plan, The Living City Policies of TRCA, the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Vaughan Official Plan 2010 as amended?

2. Does the proposed development reflect the information and intent of the Block Plan/MESP for Block 18?

3. Does the proposed development meet the tests of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended?

4. Was a detailed slope stability analyses conducted to determine the erosion hazards by delineating the position of the Long-Term Stable Top of Slope for studied area?

5. Are the proposed extensive slope alterations necessary and do they respect the relevant policies?

6. Does the proposed alignment of Grand Trunk protect the hydrological and ecological features and functions on and adjacent to the site?

7. Has sufficient background information been provided to determine the appropriate design and location of Grand Trunk?

8. Does the proposed development protect the hydrological and ecological features and functions on and adjacent to the site?

9. Does the proposed development provide the appropriate connectivity for the natural system within this portion of the Don River watershed?

10. Is the proposed stormwater management strategy consistent with the requirements of TRCA’s Stormwater Management Criteria, dated August 2012?

______

712 RES.#A226/16 - ASBESTOS POLICY Approval of the revised Asbestos Policy for the management of asbestos at facilities that are owned or occupied by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) revised Asbestos Policy attached as Attachment 1, be approved;

THAT those described in the revised Asbestos Policy be notified as may be required;

AND FURTHER THAT the Asbestos Policy be reviewed by staff on a regular basis to ensure that it is in compliance with Ontario Regulation 278/05 and be updated as required. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Meeting #07/09, held on September 11, 2009, Resolution #B119/09 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Asbestos Policy for managing asbestos within TRCA buildings and facilities as outlined in the staff report be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT the Asbestos Management Plan (AMP) be reviewed by staff on a regular basis to ensure that it is in compliance with Ontario Regulation 278/05 and be updated as required.

RATIONALE The purpose of an asbestos policy is to control any activities that may disturb known or presumed asbestos containing materials, in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05 (Regulation), in order to provide a healthy and safe environment.

As directed by Resolution #B119/09, staff undertook a review of the existing Asbestos Policy, approved in 2009, to ensure compliance with the Regulation. The evaluation of the existing Asbestos Policy identified several opportunities to revise the policy, in order to support implementation at facilities owned or occupied by TRCA and to comply with the Regulation. In some cases, the revisions include formalizing within the policy, current staff practices. Revisions to the Asbestos Policy include:

 State the characteristics of an asbestos containing material (ACM) and presumed asbestos containing material as defined by the Regulation.

 Extend the purpose of the policy, and all associated policy statements, to include presumed asbestos containing materials as well as ACM.

 Provide definitions of key terms noted in the Regulation.

713  Include the term “verify” in policy statements related to staff and contractor training; qualifications of those completing asbestos repair or abatements; and that repairs or abatements follow the requirements of the Regulation.

 Provision for appropriately trained staff to perform minor asbestos abatements (Type 1) as defined under the Regulation.

 Provision made to require that staff retain qualified asbestos consultants and abatement contractors, as defined under the Regulation.

 Defines the scope of the policy and how it will be communicated to staff, visitors, contractors and leasehold tenants. ‘

 In general, to support a better understanding of the requirements of the policy and Regulation, further detail has been provided in the revised policy statements.

A copy of the revised policy is outlined in Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL DETAILS There is no additional financial burden with the revised Asbestos Policy. Management of asbestos containing materials is included within various operating and capital programs delivered by TRCA, including:  Existing Operating Budget: to complete annual building inspections of ACM and presumed ACM within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, maintain ACM records and respond to emergency and maintenance requests.  Special Project Capital Funding: continue the current practice to identify requirement for asbestos surveys and abatement works as part of developing capital funding budgets.  Individual Departments Budgets: will fund staff asbestos awareness training requirements. Human Resources department budget will fund any staff medical surveillance assessments that may be required.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will undertake the following actions:  An Asbestos Management Plan, containing procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Asbestos Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance.  A copy of the TRCA Asbestos Policy will be posted on to the TRCA website.

Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 6, 2017 Attachments: 1

714 Attachment 1

Asbestos Policy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... 1

1. PURPOSE ...... 2

2. AUTHORITY ...... 2

3. SCOPE ...... 2

4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS ...... 3 4.1. Asbestos Management Plan ...... 3 4.2. Record Keeping ...... 3 4.3. Renovation, Repair or Demolition Works in Facilities Owned or Occupied by TRCA ...... 3 4.4. Operations for Asbestos Repair or Abatement ...... 3 4.5. Training and Notification ...... 3 4.6. Organizational Responsibilities ...... 4

5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE ...... 4

6. DEFINITIONS ...... 4

7. REFERENCES ...... 5

PREFACE

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral previously used in the construction industry and is still used in some limited applications to this day. Its high tensile strength, flexibility, ability to withstand high temperatures and its resistance to many corrosive chemicals has made asbestos useful in hundreds of applications. Two categories of asbestos were used in building construction, non-friable asbestos containing materials and friable asbestos containing materials. Common applications of friable asbestos include sprayed on fireproofing, pipe and boiler insulation and loose fill insulation. Non-friable applications include asbestos cement products (commonly referred to by its commercial name “transite”) and vinyl floor tiles.

In Ontario, the use of asbestos in building materials began in and around the 1930s. Asbestos increased in use until the early 1970s, when health concerns became more prominent. In 1985, friable asbestos containing building materials were banned. Non-friable asbestos containing building material products can still be used legally.

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) contains a general duty clause to mandate an employer to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of workers. To address the protection of a worker from asbestos, the Government of Ontario approved Regulation 278/05 (“Regulation”). This Regulation came into force in 2005 and is administered by the Ministry of Labour.

715

The Regulation applies to any facility where it is known or reasonable to anticipate that asbestos containing materials will be encountered during repair, alteration or maintenance of a building. The characteristics of facilities owned or occupied by TRCA make it reasonable to anticipate that, asbestos containing materials may be present. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulation apply to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”).

Under the Regulation, TRCA is required to develop an Asbestos Policy and a management tool known as an Asbestos Management Plan to assist in the control of any activities that may disturb known or presumed ACM at facilities that are owned or occupied by TRCA.

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Policy is to control any activities that may disturb known or presumed asbestos containing materials that may be present within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, in accordance with the Regulation.

This Policy outlines methods to comply with the Regulation and prevent exposure to harmful levels of asbestos fibres associated with the uncontrolled or unintentional disturbance of asbestos containing materials, in order to provide a healthy and safe environment in facilities owned or occupied by TRCA.

2. AUTHORITY

The Policy is being provided on the basis of the requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05. On the advice of staff, the Authority may accept, revise, or rescind the Policy.

3. SCOPE

This Policy applies to all facilities owned or occupied by TRCA where it is reasonable to anticipate the presence of asbestos containing materials.

The Policy specifically provides direction to all staff, consultants and contractors responsible for requesting, authorizing and overseeing renovation, repair and demolition works in facilities owned or occupied by TRCA. However, the Policy applies to all staff, visitors, consultants, contractors and leasehold tenants.

The Policy will be communicated to staff through the corporate health and safety training program. Staff training will include applied awareness training (i.e. for maintenance staff and building managers), and less intensive training for those with job descriptions that would make them unlikely to come into contact with asbestos containing materials.

The Policy will be communicated to consultants, contractors and leasehold tenants through their respective agreements with TRCA.

The Policy will be made available to the public on the TRCA website.

Further information pertaining to training and communication of the Policy is presented in the TRCA Asbestos Management Plan.

Asbestos Policy Page 2 716 4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS

4.1. Asbestos Management Plan Develop, implement and maintain procedures and guidelines that are consistent with the Regulation (defined under the Regulation as an Asbestos Management Plan “AMP”), to control any activities that may disturb asbestos containing materials (ACM) or presumed asbestos containing materials within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA.

4.2. Record Keeping Generate and maintain an inventory of all asbestos containing materials and presumed asbestos containing materials within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, and conduct annual inspections consistent with the Regulation.

4.3. Renovation, Repair or Demolition Works in Facilities Owned or Occupied by TRCA Prior to beginning any construction or maintenance works in a facility owned or occupied by TRCA, where it is known or reasonable to anticipate that ACM may be present, retain a Qualified Environmental Consultant to complete a building survey consistent with the Regulation to identify suspect asbestos containing building materials. When required, repair or abate ACM that may be disturbed during any works prior to start.

4.4. Operations for Asbestos Repair or Abatement Verify that all ACM abatements within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA are consistent with the Regulation.

Verify that Type 1 operations as defined by the Regulation are only completed by TRCA staff and contractors that have received applied asbestos awareness training and have received approval from the property and human resources departments.

Prevent staff from performing a Type 2 or Type 3 operation as defined by the Regulation. Type 2 or Type 3 operations shall be completed by a Qualified Asbestos Abatement Contractor engaged by TRCA.

4.5. Training and Notification Ensure that training and notification of the Policy is consistent with the Regulation.

Verify that staff has received asbestos awareness training to a degree that is acceptable to their job description.

Verify that consultants and contractors, retained to complete works within facilities owned or occupied by TRCA, have received asbestos awareness training.

All employees and contractors, who during their normal duties may be exposed, or accidentally disturb asbestos containing materials, are to be properly informed of the Policy.

Asbestos Policy Page 3 717 Establish and maintain emergency response and notification procedures in the event of fibre release form an asbestos containing material or presumed asbestos containing material, as well as, the unanticipated encounter of an asbestos containing material or presumed asbestos containing material.

4.6. Organizational Responsibilities Identify and maintain individual staff and departmental responsibilities to implement the Policy and associated procedures.

5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE

An Asbestos Management Plan, containing procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Asbestos Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance.

6. DEFINITIONS

Asbestos Containing Material – Regulation defines as a material that contains 0.5% by weight of asbestos, as determined through laboratory analysis.

Friable Asbestos Containing Material - Materials that when dry can be crumbled, pulverized or powdered by a hand pressure, or is crumbled, pulverized or powdered.

Non-Friable Asbestos Containing Material – Hard materials that do not crumble under hard pressure.

Occupied– Defined by the Regulation to be (a) a person who is in physical possession of premises or (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises, despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupier”)

Presumed Asbestos Containing Material – Any material, where based on the characteristics of the item, it is reasonable to assume that asbestos may be present; however, this has not been confirmed or refuted through laboratory analysis.

Qualified Environmental Consultant – A consultant that meets the following criteria: (a) is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to perform asbestos related work, such as building surveys, abatement procedures and inspections; (b) is familiar with the Regulation and with the provisions of the Regulation that apply to the work; and (c) has knowledge of all potential or actual danger to health or safety in the work.

Qualified Asbestos Abatement Contractor - A contractor that meets the following criteria: (a) is qualified because of knowledge, training and experience to perform asbestos repairs and abatement related works; (b) is familiar with the Regulation and with the provision of the Regulation that apply to the work; and (c) has knowledge of all potential or actual danger to health or safety in the work

Asbestos Policy Page 4 718 7. REFERENCES

“Ontario Regulation 278/05: Designated Substances- Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations, under Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1” found online November 15, 2016 at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050278

“Asbestos What Is”….found online November 15, 2016 at: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/asbestos/whatis.html

Asbestos Policy Page 5 719 RES.#A227/16 - PRIVATE LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTION FOR EROSION CONTROL WORKS Policy Update. Proposed policy revision regarding cost-sharing agreements for benefiting landowners.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, under Resolution #A71/16 to report back at a future Authority meeting with proposed revisions to TRCA’s Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the proposed revisions to the policy described herein be approved and effective immediately. CARRIED BACKGROUND The prevention, elimination or reduction of risk to life and property from flooding and erosion is one of the core mandates of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. TRCA’s Erosion Management Program seeks to fulfill this mandate through the ongoing identification and remediation of erosion hazards, carried out on a priority basis and subject to available funding.

The Conservation Authorities Act gives conservation authorities the power to establish and undertake programs that help achieve its objectives, from developing watershed plans, to policies that guide the review of development applications, to various programs ranging from education and stewardship to the implementation of restoration activities. With respect to erosion control and remediation, TRCA has a long-standing management program to monitor erosion and instability-prone areas, and to implement stabilization works on a priority basis to the limit of available funding each year. This program is funded annually by TRCA’s partners at the City of Toronto, and Peel, York and Durham regions, and on a project-by-project basis by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The majority of funding is applied toward the maintenance of existing erosion control structures along TRCA’s rivers and valleys that protect public greenspace, park amenities and municipal infrastructure; however this program is extended to the protection of private property where homes and other essential structures have been confirmed as at-risk by erosion or instability as funding and priorities permit. Although TRCA is not compelled legally to assist private landowners with erosion control works, TRCA offers this assistance recognizing that staff has considerable experience in erosion hazard management, and the ability to support TRCA’s municipal partners by mitigating past development decisions with cost-effective solutions that also foster resilient watersheds and contribute to the expansion of safe and enjoyable public greenspace.

Where staff has recommended that erosion control works be carried out to benefit private property, the benefiting landowners are subject to the execution of a binding erosion control agreement which requires the benefiting landowner(s) to contribute to the cost of the project in accordance with current TRCA policy, which originates from a staff report brought forward to TRCA’s former Flood Control and Water Control Advisory Board in 1981.

720 On September 11, 1981, staff brought a report forward to Meeting #3/81 with operational criteria for determining the benefiting owner(s) contribution under the Erosion and Sediment Control Programme for approval. At the time, clause c) recommended that where title was required but the lands could not be transferred to TRCA as the owner contribution, that the benefiting owner(s) be assessed at 45% of the cost of the works, representing the municipal share of the total cost. This operational criteria was adopted as policy by the Authority by Resolution #71/81 on October 9, 1981.

At Authority Meeting #4/98 as part of the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001, it was approved that the policy regarding the contribution by private property owners remain unchanged (Resolution #A91/98).

At Authority Meeting #7/09, held on September 25, 2009 the policy now referred to as the Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program Policy was revised under Resolution #A159/09 to delete clause c) and substitute it with the following:

(c) Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed at 100% of the cost of the works.

When the policy was first introduced in 1981, erosion control projects were generally funded 45% by the municipality and 55% by the Province of Ontario. In the mid-1990s, however, the majority of provincial funding was downloaded to municipalities. From that time through the 2000’s, the backlog of erosion works continued to grow with limited provincial funds and relatively stagnant municipal funding, therefore during the 2009 update of the policy, clause c) was revised to charge the benefiting owner(s) 100% of the cost of the work to reflect the municipal share, where title to the lands could not be achieved or not desirable.

On July 8, 2013 the Toronto area endured an intense thunderstorm, with nearly 400 private properties damaged by erosion and/or slope instability and more than $40 million in estimated damages to private and TRCA property. While TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years under various program names and special projects, the July 8th event created TRCA’s largest backlog of erosion hazards waiting for assistance in its history, overnight.

RATIONALE With special funding for Critical Erosion and Flood Works (CEFW) projects from the City of Toronto following the July 8th event, TRCA has been able to expedite dozens of repairs, and in doing so has executed a record number of erosion control agreements with private landowners. In executing these agreements, a number of issues have been raised by staff involved in the negotiation process, leading staff to recommend that the existing contribution policy be reviewed, which is in keeping with Resolution #A71/16 from Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, which read, in part, as follows:

…THAT staff be directed to report back at a future Authority Meeting with proposed revisions to TRCA’s Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Monitoring and Maintenance Program policy;…

Following extensive in-house consultation with staff from the Erosion Management Program and Property and Risk Management, several changes to the existing policy are recommended, as detailed in Attachment 1 which compares the clauses and language of the existing policy to the proposed. In general, however, the proposed changes include:

721

1. Updating the name of the policy to Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Works; 2. Adding a clause to explain the priority basis for erosion control works; 3. Adding a clause to emphasize TRCA’s preference for natural, cost-effective and low maintenance solutions; 4. Adding a clause excluding properties with outstanding TRCA or other regulatory violations from assistance until the violations are resolved; 5. Revising the land conveyance clause to emphasize the preferred method of contribution of the majority of cases; 6. Clarifying the original clause c) to indicate that 100% of the costs are to be borne by the benefiting owner(s) when a conveyance, easement or restrictive covenant, along with a cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale cannot be achieved; 7. Adding a clause to note that where the benefiting owner(s) pay 100% of the costs, they will be responsible for all future monitoring and maintenance of the works; 8. Adding a clause that TRCA may apply additional conditions to the contribution requirement depending on the cause(s) of the hazard and the type and extent of works required; 9. Adding a reimbursement clause at TRCA’s sole option, where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with erosion control works but is unable or unwilling to implement the work with its own forces due to a shortage of resources or other concerns; 10. Adding a clause with the conditions of reimbursement and how the maximum reimbursement amount is to be calculated; 11. Adding a clause to note that a restrictive covenant will be required in addition to conveyance and easement requirements, in some cases to protect the structural integrity of the work; 12. Adding a clause to require the benefiting landowner to provide a Letter of Credit or other promissory note where a cash contribution is required, prior to the commencement of the works; 13. Add a clause providing notice to the benefiting owner(s) that a breach of payment will result in collection efforts up to and including legal action being taken; 14. Revising the contribution for residential properties to 20% of the total cost for works up to $100,000, 25% for works $100,000 - $200,000, and 30% for works $200,000 and over to accelerate the number of repairs that can be completed with available funding, and to encourage more natural, cost-effective solutions during negotiations with benefiting owners; and 15. Revising the contribution for commercial properties to 25% of the total cost for works up to $100,000, 30% for works $100,000 - $200,000, and 35% for works $200,000 and over to accelerate the number of repairs that can be completed with available funding, and to encourage more natural, cost-effective solutions during negotiations with benefiting owners.

FINANCIAL DETAILS Costs for staff time associated with this policy revision, estimated at approximately $2,000, are funded through the 2017 Critical Erosion and Flood Works budget from the City of Toronto within account 133-01. As a result of these revisions, a positive impact is expected on the number of projects that can be completed in the 2017-2026 forecast through the increase of the contribution amount from the benefiting landowners toward the total costs of the works.

722 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon approval of the proposed revisions to the policy, staff will provide written notice to all landowners who have requested assistance with erosion control works to protect their property, as part of a larger communication strategy that will include notifying TRCA’s municipal funding partners, local councillors and other stakeholders who may have an interest in the policy.

Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 13, 2017 Attachments: 2

723 Attachment 1

Table 1. Current and Proposed Changes to the Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Works Policy.

Clause Current Language Description of Proposed Change(s) Proposed Language None ●Add new clause to provide a general description of TRCA has a long-standing Erosion Management Program TRCA's Erosion Management Program for information (EMP) that aims to eliminate or reduce erosion and slope new a) purposes instability hazards throughout TRCA's jurisdiction, on a priority basis and subject to available funding

None ●Add new clause to emphasize TRCA's preference for TRCA endeavors to implement solutions that mimic natural natural cost-effective, low maintenance solutions solutions that are cost-effective and low maintenance to the new b) fullest extent possible

None ●Add new clause c) to state voluntary, conditional and TRCA's EMP is a voluntary program. TRCA is under no limited nature of the assistance offered to private obligation to carry out erosion control works to protect new c) landowners private property, and offers this assistance on a limited and conditional basis None ●Add new clause that property owners with TRCA or Properties with known violations issued by TRCA or any of any other regulatory violations will not be eligible for its regulatory partner agencies will not be eligible for new d) assistance assistance with erosion control works until the violation is resolved Where the property involved would meet other TRCA ●Revise wording to emphasize that land transfer is the The lands where the works are located are to be transferred objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to preferred contribution method in the majority of cases to TRCA as the benefiting landowner's contribution to the b) / new e) TRCA as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash ●Clarify objectives of land transfer project; to permit TRCA to monitor and maintain the contribution completed works; to foster resilient ravine systems; and to expand public greenspace TRCA will require a minimum of a permanent None TRCA will require a minimum of a permanent easement easement over the work area and access routes over the work area and access routes where TRCA does a) / new f) where title is not required. A cash contribution in not require title to the lands. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be accordance with the approved scale will also be required required Where agreement to policy b) cannot be achieved, ●Update that this clause applies only when e) or f) Where agreement to clause e) or f) and n) if applicable c) / new g) the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 100% of the cannot be achieved cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be cost of the works reponsible for 100% of the cost of the works None ●Add a clause to apply additional conditions to the TRCA may add additional conditions to the contribution contribution requirement depending on the cause(s) of requirement depending on the cause(s) of the hazard and h) the hazard and type and extent of works required to type and extent of works required to mitigate the hazard(s) mitigate the hazard(s)

None ●Add clause that where clause g) applies, the owners Where benefiting owners are responsible for 100% of the will be responsible for future monitoring and cost of the works, the benefiting landowner(s) assumes all i) maintenance responsibility for future monitoring and maintenance of such works

724 Clause Current Language Description of Proposed Change(s) Proposed Language None ●Add clause with terms and conditions of a Where TRCA has identified funding to assist a property with reimbursement option for owners approved for erosion control works but is unable or unwilling to implement assistance the work with its own forces, the option to reimburse landowners will be made available at TRCA's sole option, j) subject to confirmation that all permits and approvals have been obtained and the execution of a binding indemnification;

None ●Add clause to state how reimbursement amount will Where clause i) has been activated, the eligible be calculated reimbusement amount is to be determined based on staff’s estimate of the cost to construct the work with its own k) forces, minus the property owner’s financial contribution in accordance with the approved scale if no land is conveyed

Where works are carried out on TRCA-owned lands None Where works are carried out on TRCA-owned lands for the d) / new l) for the protection of private property, the cash protection of private property, the cash contribution will be contribution will be waived waived In all cases, the TRCA will require some form of None In all cases, TRCA will require some form of binding binding indemnification agreement signed by the indemnification agreement signed by the benefiting e) / new m) benefiting landowner(s) which may be registered on landowner(s) which may be registered on title title n/a ●Add clause regarding the potential requirement for a In addition to conveyance or an easement, TRCA may restrictive covenant on title to protect the structural require some form of restrictive covenant registered on title n) integrity of the works to protect the structural integrity of the works

n/a ●Add clause requiring the benefiting landowner(s) to Where a cash contribution is required, the benefiting provide a guarantee of payment, where a cash landowner(s) are required to agree to provide a Letter of o) contribution is required Credit or other promissory note to TRCA's satisfaction prior to the commencement of work n/a ●Add clause advising that where a benefiting If the benefiting landowner(s) fail to make payment in landowner is in breach of payment, legal action will be accordance with the agreed payment terms, collection p) taken efforts up to and including legal action will be taken

The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to None The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to the the Authority, Executive Committee, or any advisory Authority, Executive Committee, or any advisory board with board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in f) / new q) programs in accordance with procedures adopted by accordance with procedures adopted by Authority Authority Resolution #18/80 Resolution #18/80

Where required, the cash contribution from the None Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting g) new r) benefiting landowner(s) will be based on the following landowner(s) will be based on the following schedules: schedules:

725 Attachment 2

Schedule A. Owner Contribution Schedule - Residential Properties Current Proposed Current Owner Contribution Maximum Proposed Owner Maximum Value of Works Formula Contribution Contribution Contribution $0 - $15,000 $1500 + 10% of [Cost - $0] $3,000.00 20% of the total cost $3,000.00 $15,000 - $30,000 $3500 + 10% of [Cost - $15,000] $5,000.00 20% of the total cost $6,000.00 $30,000 - $50,000 $4500 + 10% of [Cost - $30,000] $6,500.00 20% of the total cost $10,000.00 $50,000-$75,000 $6500 + 10% of [Cost - $50,000] $9,000.00 20% of the total cost $15,000.00 $75,000 - $100,000 $9000 + 10% of [Cost - $75,000] $11,500.00 20% of the total cost $20,000.00 $100,00 - $200,000 $11500 + 10% of [Cost - $100,000] $21,500.00 25% of the total cost $50,000.00 $200,000+ $11500 + 10% of [Cost - $100,000] TBD 30% of the total cost TBD

Schedule B. Owner Contribution Schedule - Commercial Properties Current Proposed Current Owner Contribution Maximum Proposed Owner Maximum Value of Works Formula Contribution Contribution Contribution $0 - $15,000 $2,200 + 15% of (Cost – $0) $4,450.00 25% of the total cost $3,750.00 $15,000 - $30,000 $4,400 + 15% of (Cost –$15,000) $6,650.00 25% of the total cost $7,500.00 $30,000 - $50,000 $6,600 + 15% of (Cost – $30,000) $9,600.00 25% of the total cost $12,500.00 $50,000-$75,000 $9,600 + 15% of (Cost – $50,000) $12,100.00 25% of the total cost $18,750.00 $75,000 - $100,000 $13,350 + 15% of (Cost – $75,000) $17,100.00 25% of the total cost $25,000.00 $100,00 - $200,000 $11,500 + 15% of (Cost – $100,000) $26,500.00 30% of the total cost $60,000.00 $200,000+ $11500 + 15% of [Cost - $100,000] TBD 35% of the total cost TBD

726

RES.#A228/16 - INDIAN LINE CAMPGROUND PROJECT Hydro Service Upgrades. Award of Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton, be awarded to Tiltran Power Services Corporation at a total cost not to exceed $382,560.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;

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

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Indian Line Campground (ILC) is located at 7625 Finch Avenue West in Brampton and contains 247 campsites which generate approximately $943,000 in annual revenue. The existing electrical infrastructure at ILC was originally installed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Since this time, ILC has seen considerable growth in the facilities, attendance, and the size and type of recreational vehicle (RV) equipment being used. Over the past five years, ILC continuously dealt with ongoing power failures and expensive repairs as a result of this increased demand and aging infrastructure. The original hydro system was installed using parts that are no longer available, making repairs and spare parts increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. These power failures created both a loss of revenue to the campground, and significant public safety concerns given that Claireville Dam, located adjacent to the facility, also sources its power from the ILC hydro infrastructure. In order to ensure the safety of ILC staff, facility users and the continued capacity to operate the Claireville Dam without interruption, an assessment of the current system was required.

In 2016, TRCA staff retained Kavski Engineering to provide professional electrical engineering services to assess and make recommendations for upgrades to ILC’s entire electrical infrastructure, including upgrading electrical services to campsites to accommodate users requiring higher capacity and upgrading the power supply to Claireville Dam. The engineer focused their assessment on maintaining a high level of safety for staff and the general public through recommendations that incorporate recent electrical code changes and the future growth and needs of the entire facility. Results from the assessment determined that key infrastructure required immediate attention. This included relocating the main hydro switch, adding a series of isolation switches, replacing transformers and redesigning the existing hydro service room. The new infrastructure and upgrades will alleviate both safety concerns and the growing need to

727

deliver a higher capacity of hydro services required to operate a competitive tourist destination in the GTA.

RATIONALE Contract #10002835 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on October 25, 2016 with a mandatory site information meeting held on November 1, 2016. Tender packages were sent to eight contractors as follows:  Ainsworth;  Avertex Utility Solutions;  Beacon Utility;  Dilisado Enterprises;  KPC Power;  Platinum Electrical Contractors;  Sturdy Power Lines; and  Tiltran Power Services Corporation.

The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on November 17, 2016 with the following results:

BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT (EXCL. HST)

Tiltran Power Services Corporation $382,560.00 Dilisado Enterprises $383,500.00 Sturdy Power Lines $385,879.28 Beacon Utility Contractors $398,978.27

Staff reviewed the bid received from Tiltran Power Services Corporation against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Tiltran Power Services Corporation’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Tiltran Power Services Corporation is capable of undertaking the scope of work.

Based on the evaluation of the bids received, staff recommends that Tiltran Power Services Corporation be awarded Contract #10002835 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required upgrades to the existing hydro infrastructure within Indian Line Campground, in the City of Brampton for a total amount not to exceed $382,560.00, plus a contingency amount of 15% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications.

FINANCIAL DETAILS This project is funded jointly through the Peel Capital Levy and the Flood Infrastructure Capital Account also funded by Peel Region. The funds can be found in accounts: 420-59, 424-01 and 107-03.

Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, extension 5905 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 5, 2017 728 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL INVESTIGATION Review of Release of Confidential Authority Minutes #7/15, July 24, 2015. Report on Chief Executive Officer’s review of release of confidential board documents and recommendations for processing similar material in future.

Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Michael Ford

THAT the proposed process for distribution of confidential board material to Authority Members outlined in the staff report be approved. NOT CARRIED AMENDMENT RES.#A229/16

Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Kevin Ashe

THAT the main motion be amended to read:

THAT the proposed process for distribution of confidential board material to Authority Members outlined in the staff report, with the amendment that courier be replaced with email distribution and any required changes to procedures to bring this to effect, be approved. CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, Resolution #A214/16 was approved as follows:

WHEREAS, Global News published confidential closed session documents of the TRCA and of the City of Vaughan in the following article: http://globalnews.ca/news/3117212/how-developers-are-trying-to-build-on-ontarios-prote cted-greenbelt-land/;

AND WHEREAS Authority Members and staff of TRCA have a fiduciary responsibility to TRCA to maintain confidentiality;

AND WHEREAS the release of confidential documents above could have significant consequences for TRCA and any other parties;

AND WHEREAS such a breach of confidentiality and responsibility must not happen;

729 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Chief Executive Officer, TRCA be directed to undertake an investigation into whom and how such confidential documents were given to the media in this specific circumstance and report back at the next Authority meeting as to the findings as well as any recommended actions on the breach, and measures to mitigate such further breaches of confidentiality in the future;

THAT staff look into the practice of no longer emailing confidential items to Authority Members and placing the name of Authority Members on confidential documents;

THAT staff consult with municipal clerks for practices for handling of confidential documents.

Staff was directed to conduct an investigation into the release of confidential Authority Minutes #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, pertaining to Dufferin Vistas Ltd., which included confidential minutes of settlement between The City of Vaughan and Dufferin Vistas Ltd. which were provided to TRCA by Michael Di Biase at Executive Committee Meeting #7/15, held on July 3, 2015. Copies of the material was provided to Executive Committee Members and TRCA staff at the meeting, and was not collected back after the meeting. TRCA has reviewed files and have not found this material having been received in any other manner.

Following the release of the December 14, 2016 Global News online story Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff conducted a review of handling of the confidential minutes from Authority Meeting #7/15 with the following results:

 The Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat (herein Senior Manager) prepared confidential Authority Minutes #7/15 and provided a hard copy to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for approval. The hard copy was on the desks of the CEO, Senior Manager and Executive Assistant, Chair and CEO’s Office (herein EA) desks for a short period of time.

 When the file was created it is temporarily stored on a network drive that can be accessed by:  Senior Manager;  EA;  IT administrators.

 The approved electronic minutes were stored in TRCA’s electronic records and document management system (Laserfiche) on September 30, 2015 by the EA and were subsequently removed from the network drive. Staff with access to the Laserfiche folder where the records are stored is as follows:  CEO;  Directors;  Senior Manager;  EA;  database administrator gains access if required. However, review of the audit log shows that the only staff to access the subject folder between July 1, 2015 and December 30, 2016 was the Senior Manager who accessed the folder on July 2 and 7, 2015 and December 15, 2016, only before the minutes were produced and after the story was released. The EA did not access Laserfiche to add the file on September 30, 2015 to the folder, which is a feature of the program.

730  Confidential minutes or board reports are circulated by email to board Members (and their staff that they have requested be circulated on all correspondence) when the item is before them on an agenda. However, the circulation of confidential minutes as part of the distribution and approval of minutes from previous meetings, which is the situation with the minutes of this investigation, has taken various forms over the past few years including:  no circulation;  hard copy only distributed at the meeting;  by email;  by request of Members only.

Staff has confirmed that the confidential minutes in question were not circulated by email to the Authority Members for approval along with the public minutes at Authority Meeting #8/15, held on September 25, 2015. Staff cannot confirm whether or not a hard copy was provided to the Members at the meeting. In addition, staff cannot confirm which Members may have received the minutes upon request due to the deletion of transitory sent emails on a regular basis as part of records and data management. Back up tapes from the period is not comprehensive as emails may have been deleted between back ups, so any review for circulation of minutes would not be complete. The conclusion is that staff cannot confirm if the minutes were circulated to all Authority Members, nor can staff confirm the treatment of any material beyond any circulation, except to report on the responses from Members that they did not circulate the minutes as noted in Attachment 1.

 The review of corporate records files, discussions with staff and normal operating procedures, all lead to the conclusion that the staff handling the Dufferin Vistas file, the subject matter of the confidential minutes, never received a copy of the confidential minutes.

 On September 15, 2016 the Senior Manager responded to a request from Gil Shochat, Investigative Producer, Global Television for the minutes and any audio/video recordings from Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016. No audio or video recordings are currently produced of TRCA board meetings, so just a link to the public minutes was provided. The confidential minutes were not provided.

 On January 9, 2017 an email was circulated to all current and past Authority Members who served during the period of July 1, 2015 to December 14, 2016, polling individuals to determine whether or not they or their staff provided the material in question to the reporter Gil Shochat or any other parties outside of TRCA at any time and if so when. The results of this poll are outlined in Attachment 1.

 On January 10, 2017 staff contacted Furio Libertore as he contributed to the Global News story, and Mr. Libertore advised that he was contacted by the reporter to participate in the story, and that he had no knowledge that the reporter had the confidential material until the story was released online. Mr. Libertore also confirmed that he did not have a copy of the material prior to its release.

731  Further on January 10, 2017 staff contacted both the Global News reporter who authored the article, Gil Shochat and the National Online Journalist who posted the TRCA material, Leslie Young, to obtain information on how and from whom they received the material. On January 11, 2017 a response was received from Ron Waksman, Vice-President, Digital | Editorial Standards and Practices, Global News | Corus Radio, that “…As a credible Canadian news organization, Global News does not voluntarily share information about its news gathering process, including information concerning the identity of sources, except to the extent that such information is appropriate or necessary to include in a published or broadcast news story….”

FOI Request TRCA received a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Furio Libertore on November 8, 2016 requesting access to records containing the settlement agreement between TRCA and the developer pertaining to OMB Case# PL 111154 for 230 Grand Trunk Avenue in Vaughan. This material is not the agreement between Dufferin Vistas Ltd. and The City of Vaughan that was included in the confidential minutes. To date of authoring this report, no material has been released to the applicant under this request due to the Third Party Notification conducted as per the Municipal Freedom and Protection of Privacy Act. The third party (Dufferin Vistas Ltd.) and the applicant were notified on December 20, 2016 that TRCA’s Information and Privacy Officer’s decision is to release this information, and that the third party may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) within 30 days of receiving the letter (by January 19, 2017). As part of the immediate commencing of an investigation into the release of the confidential material after it was in the media, staff reviewed records and advised the City of Vaughan solicitor on December 15, 2016 that this information had not yet been released to the applicant.

Process of Distribution TRCA’s current process for distribution of confidential material is as follows: 1. If the material is to be considered as part of an agenda for a meeting, the confidential report or minutes are emailed to the Members of the relevant board, watermarked as confidential. Some Members have requested that their staff be circulated on all correspondence from TRCA pertaining to their duties as board Members, so they would have obtained copies. In addition, many Members provide access to their email accounts to staff for email management. 2. If the material is just receipt of the confidential minutes from the previous meeting, the various processes for distribution that have been used over the past few years are those noted above: no circulation; hard copy only distributed at the meeting; by email; by request of Members only.

As per the January 9, 2017 resolution, staff sent a request to clerk’s offices at the regions of Peel and York, the cities of Toronto and Vaughan, and the Township of King for information on their processes for distribution of confidential material. The responses received are summarized in Attachment 2.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To date staff has been unable to determine who provided the material to Global News, however if such discovery is made the following are the potential actions to be taken:

732  TRCA staff is bound by the Code of Conduct, including clause 2.5 – The Commitment to Confidential Information and Intellectual Property, which lays out the duties of care as it pertains to confidential information. Should it be determined that the information was released publically by TRCA staff in contravention of the Code of Conduct, sections 3-5 of the Code will be enacted which cover: rules of dismissal or disciplinary action, and the investigative and appeal processes for staff.  If the source is determined to be an Authority Member, staff will notify the appointing body of this breach of their municipal code of conduct. However the decision to remove the Member from TRCA or impose any other sanctions is at the discretion of the appointing agencies and/or their employer.

Proposed Process Staff recommends TRCA’s distribution process of confidential material be amended as follows:  As always, staff reports be public as much as possible. Should there be a requirement for material to be considered in camera, that a public report be circulated to Members and the confidential material be verbally reported in camera. Should there be an extensive amount of confidential material for consideration, that circulation shall be by hard copy only, couriered to Members.  Each confidential report shall be printed on purple paper and contain a watermark with the name of the individual receiving it as a unique identifier.  Members be reminded with the circulation of reports of their duties around confidentiality.  That confidential minutes will only be available to Members, eligible staff or legal counsel upon request, and that when circulated be watermarked with a unique identifier.  Staff shall maintain a log of who confidential items are circulated to, at any time it is circulated.  Continue the process of reporting out publically at this meeting or a subsequent meeting when/if the resolutions can be made public.

Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416-667-6290, Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: January 13, 2017 Attachments: 2

733 Attachment 1

Responses to the January 9, 2017 poll to Authority Members from the period July 1, 2015 to December 14, 2016 (31 Members), as to whether the Member or any of their staff provided the confidential July 24, 2015 Authority Minutes to the reporter Gil Shochat or any other parties outside of TRCA at any time and if so when.

All 31 Members polled responded, as noted below.

Member Staff Authority Member Name Appointing Agency Response Response Paul Ainslie City of Toronto NO NO Kevin Ashe Region of Durham NO NO Maria Augimeri City of Toronto NO NO Jack Ballinger Region of Durham NO N/A David Barrow Region of York NO NO Ronald Chopowick City of Toronto NO N/A Vincent Crisanti City of Toronto NO NO Glenn De Baeremaeker City of Toronto NO NO Michael Di Biase Region of York NO NO Justin Di Ciano City of Toronto NO NO Jennifer Drake City of Toronto NO N/A Chris Fonseca Region of Peel NO NO Rob Ford City of Toronto DECEASED N/A Jack Heath Region of York NO N/A Rodney Hoinkes City of Toronto NO N/A Jennifer Innis Region of Peel NO NO Colleen Jordan Region of Durham NO NO Maria Kelleher City of Toronto NO N/A Matt Mahoney Region of Peel NO NO Giorgio Mammoliti City of Toronto NO NO Glenn Mason Town of Mono/Township of Adjala- NO N/A Tosorontio Mike Mattos City of Toronto NO N/A Jennifer McKelvie City of Toronto NO N/A Ron Moeser City of Toronto NO NO Frances Nunziata City of Toronto NO NO Jennifer O'Connell Region of Durham NO N/A Linda Pabst Region of York NO N/A Anthony Perruzza City of Toronto NO NO Gino Rosati Region of York NO NO John Sprovieri Region of Peel NO NO Jim Tovey Region of Peel NO NO

N/A indicates they either do not have staff or their staff from the time in question are no longer available.

734 Attachment 2

Responses from Municipal Partners on Processes for Release of Confidential Material to Members of Council and Committees

Region of Peel  Utilizes an electronic agenda package delivery system where in camera reports are delivered in a separate package from the public agenda and can only be accessed by password, and the password is only given to the Councillors. The system does not prevent printing or distributing a report.  Region staff is exploring options to increase security, but this is their current process.  The Regional Clerk and Director further advised that the cities of Mississauga and Brampton distribute hard copies of the material and it is watermarked with the Councillor’s ward number so the material is traceable to a particular Councillor.

City of Toronto  The City prepares a public report and accompanying it may be some in camera material, but the entire report is not confidential.  The report author needs to be certain to only include confidential material in the confidential report and not include public material, so as to not put Members in a position of potentially breaching rules of confidentiality by releasing public information that was contained in the in camera report.  The in camera material is distributed in hard copy only to Members of Council with a unique identifier on each report to identify the Councillor who has the report.  A log is kept of who the report is distributed to.  If the material is distributed for a committee meeting, it is distributed at the time of original distribution to all Members of Council as they will all need to deal with the report at the upcoming Council meeting. If amendments are made at a committee meeting, Council is provided with a hard copy transmittal document with the amendments.  With the distribution of in camera reports, Members are reminded of their obligations with respect to confidentiality.  Members do not receive confidential minutes, but they are available upon request.

Region of York  Some Councillors get hard copies or access electronically through eScribe (same program used by TRCA) by login, confidential or not. Reports can be emailed by Members from eScribe.  Printed on orange paper which is difficult to photocopy clearly.  Have not had issues so are not looking at changing procedures.

City of Vaughan  Prepare in camera reports on coloured paper.  Distribute routine confidential reports in advance, but special reports are distributed at the meeting only and collected at the end of the meeting, and the special reports have the Member’s name in the corner on a label.  Reminds Council Members of their duties of care of the consequences.  Recommends against watermarking reports as it is a huge administrative effort with very little benefit in Vaughan’s circumstances as special reports are distributed and collected at the meeting.

735 Township of King  Most reports are not distributed in advance of meetings, and most reports are verbal. If circulated in advance it is in a sealed envelope, the seal initialed by the Clerk, and Council Members are reminded that it is confidential. Gets the report back from Members at the closed session, and the reports are numbered on the back of the document.  Printed on purple paper which is difficult to photocopy clearly.  Provides confidential minutes as part of the approval of minutes at the next confidential meeting, with either notes of the matter if verbal, or containing the staff report if available.  Will make resolutions and/or reports available publically when possible at the meeting so they do not remain confidential.

736 RES.#A230/16 - TORONTO ZOO Approval of the Master Plan. Approval of the Toronto Zoo’s 2016 Master Plan.

Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a management agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now City of Toronto) for certain TRCA-owned lands on June 14, 1961, with the lands being used for park and recreational purposes;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo (Board) operates the Toronto Zoo on certain TRCA lands in the Rouge River watershed pursuant to an agreement between the Board, the City of Toronto and TRCA dated April 28, 1978;

AND WHEREAS the Board has prepared an updated Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2016 Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo attached as Attachment 1, be approved. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road between Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, City of Toronto and is approximately 287 hectares (710 acres) in size. Over 80% of the Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, comprised of valley and table lands. The subject TRCA lands were acquired between 1962 and 1970 and are included in the June 14, 1961, Management Agreement with the City (formerly Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto).

On April 6, 1967, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro Toronto) Council approved in principle a proposal to construct a new zoological park on a site in the Rouge River area. In March of 1968, Raymond Moriyama Architect and Site Planner submitted to the Metropolitan Parks Commissioner a Feasibility Study and Master Development Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Park, Glen Rouge. On April 29, 1969, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Society (the Society) was incorporated as a non-profit corporation for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and operating zoological facilities in the Metropolitan Area.

On November 1, 1970, Metro Toronto, TRCA and the Society entered into an agreement for the construction and operation of a zoological park and related facilities in the Rouge River watershed. On June 16, 1977, Metro Toronto served a notice of termination of this Agreement to TRCA and the Society, effective July 1, 1979. On April 28, 1978, Metro Toronto, TRCA and a newly constituted (by Metro Toronto) Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo Board entered into an Agreement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo by the Board.

The entire site is within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt. Portions of the site are regulated by TRCA, within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and are comprised of the Rouge River Valley, Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, Environmentally Significant Areas and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Other Key Natural Heritage Features may also exist, such as Significant Wildlife Habitat. In addition, there are natural hazards such as steep slopes, river erosion and floodplains.

737 The Toronto Zoo celebrated its 42nd anniversary in August 2016 and attracts an average of 1.3 million visitors annually. The Zoo is home to more than 5,000 animals with more than 300 exhibits and a large plant population. The Zoo aims to provide exposure and understanding of the world’s zoogeographic regions and oceans by creating several representative zones including Indo-Malaya, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, Eurasia, Tundra and the Canadian Domain.

Master Plan The original Master Plan for the Toronto Zoo was approved in 1969 with an update being approved in 1990.

The 2016 Toronto Zoo Master Plan provides a conceptual framework defining the Zoo’s future direction for the next 15-20 years. The Master Plan was developed after research, consultation and input undertaken during 2015 and 2016 and is consistent with the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan adopted by the Board in November 2014. The plan can be downloaded at http://www.torontozoo.com/ExploreTheZoo/Vision/2017-01-24_TZ-MP_Final_Report_web.pdf

The Master Plan aims to ensure that Toronto Zoo remains as one of the top zoos in the world and that it is well positioned to become a Centre of Excellence in Canada for the preservation and protection of endangered species.

In May 2015, led by MMM Group, the Toronto Zoo began the master planning process to further define its future direction. The process included:  undertaking a market analysis with a primary focus on conservation;  meeting and holding workshops with Zoo staff and the Board, and consultation with key stakeholders, including staff from TRCA, City of Toronto, Parks Canada and University of Toronto Scarborough, to develop various approaches to the Zoo’s vision; and  development of an associated financial and marketing plan.

The Strategic Mission, Vision and Goals recognize the importance of preserving and enhancing the ecologically significant areas on and around the Toronto Zoo, and of engaging the community in its protection and enhancement. This is consistent with TRCA’s policies as a landowner, regulator and one of the Toronto Zoo’s partners.

Through the master planning process, seven goals were developed guiding the Zoo’s strategic direction:  Conservation impact – advance to a zoo-based conservation centre of excellence  Guest engagement – enhance the guest experience to appeal to a more diverse audience and inspire conservation action  Governance – enhance the governance structure  Financial stability – build an organization that is fiscally and environmentally sustainable for the long term  Strategic alliance – maximize existing partnerships and identify new opportunities  People – create an organizational culture that attracts, engages and retains highly motivated staff and volunteers  Understanding and caring – increase awareness, understanding and support of the Zoo as a centre for conservation excellence

738 The Master Plan reflects the need for a contemporary and innovative wildlife conservation park that is environmentally and fiscally sustainable for the long term. It is intended that the Toronto Zoo will become a world class leader in wildlife conservation and a catalyst for wildlife habitat preservation, while delivering enhanced and engaging guest experiences. To support this vision, the Master Plan specifically proposes:  revitalized, expanded and enhanced habitat areas including a focus on Canadian species and relocation of the “Canadian Domain” exhibit out of the valley;  development of clear pedestrian systems and advance accessibility on the Zoo site;  revitalized welcome area;  a new Wildlife Health Centre (scheduled to open in 2017), new off-exhibit breeding area, a four-season children’s play area, and the possible redevelopment of the “Red Barn” as a horticulture and education centre;  restored wetlands and forests, in particular restoration of some of the existing valley lands (i.e. “Canadian Domain” area); and  a variety of, conference, meeting and overnight camping facilities.

The Master Plan will also provide guidance in making key business decisions by the Board. Two such impending plans include:  a Tripartite Agreement with TRCA and the City which will confirm the land holdings occupied by the Zoo for the future, and  the Toronto Zoo/Rouge National Urban Park Shared Facilities Study currently being finalized with Parks Canada.

RATIONALE Since a majority of the Toronto Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, the Toronto Zoo Master Plan requires TRCA approval.

FINANCIAL DETAILS There is no financial impact to TRCA arising from the approval of the Master Plan.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE  Finalize the Tripartite Agreement with the Toronto Zoo, City and TRCA which will update the terms and conditions for the operation of the Zoo on TRCA lands and rationalize the Toronto Zoo boundaries.  As projects come forward for implementation details related to site planning, landscape restoration and stormwater management be addressed according to the conservation objectives of the masterplan and in consultation with City and TRCA.  Encourage the Toronto Zoo to consult with Parks Canada and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as implementation of the masterplan proceeds.

Report Prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 13, 2017

______

739 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board

RES.#A231/16 - PROVINCIAL REVIEW OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD Comments to Environmental Bill of Rights Posting #012-7196. To inform the Authority of TRCA’s formal submission of comments on December 19, 2016 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in response to their Environmental Bill of Rights Registry posting on Consultation on the Role of the Ontario Municipal Board in Ontario’s Land Use Planning System.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Linda Pabst

WHEREAS the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) invited the public to provide comments on their document entitled, “Review of the Ontario Municipal Board Public Consultation Document” through an Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Posting #012-7196;

AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has roles and responsibilities affecting planning matters that come before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), through which TRCA staff regularly participate in OMB hearings and other OMB processes as required;

THEREFORE IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT TRCA’s formal response to the Province of Ontario through the Environmental Registry on December 19, 2016, as outlined in Attachment 1, be received.

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and Conservation Ontario be so advised by the CEO’s Office. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Environmental Bill of Rights posting on the Ontario Municipal Board Review explains that since 2004, the government has implemented a series of land use planning reforms to make Ontario’s planning system more inclusive and transparent. These reforms have also affected the OMB, limiting the number of matters that can be appealed to the Board, giving municipalities a stronger voice and more independence in local land use decisions, and giving residents more say in land use decisions in their communities. These changes occurred through the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 and, most recently, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015.

The purpose of the most recent EBR notice (#012-7196 posted from October 5, 2016 to December 19, 2016) was to inform the public of the government’s consultation on the OMB review. The Province intended the consultation to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views on whether the land use appeal system is responsive to the changing needs of our communities. As part of the first phase of this consultation, initiated on June 23, 2016, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs webpage invited the public to provide feedback on topics regarding the OMB review. Through this review, the government is seeking ways to build on past improvements to ensure the OMB can contribute within the land use planning system to its best effect.

740 Recent government consultations on related issues, as well as a posting on the MMA website that invites public input on topics regarding the OMB, have helped to inform the priorities for discussion in this review. The OMB review was organized according to the following five themes, with input requested on possible changes the government is considering and questions identified for each theme:

Theme 1: OMB’s jurisdiction and powers Theme 2: Citizen participation and local perspective Theme 3: Clear and predictable decision-making Theme 4: Modern procedures and faster decisions Theme 5: Alternative dispute resolution and fewer hearings

A public consultation document was provided that included background information on Ontario's land use planning and appeal system. The OMB Public Consultation Document sets out possible changes being considered to improve the OMB's role within the system, as organized under the five key themes noted above. The document also raises several questions for consideration under each theme.

TRCA’S Response On December 19, 2016, TRCA submitted a formal response through the EBR consisting of a covering letter overview and a chart of detailed comments organized by the themes and questions provided in the public consultation document. A number of key comments are listed in the overview below and a copy of TRCA’s full submission can be found in Attachment 1.

Overview TRCA policy planning staff within the Planning and Development division coordinated the internal review of the OMB discussion paper. Policy staff garnered input from senior development review staff in Planning and Development, Planning Ecology and Engineering with experience in participating in OMB processes; some TRCA staff attended stakeholder listening sessions hosted by the Province, which also helped inform TRCA comments.

In TRCA’s experience, appeals to the OMB are frequently associated with Planning Act applications circulated by municipalities in which inadequate information has been provided by the proponent that nevertheless becomes deemed a complete application. This starts the review period clock ticking, during which an informed municipal decision cannot be made in time, so the proponent appeals. It is this type of appeal scenario that comprises the bulk of OMB cases in which TRCA is involved. TRCA’s municipal partners frequently rely on TRCA technical expertise and planning advice to resolve the increasingly high volume of OMB appeals related to the natural environment, including natural heritage, water resources and associated natural hazards.

In recent years, TRCA has provided recommendations to the Province as part of its ongoing review to improve the scope and effectiveness of the OMB. While some of TRCA’s comments through past consultations have since been addressed through amendments to the Planning Act and the land use planning and appeal system, others have not. Most recently, the introduction of the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 has spurred positive changes to the OMB. In turn, the amendments made to the Planning Act affected the decisions that can be made by the OMB and outlined which matters cannot be appealed. However, the full effect of these changes has not yet come to fruition, considering their implementation within Ontario’s land use planning framework is still fairly new. A number of hearings now in process were initiated prior to the “new rules” being in effect and so stakeholders are not yet able to see the anticipated benefits of the new legislation. TRCA is expecting that the recent changes to the OMB will yield positive results

741 by enhancing the role of third-party comment and technical review for OMB appeals and strengthening decision making to protect provincial interests.

TRCA staff have a number of years of experience participating in OMB processes with the interests of the Province, TRCA and our municipal partners in mind, and anticipate that TRCA’s comments will assist the Province in improving the role of the OMB in the land use planning system. Some of the key comments that TRCA included in its submission to the Province are:

 Appeals based on failure to make a decision are often tied to applications that may have been deemed “complete” by the municipality, yet in reality lack the required supporting environmental information required for agencies to make an adequate assessment of the application.

 Appeal rights should be restricted for decisions that protect provincial issues and prohibit development related to natural heritage, source water and natural hazards in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

 Further to the above, given the unique provincial Ministerial approval process, appeal rights should be restricted for official plan or official plan amendments associated with flood vulnerable Special Policy Areas under Section 3.1.4 (a) of the PPS.

 The technical criteria developed to provide guidance on provincial interests at OMB hearings, specifically those related to the natural heritage and natural hazard policies of the PPS, should be given more weight and status at the OMB.

 When new technical work in support of an application is introduced during a hearing, the hearing should be adjourned and the application should continue to be processed to a decision in the municipal planning realm.

NEXT STEPS The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will review and analyze the feedback received in response to the EBR posting. The Ministry expects to move forward on possible changes in spring 2017. TRCA staff will keep the Authority informed of any further notices from the Province in this regard.

Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: [email protected] Date: January 27, 2017 Attachments: 1

742 ATTACHMENT 1

743 744 745 TRCA Comments on the Review of the Ontario Municipal Board: Public Consultation Document December 2016

Background/Context for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) Comments TRCA’s perspective on the changes being considered to the OMB is based on our roles as: a public commenting body under both the Planning Act and the environmental assessment process with delegated responsibility for the provincial interest in natural hazards, a resource management agency operating on a watershed basis, a landowner, and as the administrator of a development regulation that affects land use planning matters. TRCA works with its member municipalities in support of their implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Provincial Plans through regional and local municipal planning documents. In many cases, TRCA has memorandums of understanding with municipal partners that describe TRCA’s technical support roles to the municipality in their land use planning processes.

The introduction of the OMB Public Consultation Document opines that appeals often occur because “people don’t always agree” with approved plans. Conversely, in TRCA’s experience, appeals are frequently associated with scenarios in which inadequate information has been provided that passes as a “complete application”, starts the clock ticking and an informed decision cannot be made in time, so the proponent appeals. It is this type of appeal scenario that comprises the bulk of OMB cases in which TRCA is involved. Our municipal partners frequently rely on our technical expertise and planning advice to resolve the increasingly high volume of OMB appeals related to the natural environment, including natural heritage, water resources and associated natural hazards. Structure of Current Provincial Review The Public Consultation Document discusses how the government has heard a range of viewpoints on the role of the OMB and that this input was used to formulate the questions as outlined in this chart for public feedback. TRCA commented in a letter dated January 10, 2014 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs MMA (MMA) in response to EBR posting 012-0241 on the Land Use Planning and Appeal System Consultation. TRCA also commented in writing on June 3, 2015 to MMA in response to Bill 73 (amendments to the Planning Act) through EBR posting 012-3651. While some of TRCA’s comments through these consultations have since been addressed through amendments to the Planning Act and the land use planning and appeal system, others have not. In addition, the benefits of the new legislation and procedures have not yet been realized as many of the appeals in process right now began before the changes came into effect. Accordingly, we will reiterate some of our comments from previous correspondence as part of the current consultation process. Discussion Questions Comment Theme 1. OMB’s Jurisdiction and Powers 1. What is your perspective on • TRCA supports the changes being considered to limit appeals on the changes being considered matters of public interest. In particular, we recommend to limit appeals on matters of restricting appeal rights for certain land use matters that public interest? protect provincial issues and prohibit development, such as the policies related to natural heritage, source water and natural hazards in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS): - Significant Wetlands (PPS, section 2.1.4); - Significant Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (PPS, section 2.1.5); - Municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas, vulnerable surface and ground water,

746 sensitive surface water features, and sensitive ground water features (PPS, sections 2.2.1 e] and 2.2.2); and, - Natural Hazards (PPS, sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.5).

• Recent amendments to the Planning Act did not address the role of the OMB with respect to appeals of Official Plans or Official Plan Amendments associated with Special Policy Areas (SPAs). In accordance with Section 3.1.4 (a) of the PPS, the designation of an SPA and any changes or modifications to official plan policies, land use designations or boundaries applying to SPA lands, must be approved by both the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources and Forestry. Furthermore, the application for a new SPA or a comprehensive review and update to an existing SPA can only be initiated by a municipality, in accordance with provincial SPA guidelines. Given this unique provincial approval process, the Planning Act should be amended to restrict appeals related to SPAs.

• More weight needs to be given to the technical criteria developed to provide guidance on provincial interests at OMB hearings, specifically those related to the natural heritage and hazard policies of the PPS. Documents such as the Natural Heritage Reference Manual and the Technical Guide for River and Stream Systems, were prepared by the Province to help planning boards deal with such circumstances. However, in our experience, they are often overlooked at the OMB in favour of subjective expert testimony. This can lead to contested debates on matters such as determining the “significance” and extent of natural features and hazards (further comment on this in Q.24). 2. What is your perspective on As a commenting agency under the Environmental Assessment Act the changes being considered as well as the Planning Act and, and a regulatory agency under the to restrict appeals of Conservation Authorities Act, TRCA is involved in integrated development that supports planning and approvals processes related to transit-oriented the use of transit? development and related infrastructure. With this experience in mind, we provide the following recommendations:

• Although TRCA supports transit-oriented development, advancing it should not come at the expense of forgoing other provincial interests that are also in the public’s interest, such as public safety from managing natural hazards and resilient communities from protecting natural heritage systems.

• If decisions that support the use of transit cannot be appealed, agencies like TRCA would have little recourse to prevent transit- oriented development that could negatively impact natural heritage systems and/or increase risk from natural hazards, other than our regulatory authority, as prescribed under the

747 Conservation Authorities Act.

• Further to the above, pursuant to the Places to Grow Act, 2005, Section 1.0 of the Growth Plan indicates that the only exception to the Growth Plan prevailing over the PPS, where there is a conflict between them, is when the conflict is between policies relating to the natural environment or human health. In that case, the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment or human health prevails. 3. What is your perspective on TRCA supports the proposed changes in the public consultation the changes being considered document but suggests the Province consider the following: to give communities a stronger voice? • The OMB should provide training for community members on the board's process and hire professionals (i.e. planners), or provide funding to professional associations (e.g. Ontario Professional Planners Institute [OPPI]) to implement this training. Alternatively, the OMB could hire a third party on retainer that could provide planning advice to or on behalf of community advocates.

• Circulation to the public is very limited regarding OMB hearings. As such, the public may not fully understand what is transpiring. Local government and the OMB need to be as transparent as possible and provide adequate notice. Because of the option of “in camera” sessions, other public review agencies and the public are not always privy to the final position of a municipality on an application before going into a hearing. Transparency would increase if in-camera sessions were further restricted.

• There are a lot of obstacles the general public needs to overcome just to participate in hearings, let alone understand decisions. For instance, hearings often occur during the middle of the day and, consequently, not everyone is able to attend. Other options should be offered to increase access such as videos, webcasts and transcripts.

• Clarification is needed as to what constitutes information as “significant” when new “significant information” is introduced at an OMB hearing and sent back to municipal council for reconsideration. If important new technical information, or even a new concept/modified proposal, is introduced during the hearing process, it should benefit from a detailed analysis without a hurried evaluation to meet arbitrary and unrealistic timelines at the hearing. 4. What is your view on whether • The OMB plays a vital role in balancing the position of municipal the OMB should continue to councils, ratepayers groups, developers and agencies by

748 conduct de novo hearings? applying a test of “good planning” while having regard to municipal decisions.

• TRCA recognizes the benefits of de novo hearings, such as providing the hearing officer with a full context of information, or lack thereof, including incomplete technical information, that transpired in the decision making process.

• Municipal councils are not always familiar with the roles and policies of conservation authorities (CAs) and how they apply to development applications, including related permissions under the Conservation Authorities Act. A de novo hearing would allow CA staff to explain those policies and how they apply. An appeal that focuses on the previous decision only may not allow for this.

• TRCA recognizes longer hearings are a drawback of de novo hearings; however the process could be streamlined for efficiencies and cost effectiveness. 5. If the OMB were to move • The key to any approach/process is that it enables a decision to away from de novo hearings, be produced that is fair, sound and respects the objective test what do you believe is the of good planning. most appropriate approach and why? 6. From your perspective, should • OMB panels should have access to previous municipal policies the government be looking at in place at the time of decisions to provide as much changes related to transition information as possible to inform current decisions but should and the use of new planning not overemphasize why a previous decision was made. It rules? If so: doesn’t make sense to assess the merits of a new application • What is your perspective based on legislation and policies that were revised and updated on basing planning for a reason and are now out of date. decisions on municipal policies in place at the • We agree strongly that updated provincial planning rules time the decision is made? should apply at the time of decision for applications before • What is your perspective 2007, if not earlier. If projects have not been built since 2007 on having updated (e.g. an unbuilt draft approved subdivision) then there is no provincial planning rules need to perpetuate what could now be considered "bad apply at the time of planning" based on outdated policies. decision for applications before 2007? Theme 2. Citizen Participation and Local Perspective 7. If you have had experience No comment. with the Citizen Liaison Office, describe what it was like – did it meet your expectations? 8. Was there information you No comment. needed, but were unable to

749 get? 9. Would the above changes • An enhanced Citizen Liaison Office would make sense for support greater citizen stakeholder groups with valid concerns and finite resources to participation at the OMB? have access to the appeal process. 10. Given that it would be • In our experience, citizens often seem to be excluded from inappropriate for the OMB to participating in the OMB process because they aren’t able to provide legal advice to any gain party status or obtain the necessary planning or legal party or participant, what type advice to inform them of how to do so. A provincially funded of information about the program distinct from the OMB could administer or have a role OMB’s processes would help in selecting a pool of qualified independent professionals to citizens to participate in provide a gratuitous service to the public. mediations and hearings? 11. Are there funding tools the • The current filing fee ($125.00) to appeal a decision to the province could explore to OMB should be commensurate with the scope and complexity enable citizens to retain their of the project associated with the appeal. Additional own planning experts and consideration should also be given to streamline the appeal lawyers? process once it is sent and received by the OMB (pre-hearing, hearing, mediation, or motion) as well as the anticipated length of time and/or number of board members needed to come to a decision. For example, the current fee may be appropriate for an appeal from a local resident for a minor variance case, especially given the additional costs required if lawyers or planners are needed. However, this fee would be too low if, for example, a developer were to appeal a policy in an Official Plan, or a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

• Appropriately scaling the cost of an appeal with the scope of the associated project could provide additional revenue which could cover the cost of additional board members, advanced training for board members, enhancing the Citizen Liaison Office and improving public education/outreach regarding OMB processes. 12. What kind of financial or other • The Province could establish and fund a program that creates a eligibility criteria need to be pool of qualified independent professionals (lawyers and considered when increasing planners, etc.) which could be selected to assist the public with access to subject matter advice on OMB appeals. Partial funding for this could be experts like planners and provided by revenue captured by appropriately scaling the cost lawyers? of an appeal with the scope of the project associated with the appeal. Citizens should not have to hire a team of planners, lawyers, and other environmental experts at their own expense when dealing with matters that are in the public’s interest. Theme 3. Clear and Predictable Decision-Making 13. Qualifications for adjudicators • If a former/retired board member who has joined the private are identified in the job practice used to sit on the board with the board member who description posted on the is currently presiding over a hearing, a conflict of interest OMB website. What additional should be declared, as is required by section V of the Code of qualifications and experiences Conduct for Ontario Municipal Board Mediators. To avoid the

750 are important for an OMB perception of preferential treatment, perhaps there should also member? be a code of conduct for former/retired board members that may enter into practice.

• Where applicable, OMB members may benefit from professional development/training on emerging or complex issues such as environmental management and/or issues related to the Conservation Authorities Act. 14. Do you believe that multi- • Multi-member panels would increase the consistency of member panels would decision-making by increasing breadth of experience and increase consistency of providing a more holistic and balanced perspective of the decision-making? What should various public interests relevant during appeals, particularly be the make-up of these for complex cases. panels? • When choosing Board members (either individuals or for panels), should be chosen based on their expertise relevant to the issues of the case. Having multi-member panels would help diversify this experience. 15. Are there any types of cases • Complex cases, such as those involving appeals of Official that would need a multi- Plans and Zoning By-Law Amendments, Subdivisions, etc. member panel? should not have a single board member. Perhaps creating a scaled fee and charging for appeals based on the nature of the project would help cover this cost. 16. How can OMB decisions be • The OMB’s website could be improved with a more efficient made easier to understand search function. and be better relayed to the public? • Electronic attachments are not always posted with each case decision on the OMB website.

• There seems to be no mechanism to review and have access to reference exhibits on the OMB website.

• There is no common structure for how decisions are written. The decisions read as essays based on each board member’s personal writing style. Decisions should be written more comprehensively by justifying the planning rationale that informed their conclusions and not just restate the preferred witnesses’ evidence. Accordingly, the decision should be written to explain how this evidence was viewed as representing “good planning.”

• Case transcripts to be made more publicly available. Perhaps stenographers should be required in certain circumstances involving complex cases.

• More detailed notice of decisions to the public is needed. Once a decision is made, the OMB should provide notice of the

751 decision as per the Planning Act requirement for notice of an application (i.e., residents within 120 m of the subject property). Theme 4. Modern Procedures and Faster Decisions 17. Are the timelines in the chart • A particular issue that TRCA continues to face is when OMB above appropriate, given the cases are scheduled within a certain amount of time based on nature of appeals to the OMB? the receipt of a “complete application” that does not include What would be appropriate the necessary technical information to make informed timelines? decisions. Technical documents are an integral part of many “complete applications” and there needs to be enough time to gather appropriate studies and adequately review them.

• Before beginning a hearing, appellants should provide a complete set of information, prior to the appeal being deemed “complete”. Otherwise the decisions of board members and opinions of experts will not be properly informed. 18. Would the above measures TRCA welcomes the proposed measures to modernize and help to modernize OMB streamline OMB hearings and recommends the following hearing procedures and additional changes: practices? Would they help encourage timely processes • TRCA appreciates that evaluating the diverse array of issues and decisions? heard before the OMB involves balancing a number of interests. However, appeals do not always appear to be substantiated by a comprehensive planning rationale and demonstration of an iterative, communicative process to justify the appeal. In the interest of scoping and limiting the number of appeals and shortening appeal timelines, broad appeals unsubstantiated by a sound planning rationale and documenting of how the proposal was vetted through the review process should be required to provide this rationale and documentation prior to proceeding.

• For example, in our experience, appellants often argue that a proposal complies with a single section of the PPS or Provincial Plan (i.e. intensification) without regard for other sections (i.e. section 3.1 of the PPS, re: flood hazards). Appeals should derive from a defensible planning perspective considered from a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the Province’s policy framework and implementing municipal documents and expressed using proper policy language. Therefore, appeals could be limited by having requirements for a conformity report to be submitted in order to substantiate an appeal.

• Hearings should allow for video evidence, especially for issues related to the protection of natural features (e.g. drone videos of natural features);

752 • Active adjudication would make it easier for environmental matters to be heard by OMB members and would also increase community participation;

• Attending the OMB can be expensive and time-consuming. It often requires individuals to take considerable time off or away from their regular work. The OMB should consider allowing parties to not attend portions of the hearing when matters are of no concern to that party are discussed. This would considerably reduce legal, staff and consultant costs.

• Hearings that involve a large group of landowners typically require scheduling for in-person meetings/pre-hearing conferences that can cause delay because of the number of people’s schedules to be coordinated. Digital options for conferencing should be made available to avoid this type of delay.

• Perhaps mediation sessions and OMB cases and decisions should be audited to see if the changes to the OMB process coming out of the recent reformations to the Planning Act are being enacted in hearings;

• Up-to-date audio-visual equipment and internet access should be readily available for all hearings to help document evidence clearly (i.e., overlays, maps, etc.).

• Appeal packages should require more detailed information to justify the rationale for an appeal so that external agencies and the public can better understand whether their interests are likely to be affected prior to the hearing. This would have the effect of enhancing the efficiency of the process so that agencies such as conservation authorities would be able to scope their involvement with appropriate appeals;

• All prescribed agencies (including CAs) should be copied on all notices of appeal that affect their areas of interest, including background materials submitted to the OMB as part of the appeal package. 19. What types of cases/situations • No comment. would be most appropriate to a written hearing? Theme 5. Alternative Dispute Resolution and Fewer Hearings 20. Why do you think more OMB • Appeals based on a failure to make a decision are premature, cases don’t settle at and tend to take place before all parties have an effective mediation? opportunity to discuss their interests. This typically occurs because the appellant has not properly managed their project,

753 has not attempted to engage with the other parties, or may have received poor or inaccurate advice from consultants. Consequently, the parties involved are subject to a longer, more costly hearing that could have been avoided were procedures in place to ensure an application is complete and/or an appeal is well substantiated with a comprehensive planning rationale. 21. What types of cases/situations • Mediation is effective for hearings that are not highly polarized have a greater change of and/or for resolving certain technical issues (such as settling at mediation? engineering) which can reduce the overall length of a hearing. 22. Should mediation be required, • Mediation should not be required but the option to mediate even if it has the potential to should always be available. This will allow parties that are lengthen the process? willing to compromise to do so effectively in a shorter amount of time and at less cost than a full hearing. It will also prevent forced mediation when parties are polarized, which takes less time and reduces overall costs. If both parties are willing to consider mediation, it does, in our opinion, provide an effective forum for scoping and identifying each party’s interests.

• Allowing parties to discuss matters before mediation can resolve a number of important issues and lets some parties withdraw, thus reducing the length of hearings and costs for all parties involved. 23. What role should OMB staff • TRCA staff have had almost no interaction with OMB staff, other play in mediation, pre- than the exchange of written correspondence. OMB Planners screening applications and in should be less administrative and more involved in pre- not scheduling cases that are screening applications. out of the OMB’s scope? General Question 24. Do you have other comments • When new technical work in support of an application is or points you want to make introduced during a hearing, the hearing should be adjourned about the scope and and the application should continue to be processed to a effectiveness of the OMB with decision in the municipal planning realm. regard to its role in land use planning? • Further to the above, and to limit the number of appeals, pre- consultation and complete application requirements should be modified to include participation by all public agencies prior to an application being deemed complete by the municipality.

• Additional time should be given to municipalities to make decisions before being subject to appeal. The time involved in complex development proposals tends to be much longer than the appeal timeframes. Appeals that occur because of the failure of a municipality to make a decision within the allotted timeframe should only be heard if the municipality is legitimately not responding for political reasons (e.g. deferral without decision). Perhaps there should be a short OMB

754 decision making process available to allow for the determination of whether an appeal due to non-decision can go ahead or not, rather than it being automatic. This process should be easily accessible for the appellant and decision made immediately, so the period in which the appellant awaits a decision is shortened.

755 RES.#A232/16 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis

THAT Section III item 10.1.1 – Voluntary Project Review of Works Undertaken by Organizations Exempt from Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/16, held on January 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______

Section IV - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended

RES.#A233/16 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED

Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/16, held on January 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:37 a.m., on Friday, January 27, 2017.

Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer

/ks

756