Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/188773.pdf · Dave Ryan Member Deb Schulte Member John...

134

MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #4/14May 23, 2014

The Authority Meeting #4/14, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, May 23, 2014. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.

PRESENTPaul Ainslie MemberMaria Augimeri Vice ChairBen Cachola MemberBob Callahan MemberRonald Chopowick MemberVincent Crisanti MemberMichael Di Biase MemberChris Fonseca MemberMujeeb Khan MemberGlenn Mason MemberMike Mattos MemberGerri Lynn O'Connor ChairLinda Pabst MemberJohn Parker MemberAnthony Perruzza MemberDave Ryan MemberDeb Schulte MemberJohn Sprovieri MemberCynthia Thorburn MemberJim Tovey MemberRichard Whitehead Member

ABSENTDavid Barrow MemberRaymond Cho MemberGlenn De Baeremaeker MemberJack Heath MemberColleen Jordan MemberGloria Lindsay Luby MemberPeter Milczyn Member

135

RES.#A64/14 - MINUTES

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, be approved.CARRIED

_________________________________________

PRESENTATIONS

(a) A presentation by Patrick Leys, Manager, Pipeline Projects and Amanda Abbate, Environmental Planner, TransCanada Pipelines Limited, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - TransCanada's Proposed King's North Connection Project.

(b) A presentation by Alex Dumesle, Manager, Partners in Project Green - Pearson Eco-Business Zone, TRCA, in regard to item AUTH7.2 - Partners in Project Green: Pearson Eco-Business Zone 2013 Annual Report.

RES.#A65/14 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Deb Schulte

THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received.CARRIED

RES.#A66/14 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT above-noted presentation (b) be received.CARRIED

_________________________________________

CORREPONDENCE

(a) A letter dated May 21, 2014 from Danielle Chin, Senior Planner, Policy & Government Relations, BILD, in regard to item AUTH7.4 - Planning and Permitting Administration Cost Recovery.

136

RES.#A67/14 - CORRESPONDENCE

Moved by: Cynthia ThorburnSeconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT above-noted correspondence (a) be received.CARRIED

137

CORRESPONDENCE AUTH6.1

138

_________________________________________

139

SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION

RES.#A68/14 - TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LIMITED'S PROPOSED KING'S NORTH CONNECTION PROJECT AND EASTERN MAINLINE PROJECTTo provide information on TransCanada Pipelines Limited's proposed King's North Connection Project and Eastern Mainline Project


THAT TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada) be requested to provide Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) with their alternative routes report in support of their applications to the National Energy Board on the preferred routes of the King's North Connection Project and the Eastern Mainline Project for review and comment once complete.

AMENDMENTRES.#A69/14


THAT the main motion be amended to read as follows:

THAT TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada) be requested to present to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) board their alternative routes report in support of their application to the National Energy Board on the preferred route of the King's North Connection Project for review and comment;

AND FURTHER THAT the proposed routing through the forested frontage of Claireville Conservation Area be avoided.

THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada) be requested to present to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) board their alternative routes report in support of their application to the National Energy Board on the preferred route of the King's North Connection Project for review and comment;

AND FURTHER THAT the proposed routing through the forested frontage of Claireville Conservation Area be avoided.

140

BACKGROUNDThrough an informal request by a member of the Executive Committee staff were asked to arrange a presentation on TransCanada's two proposed natural gas pipeline projects in the Greater Toronto area and through the watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the King's North Connection Project and the Eastern Mainline Project (see map attachments).

King's North Connection ProjectThe King's North Connection Project will provide natural gas to homes, businesses, schools and hospitals in Ontario and Eastern Canada. The project proposes to connect Enbridge's proposed Segment A pipeline (part of the approved GTA Project) at the Albion Road station in Toronto with TransCanada's existing Mainline at Major Mackenzie Drive in Vaughan, within the Humber Watershed.

The connection between the proposed Segment A and the existing Mainline in Vaughan will be approximately 13 kilometres in length and contain one 36" diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in an 18 metre wide permanent easement. The proposed connection will establish a new pipeline right-of-way in the Cities of Vaughan, Brampton and Toronto in the area of Highways 50, 407 and 427 (Attachment 1). The preliminary proposed route will traverse through TRCA property at the eastern border of Claireville Conservation Area, along Indian Line north to Albion Road and potentially north of Highway 407.

Several route alternatives are being evaluated in order to address all potential landowners concerns about feasibility. Technical studies are being conducted to verify feasibility of preferred pipeline alignments on TRCA lands and those of other private landowners. TRCA has provided base data to TransCanada to begin early analysis of the potential environmental impacts and to inform the routing evaluation. The number of watercourse crossings will depend on the final selected route.

Stakeholder engagement commenced in December 2013 and is ongoing. TransCanada and their consultants met with TRCA on January 21, 2014 and April 30, 2014 to discuss their proposed routes and TRCA's areas of interest. Further details related to crossing methodologies, mitigation and restoration opportunities will be reviewed through the detailed design process and permit approvals.

TransCanada takes additional safety precautions where pipelines cross roads, railway track, waterways and as well as in urban areas. The entire system is monitored 24 hours a day by highly trained TransCanada employees in the computerized control centre located in Calgary. Ongoing maintenance is performed on all portions of the pipeline system to monitor, inspect and maintain the integrity of the pipelines. Further discussion is required related to our lands and regulated areas as we move forward in the evaluation process.

141

TransCanada plans to submit the application for this project to the National Energy Board (NEB) in the summer/fall of 2014. The NEB is an independent federal regulator established to promote safety, security, environmental protection, and economic efficiency in the Canadian public interest. The NEB regulates pipelines, international power lines, energy development and trade and reports to Parliament through the Ministry of Natural Resources. Once an application is submitted, stakeholders have a continued opportunity to participate in the regulatory review process. After an application is submitted, the NEB will assess it and determine what type of regulatory review process is required. The NEB's involvement in a project does not end with an approval to construct. The NEB will attach any number of conditions to project approvals which it then monitors and enforces throughout the life cycle of the project.

Construction is scheduled for spring of 2015 with service commencing in fall/winter of 2015. Prior to the start of construction, municipal permits will be obtained for the project, as well as permits from local conservation authorities where works are located within regulated areas. Issues of pipeline integrity and any vulnerability through river crossings and floodways will be explored with TransCanada as well as safety contingency planning for emergency events.

Eastern Mainline ProjectTransCanada is proposing to construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline along its existing Canadian Mainline in Southeastern Ontario. Canadian Mainline system includes pipeline infrastructure within existing easements between North Bay, Toronto and Montreal. TransCanada will be conducting site assessments along the existing corridor between the City of Markham and Iroquois in the Township of South Dundas (Attachment 2). The project is currently in what TransCanada calls the Proposal Phase where the preliminary work that is required to finalize the scope of the project is done. This includes conceptual engineering and an evaluation of safety, environmental, social, and quality considerations.

TransCanada is currently meeting with regulators, First Nations and other stakeholders. There are public open houses planned for May/June where members of the public can come and find out more information about the project and ask questions of TransCanada representatives. At this point in the process TransCanada has not met with TRCA staff to discuss the project but has requested and received environmental data from TRCA to use in their analysis of impacts related to future works within the Rouge and Duffins watersheds.

The final requirements for any additional infrastructure will be based on identified customer needs. A detailed routing assessment will reflect stakeholder input, as well as environmental and technical evaluations of the existing corridor. As with the King's North Connection Project, this project will require approvals through the NEB. If this project proceeds to construction, permits from TRCA will also be required. Safety issues related to pipeline integrity will also be considered as pipeline plans come forward for review.

142

Environmental Safety ConcernsUnlike oil, if there is a natural gas leak, the gas will escape into the atmosphere and not travel downstream in the rivers and streams as an oil spill would. As such, potential impacts to the environment are significantly reduced when compared to that of an oil spill. The greatest environmental risks with gas pipelines are fire and explosion from ignition of the gas. Third party strikes are the usual cause of rupture. A comprehensive "Call Before You Dig" program is implemented for all pipelines, including these pipelines. Natural gas pipelines are regulated by NEB under applicable industry codes and standards.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEStaff will continue to work with TransCanada through public consultation, permission to enter process for TRCA lands, and Ontario Regulation 166/06 permitting processes to ensure all water management, natural heritage management and regulatory issues are addressed in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, as well as the draft Living City Policies, and Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.

Report prepared by: Suzanne Bevan, extension 5759Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Suzanne Bevan, extension 5759Emails: [email protected]: May 8, 2014Attachments: 2

143

Attachment 1

144

Attachment 2

_________________________________________

145

RES.#A70/14 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN: PEARSON ECO-BUSINESS ZONE 2013 ANNUAL REPORTOverview of Partners in Project Green’s 2013 accomplishments in the Pearson Eco-Business.

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT the Pearson Eco-Business Zone 2013 Annual Report be received;

AND FURTHER THAT the Pearson Eco-Business Zone 2013 Annual Report be presented to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDPartners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone is an initiative of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Launched in 2008, the project aims to assist businesses reduce resource consumption, reduce operational costs and uncover new business opportunities, all while increasing the sustainable performance of the region as a whole. Partners in Project Green achieves these results by providing knowledge, effective programs and access to a community of like-minded peers.

The Partners in Project Green 2013 Annual Report captures the achievements of our partners, including impressive reductions in energy, water and waste, along with innovative sustainability projects. In addition, the 2013 Annual Report speaks to the work that was done to restructure Partners in Project Green’s governance and membership structures to further drive value for businesses in the Pearson Eco-Business Zone and beyond.

The full report can be found online at www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/2013Results. The report outlines the results of Partners in Project Green activities in 2013, and includes a variety of case studies on local sustainability leaders. The report also profiles members of Partners in Project Green Executive Management Committee and Performance Area Committees.

Annual Report HighlightsThe following are highlights from the annual report:

3,076 companies completed electricity reduction projects, collectively saving 6,922 KW of

electricity;31 companies completed 43 projects to conserve 5,921,887 cubic metres of natural gas;

through Region of Peel and City of Toronto water programs, 12 companies in the Pearson

Eco-Business Zone collectively reduced water consumption by 453,193,125 litres per year;three material exchanges resulted in diverting approximately 65 tonnes of waste from

landfill; andPartners in Project Green hosted 1,448 representatives from 384 unique companies at

training and networking events.

NEXT STEPSPresent Partners in Project Green 2013 Annual Report to TRCA local and regional municipal partners involved in Partners in Project Green.FINANCIAL DETAILS

146

Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone is funded by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Peel and the City of Toronto. In addition, the project self-generated 10.2% of its total revenue sources in 2013.

In addition, Partners in Project Green financial details can be found here: http://ar2013.partnersinprojectgreen.com/results-financial/

Report prepared by: Jennifer Taves, extension 5570Email: [email protected] Information contact: Jennifer Taves, extension 5570Emails: [email protected]: April 08, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A71/14 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREENA Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development. Promoting A Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development across the region and beyond.

Moved by: Cynthia ThorburnSeconded by: Chris Fonseca

THAT the report regarding A Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development, be received;

AND FURTHER THAT the Guide be actively promoted to TRCA’s local and regional municipal partners within the Pearson Eco-Business Zone, as well as to others upon request.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDEco-business zones are areas of employment and/or industrial activity that promote environmental quality, economic vitality and social benefits through the continuum of planning, design, construction, long-term operations and decommissioning. The eco-business zone concept establishes a balance between social, economic and environmental objectives, which are clearly established at the forefront of the development process.

Over the past four years, TRCA has assisted the Town of Caledon in the Town’s pursuit to explore eco-business opportunities. TRCA first extended its Partners in Project Green programming to Caledon businesses in 2010. Subsequently, an Eco-Business Road Map was developed in partnership with TRCA’s Partners in Project Green program to help lay out the steps required to meet Town objectives. These efforts led to another partnership with TRCA in 2011 to create a staff guide that would be used to develop and implement eco-business zones in new employment areas throughout the municipality. With funding received from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) Green Municipal Fund, TRCA hired a consultant to complete the majority of the review, development and consultation for this initiative.

147

Developer and staff workshops were held, and a review team made up of TRCA, Town of Caledon and Region of Peel staff had considerable input into the final document: A Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development (www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/files/Reports/Caledon%20EIP%20V%204.0_FINAL.pdf).

On April 1st

, 2014 Resolution RB1-2014-127 was passed directing Town of Caledon staff in part to utilize A Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development as a resource for eco-business principles and concepts in the development of new employment land areas and for existing employment land areas that will be developed through plans of subdivision in the Town of Caledon.

The Guide was produced within the planning context of the Ontario Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005, Region of Peel Official Plan and the Town of Caledon Official Plan. Aligned with the Town’s key strategic plans (i.e. Community-Based Strategic Plan, Community Climate Change Plan, Economic Development Strategy), the Guide incorporates regional and international best practices and innovative approaches to support eco-business zone development.

Purpose of the GuideThe Guide is intended to be a resource as new employment areas are developed to ensure policies, procedures and standards are aligned with the intent of creating more sustainable employment lands throughout the Town of Caledon.

It is also intended that the Guide be shared with other municipalities to help create enhanced economic, social and environmental benefits in employment lands across the country.

Project PartnersFederation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) – funding partner;

Light House Sustainable Building Centre – consultant;

Town of Caledon – funding and delivery partner;

TRCA – funding and delivery partner;

Region of Peel – delivery partner.

Guide ContentsThe Guide is divided into eight sections covering a range of topics and providing municipal staff with the insights and tools necessary to encourage the development of eco-business zones (Attachment 1). Appendices also provide an illustrated glossary of terms, detailed case studies and a summary list of guidelines.

NEXT STEPSTRCA to actively promote the Guide to TRCA’s local and regional municipal partners within the Pearson Eco-Business Zone, as well as to others upon request.

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunding in the amount of $93,335 was approved by FCM, through its Green Municipal Fund. Additional support was also committed by the Town of Caledon ($28,267 cash and $46,411 in-kind) and TRCA ($48,087 cash and 16,970 in-kind) for the completion of the Guide.

148

Future promotion costs will be covered through the 2014 contributions from the Region of Peel, and are anticipated not to exceed $8,000 (including HST).

The Living City Strategic Plan AlignmentThe present initiative stems from the following strategies from The Living City Strategic Plan:

Leadership Strategy 1 - Green the Toronto region’s economy.

Leadership Strategy 4 - Create complete communities that integrate nature and the built

environment.Enabling Strategy 8 - Gather and share the best urban sustainability knowledge.

Report prepared by: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316Email: [email protected] Information contact: Alex Dumesle, extension 5316Email: [email protected]: May 05, 2014Attachments: 1

149

Attachment 1

Table 1 - A Guide to Eco-Business Zone Planning & Development Table of ContentsSection 1 OverviewSection 2 What is an Eco-Business Zone? Guiding principles and case

examples.Section 3 The Integrated Design Process What is it and how to form the

team?Section 4 Eco-Business Subdivision

PlanningLand use, subdivision layout, access, movement, open space and stormwater management frameworks.

Section 5 Eco-Business Infrastructure Design

Land use, overall infrastructure layout, transportation, access, movement, open space, landscape and stormwater management frameworks, water and waste water, energy systems and materials use and management.

Section 6 Eco-Business Parcel Development

Parcel use, site layout, built form and character, transportation, access, movement, private open space, landscape and stormwater management frameworks, water and waste water, energy systems and materials use & management.

Section 7 Case study: Coleraine Drive West Illustration of guiding principles using a hypothetical Eco-Business Zone and triple bottom line evaluation.

Section 8 Implementation Tools Sample zoning and incentives.

_________________________________________

150

RES.#A72/14 - PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERYAssessment of Cost Recovery and Service Delivery supporting the 2014-2015 Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services Fee Schedule.

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Linda Pabst

WHEREAS, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff established the 2012-2013 Fees Schedule for all plan review services that aimed to achieve a 100% cost recovery target for the development review functions within the Planning and Development Division;

WHEREAS, staff have committed to monitor the trends in submission demand, level of service, revenue collection and cost recovery for the preliminary period of change in 2012-13 and report back to the Authority and our stakeholders on the status of cost recovery;

WHEREAS, TRCA follows the guidelines from the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees and TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, a base fee adjustment for cost of living is required every two years, in addition to provision of a comprehensive level of service /cost recovery assessment;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has discussed the outcomes of the cost recovery assessment with our municipal partners, and BILD prior to seeking Authority approval;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the fee adjustment proposal be approved and that staff be authorized to make the refinements to the text as clarifications requested by BILD, and that the refined fee schedules be effective immediately to support the new growth planning efforts.

MOTION TO DEFER

Moved by: Mike MattosSeconded by: Jim Tovey

THAT item AUTH7.4 - Planning and Permitting Administration Cost Recovery be deferred to Authority Meeting #5/14, scheduled to be held on June 20, 2014.

THE MOTION TO DEFER WAS NOT CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION WAS CARRIED

BACKGROUNDThe last comprehensive fee schedule adjustment and cost recovery assessment for TRCA’s Planning and Development function took place in late 2011.

151

At that time, a new fee schedule for 2012-13 was initiated based on trends of submissions for planning and permitting review and an assessment of the potential forecast of submissions – setting a new approach for fee recovery targeting a 100% revenue stream for development related submissions. The cost of staff delivery was also assessed on a projected basis at that time. Planning and Development staff have monitored the project review demands and revenue flow over the last two years to determine our current level of service and cost recovery.

In January of this year, TRCA adjusted the fee schedule to incorporate a cost of living inflationary increase of 5% (2.5% over 2 years) to be effective January 17,2014, with the understanding that a more comprehensive cost recovery effort would be conducted in the spring. Now that more detailed information has become available on service and financial performance we are bringing this assessment to the Authority. TRCA also has a better handle on the forthcoming growth related community plans now that landowners and municipalities have been in dialogue since the beginning of the new year.

We have conducted our assessment to meet the Province’s guidelines and TRCA’s Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009 in preparing this report.

The Planning and Development Division includes four (4) sub-groups – Planning and Regulation Development Review, Policy and Development Regulation, Environmental Assessment Planning and Compliance functions. These professional teams review all development and infrastructure projects affected by our regulation and mandate, from strategic policy planning, development and environmental assessment review through to construction compliance.

Generally, the implementation of the new fee schedule, as a method to improve service delivery has progressed very smoothly with the support of BILD and many of our municipal partners who are also anxious to move through the approvals process with adequate service coverage. We have successfully moved the cost recovery of the private landowner plan review from 55-60% in 2011 to just over 80% recovery in 2012 and 2013. Based on trends that we see in workload fluctuations year to year, this is an excellent outcome for the first 2-year fee recovery testing. Although we will continue to work towards a target of 90-100% to cover Planning Division deficiencies as we move into the next stages of growth planning, we believe that we have successfully achieved a major component of plan review financing and have alleviated pressures on the operating budget. Year to year there will be fluctuation in the range of general municipal planning activities that are required as well.

Trends in Workload and Service DeliveryPlanning and Development has assessed the workload volume and types of application reviews conducted for both 2012 and 2013. In 2012, Planning and Development experiences the highest volume of planning and permitting applications in about twelve years, with a distinct increase in the review of large scale Secondary Plans, Block Plans and associated MESP (Master Environmental Services Plans), as well as, technically complex submissions. Many of these applications are part of new growth area projects. Table 1 and Table 2 provide the comparative summary of submissions by municipality and by TRCA review team for the last few years including 2012 and 2013. Our summary follows:

152

The volume of new planning applications has remained steadily robust over the last few years with a milestone year in volume in 2012 for “base” planning applications. These reviews inclusive of consents, variances, site plans and draft plans of subdivision experienced a decrease in 2013 by about 50 applications out of a total 709 (7%) new applications in 2012. These changes were seen spread through Brampton, Richmond Hill and Toronto, with all other municipalities remaining steady in volume.

Growth area MESP’s (Master Environmental Servicing Plans) tied to secondary plan and block plan projects consumed a huge effort in 2012 and 2013 with 17-18 projects of various scales, including the final expedited MESP and draft plan review efforts for the Seaton community in Durham. Work is anticipated for 7 additional MESP/subwatershed projects in 2014, spread through Caledon, Brampton, Vaughan and Markham.

Construction permitting rose by 3% totaling 1064 new submissions in 2013 as the construction industry continues to be active building new communities and infrastructure plans evolve into implementation stages to support growth areas. This level of work is above our projections.

Services in concept advisory services and solicitor realty inquiries have also remained steady over the last two years.

The Environmental Assessments group has been building capacity for new infrastructure assignments through specialized service agreements. Environmental Assessments planning was down in volume in 2013 but the construction related detailed design and permitting activities increased significantly in the same year. New planning EA’s are anticipated to increase for 2014 as agencies shift their own work priorities.

The number of compliance violations rose in 2013 due to the volume of construction activity and possibly the provision of increased presence in the field. A total of 131 violations were laid in 2013 versus 93 in 2012. Our restructured compliance team conducted a total of 3857 permit site inspections in 2013.

The number of OMB hearings efforts has increased significantly as an outcome of several Official Plan Reviews in Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Brampton, and Vaughan. TRCA senior staff were actively involved in 31 hearings in 2013, inclusive of mediations and negotiations, with an additional 8 Official Plan OMB appeals with multiple appellants (Vaughan, for example, has 67 appellants with conservation related issues).

TRCA Policy staff and Development Review have also been actively involved in 11 Comprehensive Reviews of Special Policy Areas (SPAs) and revitalization studies for flood vulnerable areas (FVA) across the jurisdiction to facilitate updated land use plans associated with flood management strategies. These include the Lower Don, Woodbridge, Toronto, Downtown Brampton, and Lake Wilcox in Richmond Hill, in which we are engaging with the Province for approvals. There are several new projects coming with new studies in Bolton, Markham, Brampton south, City of Mississauga and Toronto.

153

A major shift in service demand has occurred over the last 2 years with increases in expedited reviews driven by the applicants, the municipalities and/or by Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeals. Even certain MESP processing has been reviewed through OMB timetables which have put enormous pressure on senior staff time to not only review but attend mediations, strategic meetings and negotiations with our lawyers, as well as, conduct repetitive engineering modeling reviews to input into complex negotiations. These service delivery pressures are being felt by not just TRCA but by our municipal partners as well. TRCA's efforts save municipalities hundred of thousands of dollars for technical input and legal managing of important environmental issues through OMB.

No direct revenue covers these intense senior efforts or the loss of review effort on other competing applications. Similarly the same senior staff team and our policy team has been occupied with several Official Plan reviews in Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga, Brampton, Pickering and Richmond Hill, with subsequent OMB appeals bridging 2012 and 2013. These appeal hearings will continue into 2014 as well.

Changes in the fee schedule and resulting revenue for 2012 assisted greatly in building modest capacity for staff planners and ecology/engineering support for conducting the review of “base” applications for planning and permitting. However through 2013 increasing MESP technical reviews and complex negotiations drove the intensity of senior review effort up particularly with the concurrent reviews for major growth areas in neighbouring municipalities. Competing time demands between municipalities has been difficult to manage equally for all.

The development review workload pressures remained heavy in 2013 with over 31 OMB hearings/mediations, and 18 Municipal Growth Area (Secondary/Block) Plan processes. We are also working with Markham, Vaughan, Brampton and Caledon to set-up 7 new initiatives for growth plans involving secondary and block plan processes. Special study terms of reference for subwatershed and MESP technical work program cost recovery agreements are being put into place to cover the lack of staff capacity to conduct these new initiatives, particularly with competing municipal/developer needs. Discussions are initiated and agreements will need to be confirmed with landowner groups to set the appropriate fee mechanisms in place to address review responsibilities beyond the existing fee schedule level.

Fluctuations commonly occur with “base” planning and permitting applications from year to year, but a major shift to process growth area studies with municipal partners will be a huge part of a rapidly increasing workload for 2014 -15-16. Senior project management and technical capabilities are required from TRCA to support these complex efforts both for greenfield and urban intensification. We are projecting that there will be at least 23 active new community plan areas within our jurisdiction for 2014-15, on top of the regular base submissions.

Plan review continues to be technically complex as applications move into more sensitive landscapes with water balance considerations involving engineering modeling updates, geotechnical and hydrogeology expertise. Our engineering and hydrogeology staff complement is under increasing service pressure.

154

TRCA Development Planning and Policy teams are working together to complete 11 flood vulnerable Special Policy Area updates. These SPAs are often in areas needing development revitalization, and where development applications need input with updated hydrology modeling and risk assessment direction. This is a ground breaking work effort tailored to assist municipalities to set land use and development directions within flood vulnerable communities – particularly with the increasing concerns about severe storms and the impacts on older communities that are flood prone.

Environmental Assessment TrendsIn the suburban municipalities, there has been a steady increase in the number of regional and local infrastructure master plans, as well as, environmental assessment permitting. There has been steady growth in transit related projects, as well as utility projects that include gas lines and telecommunications. With 23 communities currently in the planning stages, it is anticipated that this growth will only continue to increase in future years. In developed communities, particularly Toronto, there has been a steady increase in the number of emergency works projects. This relates directly to the fact that old and failing infrastructure was historically built in valleylands. As the rivers and streams downcut and meander over time (a factor of natural process and exacerbated by poorly situated infrastructure and the effects of climate change), the infrastructure is left exposed. Repair to these pipes and bridges is becoming more complex, as well as, more urgent. As the city continues to intensify, the stress on the older infrastructure will also continue to increase, and it is fully anticipated that the trend in increased emergency projects will continue. Regardless of whether the infrastructure is serving suburban or urban nodes, the complexity of the TRCA review has also changed significantly to account for changes in science and information. Geomorphic assessments, political inputs, redevelopment/intensification occurring in regulated areas including flood vulnerable sites, ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas are all major factors in infrastructure development today. There is also a growing change in partnership opportunities between infrastructure providers and TRCA Restoration Services, from monitoring, to planting and stream realignments. These new synergies between the TRCA and the infrastructure provider to work together in the project construction phase provides essential expert services for challenging construction sites, saves public funds and timing delays to support public infrastructure and private community development.

TRCA provides our municipal partners, with service agreements, with a dedicated planning and technical review team, detailed service delivery standards, project tracking and reporting, monthly team meetings, and weekly in-office staff support. The fees are negotiated annually through the municipal capital delivery programs, including water and wastewater, roads and transit services. Service agreements have been in place with York and Peel Region, the City of Brampton and Enbridge Gas since early 2000’s and are continually refined to meet shifts in service demands. On a project basis, TRCA also has service agreements in place with Metrolinx Rapid Transit Implementation (RTI) and the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP). Negotiations are underway with the City of Markham and Metrolinx.

155

Level of ServicePlanning application timelines are usually lead by the municipal process, however, TRCA works to meet our 30-45 day turnaround for standard applications, with some exceptions for very complex files or where unusual technical assessments are required e.g. engineering modeling. Permitting applications also maintain an 80 to 90% adherence to provincial time guidelines.

Environmental Assessment team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 80-90% of the time. For non-service delivery partners, the standards are met approximately 70% of the time.

The following detailed summary provides an overview of the service delivery tied to current guidelines for Planning & Development submissions response in Peel, York and Durham Regions. We believe that our service delivery is generally quite exemplary under current workload pressures and the complexity of applications. Other agencies and municipalities are also facing service delivery challenges.

Peel and York Planning Review teams:

Standard/Straight forward applications: includes standard permits, Committee of Adjustment, site plans and condominium applications, Very High consistency with service delivery guidelines - 90%+ compliance.

Rezoning applications and OPAs: Very High, 90%+ compliance.

Subdivisions: 75% compliance. Variance typically the result of incomplete or premature applications, and very complex subdivisions. Straight forward subdivisions have Very High compliance.

MESPs less complex: generally meeting the 30-60 day review time (close to 60 days) Resubmission generally taking about 30 days, depending upon complexity. Overall compliance 80-90%. Typical reason for variance, workload volume both within and between teams.

MESPs, Complex: Typical review time 90-120 days, where 100% completed within 120 days, 75% completed within 90 days, and approximately 60% completed within 60 days. Typical reasons for variance, lack of integrating of components of MESP, incomplete and piecemeal MESP submissions, errors in the submission, time delay between submission by developer to municipality and our receipt, and balancing workload.

The following service delivery comments are provided for Toronto and Durham Service Deliveries:

Straightforward applications, includes standard permits, minor variances, site plans: Very high consistency with service delivery guidelines. 100% compliance. Typical minor works are turned around in about 2 weeks from complete application; variances are turned around within municipal deadline which is typically 20 days from date of notice.

156

Rezoning applications, OPAs, complex land division applications, major permits, permits associated with violations: Very high. 90% + compliance. In Toronto there is a strict "complete application determination" process which helps to speed up the process. Ajax also requires pre-consultation meetings.

Subdivisions: Very high. 90% + compliance. In Pickering typical delays for the application are the result of incomplete or premature applications, and very complex subdivisions. Straight forward subdivisions or fully complete applications have very high compliance. Clearance of Draft Plan Conditions usually done in a matter of days.

MESPs: Very high. TRCA has Seaton in this jurisdiction, and experience with A9, Duffins Heights and Duffins Precinct. TRCA met and exceeded the agreed upon 2 or 3 month turnaround. Delays are strictly the result of incomplete or simply incorrect or uncoordinated information being provided. The review team has been stellar through unrealistic deadlines.

The technical team disciplines in engineering, geotechnical and ecology are usually on or before service delivery deadlines with some exception when workload imbalances occur. Hydrogeology and geomorphology review is usually on time but with greater sensitivity to workload imbalance.

In a few municipalities, applications are routinely determined to be “complete” even when they clearly are not, which results in overall delays for the proponent. However, once complete, compliance is very high. Sometimes we end up with situations where the application materials are extremely disjointed and the review teams have more questions than comments. In those situations, we will call a technical workshop or special meeting with the municipality and the developer to clarify issues before sending out comments. In those cases, the comment letters appear delayed, but solutions are in progress.

York Region plan review teams, although split in 2 separate teams for better coverage has significant pressures for file review and has been addressing over double the volume of planning and permitting files that other regional municipalities forward for TRCA's input. Review team assistance is required.

Efficiency in OperationsThe Plan Review teams for Toronto, Durham, York and Peel have continued to run as lean as possible in 2012-13 with minor staffing adjustments to redistribute staffing skills covering submission demands. Each planning-project management team was adjusted by 0.5 FTE to assist in back-filling senior staff. The following overview provides just a 2013 snapshot of the planning team coverage and numbers of new applications per year/per planner/per team:

Peel /York East Team (includes Markham and Richmond Hill)

Planning Applications 360Permits 257Concepts/Advisory 44Violations 19

Total New files 680 (managed by 7 FTE)

157

Toronto/Durham Team (includes Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge)

Planning Applications 142Permits 346Concepts 83Violations 31

Total New Files 602 (managed by 6 FTE)

Vaughan/York West Team (includes Aurora, King, Whitchurch-Stouffville)

Planning Applications 155Permits 178Concepts 43Violations 30

Total New files 406 (managed by 5 FTE)

Each planner is managing between 100-150 files per year including a significant carry- over file base from previous years. This does not include responsibilities for hearings, mediations and other strategic efforts to assist municipalities such as DART/DARC collaborations, working meeting with applicants, pre-consultation file start-ups, etc.

Despite an effort to backfill our plan review team to allow more senior flexibility for major files, we continue to find pressures with accommodating a workload that comes from multiple municipalities and has no manageable timelines. In fact, with all municipalities well into their growth plan community plan projects, and gearing up for even more community plans driven by landowner objectives, the multiple pressures are not sustainable without a major infusion of funding tailored for senior staff time. The unscheduled “randomness” of applications, re-submissions and the short turnaround expectations for commenting and meetings with agencies has become difficult to coordinate and provide manpower, even with strident streamlining efforts completed every year. A greater level of project management has to be established between the municipalities, TRCA and the landowner teams to work through the processes constructively with high quality submissions, collaborative discussions, and realistic scheduling expectations.

The Enforcement/Compliance team was restructured in 2012-13 with a senior level retirement and a new managerial position. Re-structuring of staff responsibilities and balancing of workload took place within refined officer positions and new field boundaries. This re-structuring positively provided a net savings to the team in salary expenditure, a more efficient distribution of field responsibilities and capabilities within the 5-officer team, as well as, succession planning for future.

The Environmental Assessment team has remained steady with their base workload for lower tier and agency infrastructure, and service agreements for several municipalities in Peel, York, Brampton and Toronto. We continued to expand our service delivery capability through new service agreements with several transit and utility companies in 2012-13 to foster more responsive service delivery and dedicated staff involvement in submission review.

158

Value Added ServicesIn the fee schedule of 2012, TRCA introduced several new “fees for service” categories to assist applicants move through the sometimes complex approval process particularly with technically challenged site proposals. Increased senior staff involvement in all levels of major applications has been inbedded in many projects over the last two years – this assists with proponent concerns and facilitating negotiations in a timely manner. Improved services for Pre-consultation efforts and project management assistance have been used with some proponents to manage through the complex approvals. The original expedited review fee was essentially tied to urgently needed conditions of draft approval – however, it is in increasing demand from applicants to be applied to other urgent approval situations. This service puts difficult demands on senior staff that are already working significant amounts of after hours. P&D have had to shift staff from other TRCA projects to work on demanding community growth projects and overlapping pressures from competing municipalities. Further consideration of this fee for service is warranted as growth area efforts continue.

We also continue, for instance, to respond and to attend negotiations for OMB hearings where we have no control over the triggers or process timing. Our expedited reviews and participation with municipalities assist the process and have usually allowed environmental issues to be mediated out of the hearing process, with benefits to the municipality and the applicant. We have been successful with these OMB endeavours with limited to no legal assistance and manage our legal fee budget carefully.

The technical collaborative that TRCA senior staff provides in all areas of environmental planning, engineering and ecology saves the municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds associated with meeting complex legislative requirements and high service demand from the development industry.

Streamlining Efforts during 2012-13Planning and Development has worked this year to improve many areas of our daily operations and customer service for efficiencies, as per our streamlining proposals of 2011. We have worked to improve:

accounting and financial tracking through our new corporate accounting measures;

established a pilot project for on-line payment;

worked towards digital submission improvements with our partner municipalities and the consulting industry;

established a major internal overhaul of our application/approval data base process – with a new streamlined digitized application circulation/ project tracking system;

streamlined the approvals process for minor and standard permitting applications with the new Provincially approved staff delegation process. This is a significant scheduling improvement for both our development industry and municipal partners.

159

Details of the staff delegation process can be found in our report to the Authority on November 1,

2013. Details are posted on our Planning and Development website.

Future streamlining efforts will include continued improvements towards less paperwork and digital efficiencies in file management, and more triage style/project management approaches to development review for large complex files.

Cost Recovery AnalysisTable 3 provides an updated summary of the cost associated with the operation of the Planning & Development function (inclusive of engineering and ecology), with comparisons from 2011 through to 2013. Our staffing expenditures have remained similar to 2011 levels with only minor adjustments and reclassification of responsibilities. There has been no major staff infusion from 2011 staffing levels.

TRCA planning staff has worked diligently to collect fee revenues without the assistance of additional administrative support. The revenue generated in 2012 and 2013 is identified below and has done extremely well to recover the baseline cost (or over 80%) of our Planning & Development operations for Planning review. We will continue to work towards recovery of additional planning deficiencies to reach an estimated revenue target of $5,157,000 as established in our assessment of 2011. The revenue collected is highlighted below:

2012 2013Total Planning and Permitting revenue $4,505,050 $4,192,000Total Environmental Assessment revenue $626,220 $682,950TOTAL REVENUE /collected $5,131,270 $4,874,950

There was a successful additional increase in collection of $1,455,050 in 2012 over 2011 revenue, and subsequently, $1,142,000 over 2011 in 2013. The difference in shortfall between our ideal revenue target and actual revenues for 2012-13 ranged between $650,000 - $965,000. Our ultimate target may need to be more flexible based on variables with the volume of base applications, however, we will work to decrease this gap with our revised fee proposal.

The Environmental Assessment team has recovered additional revenue on fee collection, as well as, with an additional increase of between $176,220 in 2012, and $232,950 in 2013, respectively. Although the EA team has not had such a marked increase through individual EA fee collection, they have been very successful building up annual revenue through a “service agreement” approach with municipalities with large EA volume and implementation timing pressures. These service agreements have worked so well to build dedicated staffing capacity on an annual basis, that other agencies and utility companies are now participating as well to obtain dedicated service and attention to fast tracked projects. The EA team has built an increase in agreement-type revenue from approx. $1.2 million in 2011 to $1.8 in 2013/14.

The Fee Collection Challenge

All Planning Departments in conservation authorities and municipal government experience fluctuations in types of applications and the roller-coaster of revenue generation due to changes in volume and complexity of applications versus the standard of service delivery.

160

For the Planning and Permitting Review function, the change in revenue in 2013 is directly attributable to three(3) factors:

The decrease in approximately 50 major planning applications between 2012 and 2013 which caused a net loss of revenue of about $500,000 to $550,000. These applications included a shift of a mix of subdivisions, site plans, consents and a few OPA/ZBA in Toronto, Richmond Hill and Brampton.

The loss of adequate fee coverage attributed to planning processes for complex files, MESP’s and special studies supporting growth areas including phasing of work, expedited requirements, inadequate or repetitive submissions, lack of project management, landowner complications and professional integration of technical findings. These workpath deviations have been out of our control.

Lack of mechanisms to collect fees for unusual or prolonged and challenging processes e.g. OMB, Special Policy Area reviews, flood vulnerable growth area negotiations (e.g. Vaughan Metropolitan Centre), extended construction periods for permits and management of infractions/lack of compliance.

The first point is clear that reductions in volume will affect revenue, however, when TRCA is managing several thousand new and current applications in planning and permitting the full complement of experienced staff is required to maintain service delivery in busy times.

Our monitoring of complex application processes and the MESP service delivery identifies that our fee estimates were covering more straight forward block plans several years ago, but are not covering the complexities of recent large or complex submissions. Our MESP fee cannot adapt easily to the variations in each municipality without some custom negotiations to address anomalies in the process. For example, applicants are demanding phasing the MESP’s and fast tracking certain landholdings to address urgent employment targets, adding subwatershed/secondary planning processes as separate components, dividing community plans between landholders and professional teams, lack of adherence to approved Terms of Reference and agreed schedules, and creating unrealistic deadlines. All projects are requiring the need for extensive meetings and technical working sessions to generate project management moving forward and more collaborative solutions to difficult planning/technical issues.

TRCA’s current fee for MESP’s will not stretch to accommodate subwatershed work programs nor to absorb alterations in the process as described above. We particularly need additional coverage for fees for the extensive meeting and working sessions that are forming the norm with the applicant’s consultants and between the applicants and the public agencies, as well as processes that continue well past a 2-year norm.

161

Over the last few months, TRCA and several of our municipal partners have initiated discussions with several development teams in Markham, Brampton, and Vaughan about major, new projects and secondary planning processes that are coming forward for 2014 and 2015. All parties agree that a customized fee approach fronted by the developers is the only way to obtain funds to start new processes for seven new community initiatives – no agency has the staffing capacity right now without this funding assistance.

Many of our existing MESP’s that are in progress are well beyond the 2 year re-evaluation criteria in our guidelines. Our assessment indicates that in most active MESP processes we are spending on average about $100,000/per year/per MESP in staff time for 5 professional disciplines’ involvement, with up to $50,000 in additional meetings, working sessions and project coordination between landowners and municipalities. This exceeds our current fee for MESP’s when most are 3 years and longer in timing.

Our cost of living inflationary increase will generate about $200,000 of additional revenue for next year. To work closer to achieve our fee target coverage, TRCA would have to generate either another 20% more in fee generation or selectively adjust fees where workload pressures prevail, to accommodate an increased revenue stream for the planning and permitting function to move closer to the desired target.

Proposal for 2014- 2015 Cost RecoveryIt is recommended that in order to bring the level of service up to meet new workload demands through 2014 -15, and to target a revenue stream that more closely reaches 100% recovery, TRCA should not increase all fees but should adjust those application types that are putting more time/cost pressure on the staffing complement. The strategy should be three-fold:

1) Increase all major and complex file categories with an increased “coordination/project management” adjustment of 25%.

2) Adjust all current MESP processes to reflect additional efforts after a 2 year timeframe per our current guidelines, inclusive of coordination meetings, expedited review, phasing of project components, and, where appropriate, specialized technical review e.g. hydrogeology. Renegotiated fees will be customized on a time allowance basis.

3) Going forward, negotiate all new 2014-15 fee service agreements for subwatershed or MESP (Master Environmental Servicing Plans) with additional allowances for project management, phasing and expedited review work tasks, and other special timing and technical considerations as required. Allowances over and above the base MESP fee must be tailored to increased staffing capacity to take on concurrent studies within different municipalities.

Negotiations must also continue with municipal partners to build customized budgets for special urban revitalization studies outside the standard fee based structure (e.g. FVA's, urban MESP areas).

162

In addition, it is recommended that our new proposed fee schedule for 2014-15 include several minor modifications based on our discussions with staff and stakeholders about improved implementation, streamlining and housekeeping. Other minor refinements for streamlining include:

Planning and Permitting Fee Schedule Expanding the concept development category to allow applicant more choice –

residential, expedited real estate evaluation, technical review and input. Blending the application and clearance fees for all OPA and ZBA’s for easier collection

and streamlining. Expanding the reactivation fee for larger projects. Adding new clearance letter category for other agencies (MOE, NEC, etc.), new

archaeological screening for private proposals on TRCA lands. Providing Fisheries Act review changes and clarifications; Adding a condominium administration clearance fee. Adding a Conformity Review Fee Clarification for Revisions, Re-issuance and Extensions of permits.

Environmental Assessment Fee Schedule Modifications for clarity - the review of Crown Corporations applications and possible

exemptions from TRCA regulatory approval; New categories of fees to assist applicants of infrastructure projects e.g., Voluntary

Project Review; National and Ontario Energy Board Applications; Environmental Management Plans (new category)

Clarification for Revisions, Re-Issuance and Extensions of permit; Compliance Monitoring – clarification for additional site visits.

The following three figures (Tables 1, 2, 3) provide the updated proposals for the Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fee Schedules, inclusive of the recommendations included above.

Discussion with BILD and Municipal partnersDiscussions with our municipal partners and development industry representatives, who are most affected by the pressures of growth planning and construction implementation, have been ongoing since the beginning of 2014. Custom fee negotiations with the development community to cover Municipal and TRCA staffing requirements, have already been agreed to in several instances in Markham, Vaughan, Caledon, Pickering and Brampton. The principles of financial coverage of these staffing pressures needs to continue with landowners and consultants as TRCA moves forward with other growth area updates.

163

A formal presentation was completed on May 8th with BILD representatives to discuss our final draft of the Living City Policy document, and to review this cost recovery report and revised fee schedule as attached. A working session is also planned for May 16th with our BILD working committee.

Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected]: May 13, 2014Attachments: 6

164

Attachment 1Table 1

Local Municipality 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Adjala-Tos. 1 3 2 1 0 0 2Ajax 27 27 7 14 12 12 15Aurora 2 0 0 1 0 1 1Brampton 89 48 42 31 57 65 46Caledon 63 70 63 37 55 68 93King 43 29 20 28 22 32 32Markham 60 56 32 45 66 56 51Mississauga 24 11 19 6 15 28 25Mono 1 1 0 0 1 1 2Niagara Esc. Com. 18 15 8 12 11 7 12Pickering 30 55 46 25 26 24 21Richmond Hill 82 103 73 84 115 157 129Toronto 125 157 136 133 134 118 94Uxbridge 6 6 5 6 7 5 12Vaughan 119 105 73 103 130 114 112Whitchurch-St. 23 18 12 7 5 19 10Durham Region (region apps. 0 2 0 0 1 0 0Peel Region (region apps.) 2 1 0 0 1 0 2York Region (region apps.) 2 1 0 0 0 2 0TOTAL: 717 708 538 533 658 709 659REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIESPeel Region 196 145 132 86 139 168 178York Region 331 312 210 268 338 381 335Durham Region 63 90 58 45 46 41 48Toronto 125 157 136 133 134 118 94PLANNING TEAMAdjala, Brampton, Caledon,

Markham, Miss., Mono, Richmond Hill

338 307 239 216 320 382 360

Aurora, King, Vaughan,

Whitchurch-Stouffvile187 152 105 139 157 166 155

Ajax, Pickering, Toronto, Uxbridge 188 245 194 178 179 159 142

SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATION RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY 2007-2013

YEAR

165

Attachment 2Table 2

Planning and Development

Performance/Trends - Updated April 2014

166

Attachment 3Table 3

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / ECOLOGY PLAN REVIEW FUNCTIONCost Assessment for 2012-13

Direct Plan & Permit Review Costs (Private Landowner

Development)

2011 $

2012-2013 $

Direct Levy/Capital Support for Plan Input (Policy, Technical,

Public Infrastructure)

2011 $

2012-2013 $

Planning staff 846,500 994,400 EA core staff (Planning) 549,000 596,000

Regulation staff 931,000 1,069,000 Expenses 40,000 40,000

Expenses 115,000 222,800 EA core staff (Ecology/engineering) 230,500 342,715

1,892,500 2,286,200 EA Property 90,000 90,000

EA Permit Compliance 175,000 178,200

IT Records/GIS 100,000 100,000

Permit Compliance 345,000 362,000 (2011 base) Subtotal 1,184,500 1,346,915

Ecology (Development Review)1,219,500 902,950

Planning/Ecology Service Level Deficiencies200,000 -

IT/Records/GIS 207,500 207,500 plus OVERHEAD 15% 207,670 202,000

Property 150,000 150,000 Total Levy Based EA Costs 1,592,170 1,548,915

Total existing operation 3,814,500 3,908,650 Policy/Supporting:

Planning Admin./Policy 209,500 248,000

572,200 586,300 Growth planning 147,000 142,000

Technical Regulation mapping 120,000 126,000

Baseline Costs * 4,386,700 4,495,000 SPA/Flood Risk 95,000 98,000

Planning Service Level Deficiencies 570,000 Regulation/Prov. Policy 137,000 130,000

Ecology Service Level Deficiencies 100,000 Floodplain mapping & modelling 200,000 232,000

plus OVERHEAD 15% 100,500 FVA & SPA technical studies 150,000 250,000

Total Plan & Permit Review Costs

5,157,200Total Levy Capital support for Plan Input and EA Review

2,650,670 2,774,915

Separate Service Agreements 1.8 million

* Assumptions: - 20% removed for staff admin./policy/other responsibilities.- No policy in direct operations costs.- overtime not in/or full overhead.

BASELINE SUMMARY: TOTAL Direct Plan and Permit Review Costs $5,157,200TOTAL Levy Support for Plan Input $2,650,670TOTAL Planning, EA and Permitting Function $7,807,870

April 2014

plus OVERHEAD 15% (accounting/vehicles, insurance, etc.)

167

Attachment 4Schedule #1

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES May 2014

Introduction

TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Planning Services was approved by Resolution #A237/13 of the Authority on January 31, 2014. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA’s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities.

The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of planning and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee.

Administration of Applications and Fees

1. All planning application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA.

2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.

3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with the municipality and TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the planning application should be held. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, then fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO’s Office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development.6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The final clearance fee

will be billed directly by the TRCA and paid prior to final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days.

7. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application.

8. Only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a combined Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision application). The highest rate of fees applies. If the applications are received more than 6 months apart then separate fees apply.

9. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or for development application scenarios not captured in the Fee Schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for fast-tracked or unique circumstances for large scale or complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged after one year and for unreasonable delays.

10. All application fees (except minor Concept Development) include one initial site visit, where appropriate. 11. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect new planning or regulatory legislative requirements.(e.g. Bill

51)12. Base geotechnical and hydrogeology review is included. Applications will be subject to an additional fee for

complex reviews and advisory services. TRCA will inform applicants as early as possible in the process. The standard additional charge is $2,100 and the major additional charge is $3,150 - $4,725 based on scope.

168

13. Any application that is inactive for 5 years or more is considered dormant by TRCA and a new application for processing and fee purposes is required.

14. Federal Fisheries Act changes:Modifications have been made to the fee schedules to reflect recent amendments to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Level III partnership agreement under the Fisheries Act for development review applicants. TRCA will continue to deliver services directed toward the protection, restoration and management of aquatic systems, including fish and fish habitat as an integral part of its watershed management and regulatory responsibilities as well as agreements with Ministry of Natural Resources and our memoranda of understanding with municipalities. Fish habitat information and field data will be provided to applicants as needed for the new Fisheries Act self assessment process or any DFO authorizations

Administration of Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Applications

The Fee Schedule sets a base fee across the jurisdiction as follows:

Proposals 25ha or less: $ 7,500 Base FeeProposals greater than 25ha: $15,000 Base Fee

1. An additional baseline charge of $475 per gross hectare is applied to each application. The gross area includes natural systems.

2. An additional project management fee will be added to cover meetings for committee and team coordination, as well as, general meeting sessions (Range $25,000 - $50,000).

The following apply to MESP applications:

1. The Fee Schedule assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP scope of work and progress related to fee status after a two year process. Additional fees will be added for extended timeframes and associated multiple reviews. Payment due for changes in scope and timeline at the 2-year review date.

2. A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties including the municipality, TRCA and the proponent.

3. Fee charges apply to Residential and Industrial/Commercial Block planning. Non-participating landowners need to apply and pay the MESP component commensurate with current fee at the time.

4. The fee schedule includes the following MESP milestone payment structure:

MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE

a. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) Base Fee applies (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation)

b. Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable(Includes existing conditions report/field work/ First MESP Submission/Review)

c. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payabled. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA 30% payable

(Maximum 3 review submissions)

5. All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/Block Plan process and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved Fee Schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans of subdivision if an MESP is completed, approved and paid for.

6. Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process will be charged an additional fee of $105 per unit, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). Subdivisions not included as part of original MESP/Block Plan approval will be charged on a per unit basis for updated plans.

7. On occasion, MESP fee requirements may be scoped to the type of municipal process and scheduling parameters (e.g. fast-tracked, updates and transitional files, reduced scope of work, phasing, additional reviews).

169

8. Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc).

Definitions

The following definitions apply to applications to determine fee review category:

Screening Assessment – projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) but does not affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA. No technical review is associated with this project.

Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to only one technical discipline.

Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (i.e. standard EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review).

Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests can be met (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting.

Complex – projects for which a full suite of applicable technical studies are required to demonstrate consistency with TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Complex projects typically involve extensive modifications to the landscape. Complex projects may also be characterized by one or more of the following:

a. The need for multiple resubmissions or extensive working meetings; b. The need for additional TRCA technical assessments (i.e. technical modeling refinements); c. Extensive technical study review, including complex hydrogeological, fluvial geomorphology; natural

channel design, wetland interference, environmental impact studies;d. Require more than one day of TRCA fieldwork.

Incomplete Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has provided a checklist of requirements, and the application has not met all requirements.

Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an “applicant driven formal modification” will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has received planning approval from the municipality.

170

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES

May 2014

Fee Schedule for Planning Services

174

Attachment 5

Schedule #2TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For

PERMITTING SERVICESFor Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06)

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES May 2014

Introduction

TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) was adopted by Resolution #A237/13 of the Authority on January 31, 2014. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA’s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities.

The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of regulatory and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee.

Administration of Applications and Fees:

1. All permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA.

2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.

3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the permit application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended for an appeal.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development.6. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is

not paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit. 7. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level

of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.

8. All permits are issued for two years. Requests for a permit issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

175

9. There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made and upon notification 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit, applicants may apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works, before the works are considered new. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place. There is no guarantee of an automatic approval. In the Application for Permit Re-issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/re-issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

10. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. 11. Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked

approvals (primarily clearance), and can only be approved by Director as staffing capability allows.

Definitions

The following apply to Residential Property Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (e.g. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to one technical discipline. Projects include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages, and pools and placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill.

Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (e.g. standard EIS Environmental Impact Statement review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Projects include additions, structures or buildings; works in the floodplain and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement.

Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program and policy interests can be met. Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting. Projects include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; all works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill.

176

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES

For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06)

May 2014

179

Attachment 6

Schedule #3TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule forENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICESIMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

May 2014

IntroductionTRCA’s Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services was adopted by Resolution #A237/13 of the Authority Board on January 31, 2014. The Fee Schedule was developed in consultation with municipalities through an assessment of service delivery which adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of Environmental Assessment (EA) services consistent with TRCA’s Service Delivery Agreements and/or Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities.

The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of EA and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee.

General Notes1. All EA and permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning

and Development Division of TRCA.2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's EA Senior Manager or the Director,

Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the EA or

permit application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the EA Senior Manager or Director, Planning and Development.

6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received.

7. All permits are issued for two years. Requests for a permit issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

8. On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Re-issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/re-issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

9. Generally, only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies. However, when there are two separate approvals required, such as a permit and site plan review, two separate fees are applied in accordance with the respective fee schedules.

10. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant.

11. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit, if needed, up to ½ day for minor or standard files and up to 1 day for major or complex files.

180

12. Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule.13. For Class Environmental Assessments, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA

document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied.

14. Planning Act applications rates can be found in the TRCA Planning Services Fee Schedule .15. Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.16. Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.17. Development activities within regulated areas that are on lands owned by, and/or conducted by, a provincial

or federal agency, are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act . As such permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may apply as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process , below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals.

18. Development activities within regulated areas that are conducted by proponents identified, through legislation, as being exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, do not require permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06.Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may apply as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process , below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals.

19. Unless noted above (#15 or 16) development activities within regulated areas, watercourse or wetlands on lands through which an easement, or other form of permission, has been obtained from a crown agency are not exempt from the regulatory approval process of the Conservation Authorities Act . This includes, but is not limited to municipal, gas, oil, electricity or utility projects.

20. Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies and engineering review reports are required as part of the submission, together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; standard project review means that scoped technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology, ecological, stormwater), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. Major and complex project review means that comprehensive technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as meander belt, hydrogeology, geotechnical, environmental impact studies) together with detailed design drawings if appropriate.

21. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. All others are expected to purchase data as per the fee schedule. Current data sharing agreements are in place with all municipalities in the TRCA jurisdiction, as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources, and various service agreement partners.

Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process1. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act , R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act ,

R.S.O. 1990, C. 27, the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act :

Metrolinx GO Transit Hydro One* (and local subsidiaries, such as Brampton Hydro One) Ministry of Transportation Ontario Realty Corporation (Infrastructure Ontario) Ministry of Natural Resources Greater Toronto Airports Authority Parc Downsview Park

*A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been negotiated with Hydro One and Conservation Ontario and applies to all conservation authorities, including TRCA. The MOU prescribes the communication process to be followed between Hydro One and conservation authorities, as well as best management practices that may be implemented by Hydro One when carrying out construction or maintenance operations. Consultation with conservation authorities is required prior to all planned and emergency activities. It is acknowledged that conservation authorities may charge review fees. Permission to enter is required for works on conservation authority-owned lands, including access.

181

2. In accordance with the Canadian Transportation Act* , railways are exempt from the regulatory approval process under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for works essential to railway operations :

Canadian National Railway Canadian Pacific Railway

* Under the provisions of the Canadian Transportation Act, CN and CP railway companies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for all works that are essential to railway operations. These works include, but are not limited to, watercourse alterations and diversions, culvert and bridge modifications, and the construction of tunnels, embankments, bridges and roads. However, the railway is to do as little damage as possible and is to restore watercourses as near as possible to its former condition.

3. In accordance with CPC-2-0-03 — Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems , antenna systems and towers (e.g., Rogers, Bell and TELUS), are exempt from Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act , and Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act processes and requirements and are the direct responsibility of Industry Canada. Notwithstanding, there are provisions for stakeholder consultation that generally applies to all new towers greater than 15 metres in height. Proponents of these facilities will often use the site plan process under the Planning Act to facilitate such communication.

4. Environmental Assessment Act Requirements:

If projects are subject to a federal or provincial environmental assessment, review fees will be charged.

5. Planning Act Requirements:

If proponents are subject to review under the Planning Act, or seek approval under the Planning Act on a voluntary basis, review fees will be charged.

6. Detailed Design Requirements:

TRCA Permits: These proponents are exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required),

TRCA Voluntary Project Review:Proponents may seek TRCA review on a voluntary basis. In such cases, TRCA will charge review fees to compensate for its time. In cases where the land owner requires TRCA Voluntary Project Review for a particular project, TRCA will charge the proponent review fees to compensate for its time.

Fisheries Act Approvals: Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. Under the Fisheries Act self-assessment process, a proponent can voluntarily seek advice from TRCA as to whether the project is likely to cause “serious harm to fish” . In these instances TRCA, through its review, will assess if the project is likely to cause “serious harm to fish ” and advise the proponent.

Federal and Provincial Endangered Species Act Approvals:Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA.

National and Ontario Energy Board Applications

1. National and Ontario Energy Board Applications are a matter of exclusive federal or provincial jurisdiction, respectively, with the board itself being responsible for all decisions. Through these processes, proponents are required to consult community stakeholders, including conservation authorities. TRCA can chose to comment on these applications through the commenting process established by the OEB or NEB. While there are no provisions that would allow TRCA to charge review fees for participation in a NEB or OEB process, if conditions for NEB or OEB approval specifically require TRCA involvement, appropriate fees will be negotiated on a project specific basis.

182

2. On a case by case basis, an NEB or OEB application may also be subject to the federal or provincial Environmental Assessment Act. In these cases, the appropriate review fee will be charged.

3. These projects are not exempt from provisions under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and as such, proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06) are required.

4. These proponents may or may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the self-assessment provisions of the Fisheries Act , through the permitting process TRCA will advise the proponent if the project is likely to cause “serious ham to fish ”.

183

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule forENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICESMay 2014

186

_________________________________________

187

RES.#A73/14 - PROPOSED REVITALIZATION OF THE GUILD INNLease Agreement with Guild Inn Estate Inc. and the City of Toronto for the Operation of a Restaurant and Banquet Centre at the Guild Inn Site, CFN 23035. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for approval from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to enter into a lease with Guild Inn Estate Inc. for the operation of a restaurant and banquet centre facility - Guild Inn, Lake Ontario waterfront, City of Toronto.

Moved by: Paul AinslieSeconded by: Dave Ryan

WHEREAS the City of Toronto (the "City") leases certain Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands pursuant to a long-term ground lease agreement between TRCA and the City dated September 1, 1993 and expiring on September 1, 2083;

AND WHEREAS TRCA is in receipt of a request from the City, for approval, to enter into a commercial lease with Guild Inn Estate Inc. (GIE), for the operation of a restaurant and banquet facility;

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to enter into the subject lease in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT approval be granted to the City, to enter into a lease with GIE of approximately 0.58 hectares (1.42 acres) of TRCA-owned lands, being Part of Lots 13 & 14, Concession C, City of Toronto, for the operation of a restaurant and banquet facility subject to the following terms and conditions;

1) The initial term of the lease be 30 years, with one additional renewal option for 10 years at the sole option of GIE;

2) The lease be premised on terms and conditions deemed satisfactory to TRCA staff and their chosen solicitor;

3) The final form of lease will be subject to any Planning Act approvals that may be required;

THAT the lease be subject to approval by the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.27,as amended;

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

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDToronto City Council on July 16, 2013, adopted the following:

188

1) City Council approved the selection of Dynamic Hospitality and Entertainment Group ("Dynamic") to design, build, finance and operate a new restaurant and banquet/event centre at the Guild Inn site, and authorized staff to negotiate the terms and conditions of an agreement and report back to City Council on the results of the negotiations.

Toronto City Council on April 1, 2 and 3, 2014, adopted the following:

1. City Council grant authority to enter into a Letter of Intent (the "LOI") with GIE, a subsidiary of Dynamic, for a sublease transaction for the Guild Inn Building and certain surrounding lands to construct and operate the proposed restaurant and event/banquet/conference centre, substantially on terms and conditions set out in Schedule A of Attachment 1.

2. To implement the LOI, City Council granted authority to enter into a Sublease Agreement with GIE (the "Sublease) and any other project-related agreements required to implement the transaction contemplated by LOI and Sublease subject to such further or amended terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the General Manager Parks, Forestry and Recreation and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor.

3. City Council authorize the Chief Corporate Officer and the Director, Real Estate Services to severally execute the Letter of Intent, Sublease and Project-Related Agreements on behalf of the City.

4. City Council authorize the public release of the information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (March 25, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, following the execution of the Sublease with Guild Inn Estate Inc.

5. City Council authorize the Chief Corporate Officer or designate, in consultation with

the Acting General Manager, Parks Forestry and Recreation or designate, to administer and manage the Sublease and Project-Related Agreements including the provision of any consents, approvals, notices and notices of termination provided that the Chief Corporate Officer may, at any time, refer consideration of such matters (including their content) to City Council for its determination and direction.

6. City Council authorize the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation

or designate to approve necessary tree removal that may be required in the course of this project, subject to:

a. ensuring that no unnecessary destruction occurs, as per the appropriate City of

Toronto Tree Protection Bylaws, and all impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent possible; and

189

b. receipt of satisfactory tree protection plan, tree replanting plan, and natural environment stewardship plan.

7. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to complete the Letter of Intent, the Sublease

and Project-Related Agreements, deliver any notices, and amend the commencement and other dates to such earlier or later date(s), as the City Solicitor may, from time to time, determine.

8. City Council pass a by-law pursuant to Section 252 of the City of Toronto Act,

2006, authorizing the City to:

a. enter into a Municipal Capital Facility Agreement with Guild Inn Estate Inc. in respect of a portion of 205 Guildwood Parkway that will be used as an eligible municipal capital facility for community centre use, and parking ancillary to such use (the “Eligible Property”), in accordance with Ontario Regulation 598/06;

b. declare that the Eligible Property be used primarily for local community activities,

for the purposes of the City, and for a public use; and c. exempt the Eligible Property from property taxation for municipal and school

purposes, which tax exemption is to be effective from the latter of the following dates: the date the municipal capital facility agreement is signed, the date the tax exemption by-law is enacted, and the commencement date of the Sublease.

9. City Council authorize the City Clerk to give written notice of the By-law when enacted pursuant to the requirements of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

10. City Council authorize the City, in its capacity as land owner only (and not in its

capacity as a planning/regulatory authority) to consent to the submission by Guild Inn Estate Inc. of applications and documents required in connection with any regulatory approvals in respect of the Project and further, City Council authorize each of the Chief Corporate Officer and the Director, Real Estate Services to severally execute any documents required in this regard.

11. City Council authorize the introduction of any necessary Bills to City Council. 12. City Council authorize the public release of Schedule "A" to Confidential Attachment 1

to the report (February 5, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and direct that the balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (February 5, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation remain confidential as it contains information relating to the security of property belonging to the City.

190

Schedule "A" to Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (February 5, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation is now public and can be accessed under Background Information (City Council). The balance of Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (February 5, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation remains confidential in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains information relating to the security of property belonging to the City. Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (March 25, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation remains confidential in its entirety at this time in accordance with the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it contains information relating to the security of property belonging to the City. Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (March 25, 2014) from the Chief Corporate Officer, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation will be made public following the execution of the Sublease with Guild Inn Estate Inc.

The Subject lands are owned by TRCA and leased by the City under a long-term ground lease which expires on September 1, 2083. The main building is a white stucco Arts and Crafts style mansion which was constructed in 1914 and designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. For over a decade, the Guild site has been in steady decline primarily due to lack of public funds available for conservation and restoration. In October 2001 the City closed the Guild Inn, but the site and the grounds surrounding the Inn were kept open to the public for parkland usage. To advance the revitalization efforts for the Guild Inn site after previous unsuccessful attempts, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design, construction, finance and operation of a restaurant and/or banquet centre and other complementary facilities at the site. Dynamic Hospitality & Entertainment Group was awarded the project by City Council at its meeting of July 16, 2013 and City staff was directed to negotiate with the proponent and report back on terms and conditions of an agreement.

GIE, a subsidiary of Dynamic, is proposing a series of capital improvements to, and the development of, new facilities on the site as part of their project. GIE's proposal would include:

a) a 20,000-24,000 square foot complex combining banquet/event centre and restaurant that includes both the restoration of the Bickford House/Guild Inn, as it was originally constructed in 1914, and the removal of the subsequently added wings;

b) the original Bickford House's exterior will be restored. The interior of the building will be restored preserving the heritage attributes in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act;

c) the additions to the existing structure, featuring floor to ceiling windows capturing the view of the surrounding grounds, will house four separate event spaces with the capability to be combined as one space for larger events;

d) first class restaurant with an adjoining patio that will cater both to the local community and destination visitors to this landmark;

191

e) reconstruction and expansion of the parking lots to accommodate the new facilities and future increased use of the park; and

f) provision of access and use of the facilities for community and City purposes.

In addition to reviving the hospitality activities at the Guild, the restoration of the historic Bickford House and development of a banquet/event centre contributes to the City's overall vision of the Guild Inn Parklands. Economic Development and Culture is working with other City divisions, local residents and the arts community to develop the remaining parkland around the Bickford House as a cultural precinct. The setting with its architectural fragments and sculpture garden will be restored and active arts and crafts programming will be re-established in the other historic buildings on site, as well as in the new banquet/event centre. Together, these improvements will restore the site's identity as a cultural attraction and honour its history as a Guild of All Arts.

The proposed lease will be for a term of 30 years, with one additional renewal option of 10 years at the option of GIE. The lease will contain provisions advising GIE that this facility is operating in a public park and they will need to take appropriate measures to allow public access to the facility for the purpose of providing community permit space.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONETRCA staff and solicitor will work with the City of Toronto staff and GIE to finalize the lease.

Report prepared by: Joseph Nickerson, extension 5620Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Joseph Nickerson, extension 5620,

Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247Emails: [email protected], [email protected]: April 08, 2014Attachments: 1

192

Attachment 1

_________________________________________

193

RES.#A74/14 - ALBION HILLS FIELD CENTRE PHASE 5 RETROFIT PROJECT Tender PMO14-05. Award of Contract PMO14-05 for upgrades to the HVAC system, washrooms facilities, and lighting plan at the Albion Hills Field Centre, Town of Caledon.

Moved by: Richard WhiteheadSeconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT contract PMO14-05 for the upgrades to the HVAC system, washroom facilities and lighting plan at the Albion Hills Field Centre be awarded to CLC Construction Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $686,563.50, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, subject to receipt of all necessary approvals, permits and funding, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT award of tender be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and legal advisors (if necessary);

THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable tender agreement with the above-mentioned contractor, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with other contractors, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necssary to implement the contract, including the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDConstructed in 1962, the Albion Hills Field Centre (AHFC) is an existing one and half storey residential environmental education field centre located at Albion Hills Conservation Area, north of the Village of Bolton. The cedar and granite chalet style building is equipped with bedrooms, washrooms, classrooms, offices, cafeteria, lounge, dining hall and commercial kitchen facilities.

As part of the Region of Peel's Climate Change Mitigation Program, TRCA engaged Paul Didur Architects to undertake a facility assessment and conceptual redesign of the AFHC. The purpose of the assessment and redesign program was to provide a framework for major renovations and system retrofits to improve the environmental performance of the building while supporting climate change and sustainability learning programs for visiting students. In order to minimize disruption to student use throughout the school year, renovation and construction activities at AFHC are limited to late June through early September. As such, the complete retrofit of the field centre is being phased over a number of years with entire segments of the building being completed in each phase.

Four phases of the retrofit have been completed since 2008 and consisted of an assessment and redesign of the field centre, a new roof, electrical, mechanical, and fire code upgrades, a major kitchen renovation, exterior re-cladding, new windows and doors, and a new interior partition between the cafeteria and lounge. The total cost for the four phases of the retrofit was approximately $1.3 million.

194

The scope of work for Phase 5 consists of upgrades to the existing HVAC system, washroom upgrades (girls/boys dorm room facilities and ensuites), and a new lighting plan for the entire building. This major facility upgrade and retrofit will significantly contribute to AHFC's business sustainability and strengthen its position as an important environmental and sustainability education resource.

RATIONALEA Request for Tender (RFT) for general contractors was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo.com on April 17, 2014. The work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the supply of labour, material, supervision and equipment to perform the prescribed scope of work. The general contractor will coordinate all construction activities to facilitate the proposed upgrades.

Bidders were required to submit a bid bond of 10% of the contract price at the time of the tender submission, as well as an Agreement to Bond from a bonding company for 50% Performance and 50% Labour and Material. Bidders were also required to attend a mandatory site meeting on April 24, 2014.

Tenders closed on May 8, 2014 and were opened by the Tender Opening Committee on May 8, 2014 with the following results:

BIDDERS TOTAL (Plus HST)CLC Construction Ltd. $686,563.50ONIT Construction Inc. $770,964.00MN Dynamic Construction Ltd. $816,417.00R-Chad General Contracting $848,000.00Citycore Construction $857,652.00Jeffrey G. Wallans $886,915.00Berkim Construction Inc. $1,033,366.00Brown Daniels Associates $1,107,200.00Martinway Contracting Ltd. Disqualified

Martinway Contracting Ltd. was disqualified as their tender submission was not complete.

Therefore, based on the bids received, staff recommends that Contract PMO14-05 for the Albion Hills Field Centre Phase 5 Retrofit Project be awarded to CLC Construction Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $686,563.50, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications.

FINANCIAL DETAILSPartial funds required to complete this project are provided by Peel Region in the Peel Climate Change Mitigation capital budget 129-70. Staff will seek to secure additional funds required to complete the full scope of work or refine it based on the available funds. The final contract amount will be negotiated to reflect the total amount of funds available.

195

Report prepared by: Lisa Moore, 416-704-2476Emails: [email protected] Information contact: James Dickie, 416-844-3987Emails: [email protected]: May 5, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A75/14 - EROSION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES ON THE GRANGER GREENWAYUpdate on the condition of trail infrastructure along the Humber Trail within the William Granger Greenway following the July 8, 2013 storm event.

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Paul Ainslie

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to conduct emergency works to remove a failing pedestrian bridge;

THAT TRCA staff continue to engage York Region to incorporate trail and/or bridge replacement options into the Major MacKenzie Road widening project;

THAT TRCA conduct any additional trail inventory and survey work deemed necessary;

THAT TRCA staff prepare the necessary plans and obtain any permits and approvals needed to repair the trail/bank erosion within Boyd Conservation Area;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014, Resolution #A225/13 was approved, in part, as follows:

...THAT staff report back on options to deal with erosion issues on the Granger Greenway;...

TRCA conducted an initial assessment of trail conditions and infrastructure within the William Granger Greenway following the storm event on July 8, 2013. During this assessment it was noted that the wooden pedestrian bridge, referred to as the Lady Simcoe Bridge, appeared to be sagging along its length and listing/sloping horizontally. Inspection of the river banks by TRCA staff determined that the banks and abutments were sound, and therefore not the cause. Subsequent inspection of the bridge structure by the original designer and manufacturer determined that the wooden timber bridge had simply reached the end of its useable life span (10-15 years).

196

Following that recommendation, TRCA blocked off access on either end of the bridge and posted appropriate closure signage. Follow-up inspections have revealed that trail users continue to remove the barriers on either end and use the bridge. TRCA staff has re-secured the bridge at least twice in the past two weeks. In order to mitigate the ongoing public safety threat TRCA recommends the immediate removal of the bridge deck from the abutments. Appropriate notice and signage will be posted at all trail access points, informing trail users that the connection from the Granger Trail to the William T. Foster’s Woods area is closed.

TRCA staff is also in ongoing discussions with the Region of York on the design and constructions of the Major MacKenzie Drive widening project. A component of this project will be the removal of the existing vehicle bridge over the East Humber River, and replacement with a much larger span bridge. Following initial inquiry by TRCA, York Region appears willing to incorporate additional trail and/or pedestrian bridge works into the overall project scope. Although construction of this portion of the project is not anticipated until 2016, it would re-establish a trail connection for local and regional trail users at no cost to TRCA. Were TRCA to pursue bridge replacement outside of the Major MacKenzie widening project, a permit from MNR under the Species at Risk Act would have to be obtained independently. Given TRCA experience in this regard, permit issuance would be a multi-year endeavor. Incorporating the replacement of trail infrastructure into the Major MacKenzie widening project will ensure a single, harmonized permitting process with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

TRCA staff has also identified a section of the Humber Trail within Boyd Conservation Area that has eroded into the river following the July 8, 2013 event. TRCA staff has already surveyed the site and developed a preliminary design to rebuild the river bank and rebuild the trail. However, a permit from MNR under the Species at Risk Act would also have to be obtained in order for the project to proceed. Trail users can currently bypass the affected area by using the Pierre and Janet Berton trail.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONETRCA will immediately remove the bridge deck from the abutments. Appropriate notice and signage will be posted at all trail access point, informing trail users that the connection from the Granger Trail to William T. Foster’s Woods area is closed.

TRCA staff will also continue to engage York Region to incorporate trail and/or bridge replacement options into the Major MacKenzie Road widening project.

In the meantime, TRCA will also collect detailed trail inventory and user survey data for the property. This will provide important information related to current and future anticipated levels of trail use and trail user preferences in the area.

Finally, TRCA staff will prepare the necessary plans and obtain any permits and approvals needed to repair the trail/bank erosion within Boyd Conservation Area.

197

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds for emergency works as well as ongoing planning and design work are available within existing project budgets.

Report prepared by: Matt Kenel, extension 5325Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Matt Kenel, extension 5325Emails: [email protected]: May 7, 2014Attachments: 1

198

Attachment 1

199

RES.#A76/14 - ALTONA FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATEUpdating the Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan (1996).

Moved by: Dave RyanSeconded by: Mujeeb Khan

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has undertaken several site planning initiatives for the Altona Forest including the 1996 Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan, the 2002 Altona Forest Trail Plan, 2011 Altona South Trail Plan and several restoration site plans;

AND WHEREAS an update to the 1996 Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan was recommended after ten years;

AND WHEREAS the agreement between TRCA and the Speirs family will be continued to ensure the property is being managed with a focus on environmental protection;

AND WHEREAS an updated and coordinated vision and plan is needed in order to ensure the continued protection of the natural and cultural heritage value of the property as urban development continues to occur in the area;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff develop an Altona Forest Management Plan Update;

THAT staff establish an Advisory Committee, which would include representatives of the Aboriginal community, the Speirs family, the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee, local naturalist groups, interested community groups and businesses, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and Councilors to assist with the development of the plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input;

AND FURTHER THAT the draft Management Plan update, as developed with the assistance of the Altona Forest Management Plan Advisory Committee, be submitted to the Authority Board for approval.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe Altona Forest property is located on approximately 56 hectares of environmentally significant land, within the southern portion of the City of Pickering in Durham Region. The property is almost entirely located within the Petticoat Creek watershed (48 hectares), with the remaining 8 hectares in the Frenchman’s Bay watershed. It is situated south of Finch Avenue, between Rosebank Road and Altona Road, and north of Sheppard Avenue. The Altona Forest consists of a healthy and diverse ecosystem within the urban center of the City of Pickering, featuring a mixed coniferous and deciduous forest providing important habitat for a large number of plants and animals.

200

The Altona Forest property under went changes starting in 1982 when the boundaries of the surrounding Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) were expanded to include what is now the Altona Forest property. This designation recognized the Altona Forest and surrounding area as an important part of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor, a band of almost continuous natural cover extending between Rouge Park and Duffins Creek, south of the glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline. This protected area contains a diverse vegetation community of upland forest, successional mesic forest, as well as meadow and old field habitat.

In the spring of 1993, following the implementation of Pickering Official Plan Amendment No. 79, and strong community support led in part by the late zoologist, and local resident Dr. J. Murray Speirs, the TRCA announced their intention to execute a 5 phased approach for the acquisition and management of the 53 hectare Altona Forest ESA. This land mass was to also include the addition of the dedicated J. Murray Speirs Ecological Reserve through the generous donation of the Speirs family. The final size of the acquisition amounted to 56 hectares of protected land.

The TRCA phased approach included the development of a management strategy for the property that consisted of the Site Securement and Protection Report (1995) and Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan (1996). The management plan outlined a set of goals and objectives with associated recommendations for the property. In summary, the goals and objectives delineated a non-interfering management strategy for the property. These guidelines outlined the need to retain the ecological function of the site by maintaining the diversity and health of its native species, habitats, ecological processes, and where appropriate to restore areas to an enhanced natural condition. Also highlighted within the strategy were TRCA’s interests in promoting opportunities for public education regarding the natural heritage of the Altona Forest while providing appropriate passive public use.

Following the completion of the Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan (1996), TRCA has undertaken a variety of improvement projects throughout the property. These initiatives focused on improving the ecological quality of priority sites, as well as developing and improving nature based recreation opportunities where appropriate. The following list provides a brief summary of the deliverables achieved in the time following the Management Plan:

Implementation of site securement recommendations;

Development and rehabilitation of three pond/wetland features;

Development of a 5 kilometre hiking trail and a 10 vehicle parking lot;

Approximately 355 meters of boardwalk installed;

Various trail upgrades including reroutes, surface capping and general maintenance;

Two river crossings installed;

Construction of two viewing platforms and interpretive signage;

Trail infrastructure including way-finding, trailheads and property signs;

Development of the Altona South Trail Plan (2011);

Hazard tree and invasive species management;

Various property studies and reports developed.

201

RATIONALEThe originally designated timeframe for the Altona Forest Management Plan (1996) was 10 years, at which time an update was recommended. Given that the set timeframe for review has past, and recognizing the ongoing restoration and public use demand throughout the property, this has been identified as an opportune time to reassess and update the management strategy for the property. Also, acknowledging the ongoing residential developments in the immediate vicinity of the property, it is important to undertake a review of the existing management plan and associated recommendations to ensure that the sensitive ecosystems continue to be protected while providing the surrounding urban communities with opportunities for education, interpretation and passive nature based recreation.

The Altona Forest Management Plan Update will work to integrate a number of TRCA initiatives, most notably Building The Living City, the new 10 year strategic plan for TRCA. Specifically this Management Plan update will help TRCA achieve the strategy for rethinking greenspace to maximize its value (strategy #3), and to foster sustainable citizenship (strategy #5).

In order to best achieve The Living City vision, the Management Plan will address a variety of issues within the Altona Forest including:

Continued and enhanced protection of the natural heritage system;

Recommendations for restoration and regeneration where possible;

Review and update the existing trail plan; and

Continued support and reinvigoration of community engagement programs.

Furthermore, the management plan will complement and forward the goals of a number of TRCA initiatives, including:

The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy; and

Petticoat Creek Watershed Action Plan (2012).

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEThe first step in the process will be the creation of a background report that will identify the property history, current land uses, policies, natural and cultural heritage resources, as well as public uses. Using that information, management zones will be developed that identify what areas must be protected and where to focus public use in less sensitive locations. The management plan will also contain management guidelines, including restoration areas and a trail plan, as well as an implementation strategy outlining preliminary costs. The planning process will be undertaken in the three phases described below:

Phase OneDevelop updated Site Securement and Protection Plan

Complete a background report

Circulate a study newsletter

Establish an advisory committee and host meetings

Host a public information session.

202

Phase TwoDevelop a plan vision

Determine draft management zones

Integrate watershed action plan recommendations

Draft an update to the trail plan

Host advisory committee meetings


Host a public information session.

Phase ThreeFinalize the updated trail plan

Finalize the management recommendations

Develop a plan implementation strategy and associated costs

Host an advisory committee meeting


Host a public information session

Obtain partner and TRCA Board endorsement.

As part of the planning process, an advisory committee will be created to assist in determining the appropriate direction for the property. TRCA will invite representatives from the community, special interest groups and partners to sit on the committee for the duration of the project. The advisory committee members will play an integral role in developing goals and management recommendations for the Altona Forest management plan. The following groups should be represented on the committee:

Members from the Aboriginal Community

Speirs Family

Altona Forest Stewardship Committee

City of Pickering

Durham Region

Local community

Local businesses

Special interest groups

Property users

TRCA.

The management plan is expected to be completed in late-2015. Following all necessary approvals, implementation of the management plan could begin in the 2016 field season. Necessary land management and projects already in planning will continue to be implemented in consultation with the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee during the planning process.

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe development of the report is budgeted at $48,000 between 2014-2015 and is available as part of the Durham Watershed Trails account 109-06 and the Ad Hoc Property Management account at 005-10.

203

Report prepared by: Kim Krawczyk, 416.936.1335 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Kim Krawczyk, 416.936.1335 or Adam Szaflarski, extension 5596Emails: [email protected] or [email protected]: May 05, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A77/14 - CLAIREVILLE LEADERSHIP ADVENTURE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Moved by: Mike MattosSeconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT staff continue to work with community partners to implement the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan and develop recreation and tourism opportunities in keeping with the recommendations of the Management Plan.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, held on March 7, 2014, the Members requested that staff report back on the Claireville Leadership Adventure Conservation Partnership. At Authority Meeting #7/05, held on September 30, 2005, Resolution #A201/05 was approved, in part, as follows:

THAT staff be directed to work with interested groups and agencies to develop experiential learning opportunities through recreational programs at the Claireville Conservation Area and report progress to the Authority;...

The Claireville Conservation Area (CA) is an 848 hectare (2,100 acre) parcel of land owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The area is located in the West Humber subwatershed of the Humber River watershed. It is located in both the City of Toronto and the City of Brampton. There is a large flood control dam and reservoir on the south end of the property which was built in 1964. It is also the location of the Indian Line Campground, Wild Water Kingdom, Toronto District School Board Etobicoke Field Centre, Claireville Equestrian Ranch, Yeoman Rugby Club and some agricultural land rentals. A management plan was developed for Claireville CA in 1997. Over 80% of the property has been designated Nature Reserve, Natural Environment or Restoration zones to safeguard and enhance the form and function of the natural environment. A Natural Area Enhancement Plan was completed in 2000 to guide the implementation of restoration activities.

In response to the recommendation from the Claireville Management Plan for regular updates, an update was completed in 2011 and was adopted by the TRCA Board on March 25, 2011. The update outlined the many activities, initiatives and partnerships resulting from the implementation of the Management Plan. In addition, the update included an implementation schedule that was developed with the assistance and support of the Humber Watershed Alliance and Claireville Subcommittee.

204

DiscussionThe Claireville Leadership Adventure Conservation Partnership was a proposal to establish a partnership of organizations supportive of developing outdoor life skill activities for groups and individuals. The Partnership did not fully come to fruition and, instead, TRCA and City of Toronto staff worked with five groups to develop recreational and educational programs at Claireville CA. The groups involved were: Friends of Claireville, Scouts Canada, the City of TorontoInner City Outtripping Centre, the International Mountain Biking Association, Ontario Recreational Canoeing Association and Canoe Ontario. The result of these partnerships were outlined in the Claireville Management Plan update in 2011, and included:

Friends of Claireville, who received a Trillium Foundation grant, assisted TRCA with habitat

restoration and bird box installation, recreational and educational events; City of Toronto provided canoeing opportunities;

The Toronto District School Board provided outdoor educational experiences through the

Etobicoke Field Centre, and;Annual planting events to implement the Claireville Management Plan

Although some of these groups continue to provide recreational and educational opportunities at Claireville CA, including the City of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board, the Friends of Claireville dissolved subsequent to the end of the Trillium Foundation funding.

At the March 25, 2011, Authority Board meeting, a staff report providing the updated Claireville CA Management Plan recommended that TRCA staff continue to work with local community groups on trail options and proceed with the construction of an inter-regional trail, subject to the availability of funding from the City of Brampton. TRCA staff have been working together with staff and members of Council from the City of Brampton to extend the trail system, via the concept of a heritage tourism trail, from Claireville CA to Brampton. This inter-regional trail would increase connection within Claireville CA and create greater opportunities for both the Cities of Toronto and Brampton residents and visitors. Currently, the trail is waiting for approval with the Ministry of Natural Resources due to the presence of species at risk in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment. TRCA and MNR staff continue to work together to develop solutions in order to move the trail forward.

Recently, the City of Toronto initiated the PanAm Path, extending to Claireville CA within the City of Toronto by 2015. The City has committed $1.9 Million to create the physical Path. The active-living trail will consist of fifteen cultural programming zones spread out across the city trail system. The unveiling of the cultural zones is expected to begin sixteen weeks prior to the games (May 2015), starting at the First Nations Trails/Pickering Gate at the Rouge River; going from east to west, counting down to the ParapanAm games. From the Rouge park area/lake Ontario, the program will run westwards to the Highland Creek, along the hydro corridor to the Don River, southwards to the Martin Goodman trail along the waterfront till the Humber River, then northwards along the river valley till the Claireville Reservoir, where it will end. The PanAm Path to Clairville CA offers an excellent opportunity to revitalize interest in recreation and tourism in Claireville.

RATIONALETRCA staff will continue to work with community partners to implement the Claireville CA Management Plan, to promote recreation and tourism at Claireville CA, in keeping with the recommendations of the management plan and provide regular progress updates to the Authority Board.

205

FINANCIAL DETAILSClaireville CA Management Plan implementation is supported by City of Toronto funding from account 113-11 and City of Brampton/Region of Peel funding from 126-84.

Report prepared by: Vicky McGrath, extension 5211 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Vicky McGrath, extension 5211 Emails: [email protected]: May 5, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A78/14 - ONTARIO ICE STORM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMAdministrative requirements for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to apply for provincial assistance through the Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program.

Moved by: Richard WhiteheadSeconded by: Chris Fonseca

THAT an application for provincial assistance through the Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program, for eligible costs of damages due to the December 2013 Ice Storm, be submitted by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to the province;

THAT authority be delegated to the CFO to submit claims to the province on behalf of TRCA as per the conditions of the assistance program;

THAT staff request an extension to the June 22nd deadline for eligible expenses;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to seek financial assistance from municipalities to recover the cost of ice storm related damages that are not eligible for provincial assistance under the Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program or covered by insurance.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDIn February 2014, the province of Ontario announced an Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program in response to the severe weather event on December 20-22, 2013. The province is working with the federal government for cost-sharing under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. As such, requests for assistance should be made to the provincial government. Conservation Authorities have been instructed to apply for assistance through this program directly to the province, and not through their respective municipalities. The Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program is a one-time response to the December 2013 Ice Storm; the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program (ODRAP) remains in effect for other natural disasters.

206

Further details on the amount of funding available and the process for applying for funding will be released by the province over the coming weeks. Municipalities and Conservation Authorities must submit an "Expression of Interest" by June 16, 2014 with final submissions due in August 2014. The program covers ice-damage related costs incurred until June 22nd (6 months after the ice storm) for emergency response and recovery, including debris clean-up to protect public health and safety. The program will not cover normal operating expenses, tree replacement or tree canopy restoration, insurable items, or loss of revenue. Preliminary details on eligible and non-eligible items are provided in Attachment 1 - Ontario Ice Storm Assistance Program: What you need to know. Given that it was not possible to initiate much of the needed works immediately, due to frozen ground conditions, the deadline for eligible expenses presents a significant challenge for TRCA. The province has indicated that should TRCA require an extension to the deadline, a request should be made to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) through the Authority.

Staff provided initial estimates of costs due to the ice storm in previous reports to the Authority this year (meetings #11/13 and #2/14). A summary table of total costs by region is provided as Attachment 2 for reference. Actual costs and supporting documentation are currently being compiled for the submission to the province and will be packaged to meet provincial requirements once these details are released. In the meantime, the province has identified two administrative requirements:

1. Municipal applicants must submit a resolution seeking provincial assistance for the ice storm; and

2. Municipalities will be requested to confirm that authority is delegated to the treasurer to submit claims on behalf of the municipality.

Given that a substantial amount of the costs incurred to respond to the ice storm did not require overtime or contract workers (instead several activities were deferred for staff to undertake ice storm response activities), it is expected that provincial assistance will not cover all of the expenses incurred by TRCA to date. Once the amount of provincial assistance allocated to TRCA is known, staff will be engaging in discussions with our municipal partners to recover the balance of costs where reasonable.

Report prepared by: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Laurian Farrell, extension 5601Emails: [email protected]: May 09, 2014Attachments: 2

207

Attachment 1

209

Attachment 2

2013 Ice Storm: Estimated Total Cost of Damages by Region *Region Insurable Costs Non‐Insurable Costs Total

Peel 63,426$ 519,068.97$ 582,494.97$

Durham 11,547$ 132,778$ 144,325.55$

York 64,433$ 302,621$ 367,053.98$

Toronto 97,980$ 53,472$ 151,452.28$

Total 237,386$ 1,007,940$ 1,245,326.78$

2013 Ice Storm: Estimated Detailed Cost of Damages by Region *Region Operation Insurable Costs Non‐Insurable Costs Total

Peel Parks and Culture 50,200$ 389,241$ 439,441$

Rental Property 2,226$ 339$ 2,565$

Conservation Lands 10,000$ 79,489$ 89,489$

Flood Control Channels ‐$ 50,000$ 50,000$

Education Centres 1,000$ ‐$ 1,000$

63,426$ 519,069$ 582,495$

Durham Parks and Culture ‐$ 33,077$ 33,077$

Rental Property 1,947$ ‐$ 1,947$


Flood Control Channels ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Education Centres 4,600$ ‐$ 4,600$

11,547$ 132,778$ 144,326$

York Parks and Culture 35,500$ 185,264$ 220,764$

Rental Property 11,738$ 3,446$ 15,184$



Education Centres 7,195$ 15,810$ 23,004$

64,433$ 302,621$ 367,054$

Toronto Parks and Culture 88,692$ 38,077$ 126,769$

Rental Property 9,288$ 396$ 9,683$

Conservation Lands ‐$ ‐$ ‐$


Education Centres ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

97,980$ 53,472$ 151,452$

*Damage estimates as of March 13, 2014 ‐ does not include properties update of additional $20k in expenses

Total costs Toronto:

Total Costs York:

Total Costs Peel:

Total Costs Durham:

_________________________________________

210

RES.#A79/14 - G.ROSS LORD DAM EMERGENCY SPILL GATE UPGRADESContract RSD14-47. Award of Contract RSD14-47 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for upgrades to the north and south emergency spill gates and for detailed design of an automated motor back-up system at G.Ross Lord Dam, City of Toronto

Moved by: Maria AugimeriSeconded by: Deb Schulte

THAT Contract RSD14-47 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for upgrades to the north and south emergency spill gates and for detailed design of an automated motor back-up system at G.Ross Lord Dam, City of Toronto be awarded to Ellisdon Corporation at a total cost not to exceed $292,040.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the contract cost 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 all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUND G. Ross Lord Dam is considered a "Large Dam" under the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) classification system. The dam is located on the northeast corner of Finch Avenue West and Dufferin Street, in the City of Toronto. The dam was constructed in 1974 to control flooding along the West Don River from Finch Avenue south to the confluence with the East Don River at Don Mills Road. The dam is routinely inspected as part of TRCA's Flood Infrastructure Program. In 2011, a Dam Safety Review (DSR) was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources 2011 Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (ODSG). This review concluded that the Hazard Potential Classification (HPC) for G. Ross Lord Dam is Very High. A Very High HPC indicates that a dam failure has the potential for 11 or more fatalities in the downstream flood wave inundation area.

Due to the critical role that G. Ross Lord Dam has in providing flood protection, all components of the Dam are required to be in good working order. The emergency spillway gates at G. Ross Lord Dam, which are to be used when inflows threaten to overtop the dam, have been in operation for 40 years. As such, the gates are in need of a major overhaul to ensure their reliability in emergency situations. The overhaul will include applying corrosion protection and replacing the wire ropes, fan brakes and damaged bolts. As well, the existing motor back-up system, which allows the gates to be operated when hydro power is unavailable is outdated, difficult to use and does not meet existing health and safety regulations.

211

Therefore TRCA staff requires a qualified contractor to carry out upgrades to the emergency spillway gates and for the detailed design of a back-up motor system at G. Ross Lord Dam. The intention of these upgrades is to enhance G. Ross Lord Dam’s ability to safely manage flood waters and to meet current health and safety requirements. The maintenance upgrades will ensure the north and south emergency spillway gates can safely retain and control the release of water, and the design build of a new back-up motor system will provide a safer and easier method to allow operation of the emergency spill way gates during periods of electrical blackouts.

RATIONALEThis project is aligned with leadership strategy number two in TRCA’s new strategic plan where TRCA will strive to minimize or eliminate flood risk. This project will assist in the successful management of our regional water resources for current and future generations.

Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for general contractors for Contract RSD14-47 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo(http://www.biddingo.com/) on Friday, March 28

th

, 2014. Interested general contractors in pre-qualifying were advised that the criteria for evaluation will include the following in order to receive a tender package:

completeness of submission;

past experience with dam emergency spill gate retrofit projects of a similar program;

ability to meet construction schedule milestones;

ability to coordinate work by others;

construction experience with flood control dams; and

projects with construction budgets of $200,000 to $500,000.

Pre-qualification information was submitted by the following 4 general contractors:Ellisdon;

Hydro Innovation

Linita; and

McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd.

The pre-qualifying documents were reviewed by the selection committee made up of TRCA staff whose evaluation was based on the previously defined criteria and reference checks for past completed projects.

Based on the evaluation process, Request for Tender documents were made available to the following 4 general contractors:

Ellisdon;

Hydro Innovation;

Linita; and

McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd.

Three (3) pre-qualified companies attended a mandatory site meeting on Thursday April 10th

, 2014. Proposals closed on May 1

st

, 2014 at 12:00pm and were opened on Thursday May 1st

, 2014 by the Tender Opening Committee with the following results:

212

Contract RSD14-47 G. Ross Lord Dam Emergency Spill Gate Upgrades

BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT(Plus HST)

Ellisdon $292,040.00McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. $315,752.00

The pre-qualified bidder's were evaluated by TRCA staff based on the bid submission costs and their ability to perform the scope of the work as specified in the Tender documents. Restoration Services staff reviewed the bids against its own cost estimates and has determined that the bids are of reasonable value. Hydro Innovation was subsequently disqualified from the bidding process as they were unable to attend the mandatory site meeting. Linita declined the opportunity to submit a bid, being unable to meet the timelines and specifications stated in the contract documents.

Based on the evaluation of the bids received, staff recommend that EllisDon Coorporation be awarded Contract RSD14-47 supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for upgrades to the north and south emergency spill gates and for detailed design of a motor back-up system at G.Ross Lord Dam, City of Toronto at a total amount not to exceed $292,040.00 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 25% contingency , plus HST; it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. The 25% contingency is to allow for extra costs that may be incurred as many of the parts in the gate motor units will not be visible until they are disassembled during the overhaul.

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds to undertake the G. Ross Lord Dam Generator Replacement Project are provided evenly between the Toronto Special Ask Capital Account (107-27) and the Ministry of Natural Resources Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure Program (WECI).

Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, 647-808-5809 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: James Dickie, 416-392-9702 Emails: [email protected]: May 14, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A80/14 - WOODBRIDGE SPECIAL POLICY AREA COMPREHENSIVE POLICY AND BOUNDARY UPDATEThe City of Vaughan is updating the policies and boundary of the Woodbridge Special Policy Area based upon a comprehensive flood risk assessment, land use and policy review in accordance with provincial guidelines. The Authority is requested to endorse the Special Policy Area Justification Report for the Woodbridge Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment that will implement the updated Special Policy Area policies and boundary.

213

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Linda Pabst

WHEREAS the City of Vaughan, in collaboration with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has prepared a comprehensive flood risk assessment, land use, policy and boundary review of the Woodbridge Special Policy Area (SPA) in accordance with provincial guidelines for amending the policies and boundaries of existing SPAs;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the request by the City of Vaughan to update the boundary and policies of the Woodbridge Special Policy Area as per the Special Policy Area Justification Report for the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan and associated Zoning By-law Amendment be supported for approval;

AND FURTHER THAT the City of Vaughan, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Natural Resources be so advised by the CEO's Office.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDWoodbridge is one of four historic villages in the City of Vaughan and is located within the valley and tablelands associated with the Humber River. The Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District (HCD) within Woodbridge Centre represents one of the highest concentrations of heritage properties in the City. The Woodbridge Commercial Core is the historical commercial centre of the community. The built form and function of Woodbridge is an early example of a compact, mixed-use community centre.

A portion of the village, including the historical commercial core, is located within the flood plain of the Humber River. To allow for the continued viability of the historic core and address the significant social and economic hardships that would result from strict adherence to provincial one zone flood plain management policies, this area was established as a Special Policy Area in 1982 (Attachment 1). Since that time, the City has experienced significant growth and development pressures and received a number of applications for development within the SPA.

In 2009, the City of Vaughan initiated the planning process for the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan, a component of which included a comprehensive review of the SPA undertaken in cooperation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Province. The Secondary Plan is one of five new secondary plans in Volume 2 of the new City of Vaughan Official Plan (VOP 2010, adopted September 7, 2010 and modified on February 26, 2013 and March 19, 2013). Volume 1 of the new City of Vaughan Official Plan contains city-wide policies. The Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan includes the proposed SPA boundaries, revised land use designations affecting the SPA, land use policies and SPA policies. The recommendations of this report pertain to the comprehensive SPA analysis, the outcome of which is to provide clarity within the policy framework and clearly establish the location, nature and extent of development that will enable appropriate revitalization and redevelopment of the historic centre to ensure its long term heath and vitality.

214

Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy FrameworkSection 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 establishes the policy framework for managing natural hazards, including flooding hazards. In accordance with provincial standards, flooding hazards may be managed through a One Zone Concept, a Two Zone Concept or a Special Policy Area approach. In general, the One Zone Concept is the primary provincial approach to managing flood risk through the planning process, which essentially requires that no new development be permitted within the flood plain. In exceptional circumstances, a Two Zone Concept or an SPA approach may be considered.

A “Special Policy Area” designation is a planning mechanism provided by the Province of Ontario to recognize the unique circumstances of historic communities that existed within flood vulnerable areas prior to the implementation of a provincial flood hazard planning policy and where it has been demonstrated that the application of the other flood plain management approaches (One Zone or Two Zone) would not allow for the continued social and economic viability and revitalization of these areas. New SPAs and any amendments to the policies, land use designations or boundaries of existing SPAs must be approved by both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR) because they reflect a relaxation of natural hazard policies for flood-related events, where this is deemed appropriate. As stated in the PPS, SPAs are not intended to allow for new or intensified development, if a community has feasible opportunities for development outside the flood plain.

The proposal for a new SPA or modifications to the boundaries or policies of an existing provincially approved SPA may only be initiated by lower-tier or single-tier municipalities as the proponent. Such proposals must be undertaken in accordance with the Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide, Appendix 5 – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, “Procedures for Approval of New Special Policy Areas (SPAs) and Modifications to Existing SPAs Under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005), Policy 3.1.3 – Natural Hazards- Special Policy Area, dated January 2009". The policies and boundaries of an SPA are determined through a consultative process between the municipality, TRCA, MNR and MMAH, and implemented through amendments to a municipality’s Official Plan/Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law. These site specific SPA policies are used by TRCA staff to inform and guide TRCA's regulatory permitting responsibilities under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act.

Existing Woodbridge Special Policy AreaThe Woodbridge SPA was first established through the approval of Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 145, in 1982. The boundary of the SPA, which consists of 10 subareas within the Humber River valley corridor along Islington Avenue and Woodbridge Avenue, was informed by the limit of the flood plain known at that time. The policies of the SPA were updated through OPA 240 in 1987 and again OPA 440 in 1994. The SPA policies include the technical requirements for development within the SPA. OPA 440 is recognized as the existing policies and boundaries of the SPA in the City of Vaughan.

215

Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis:Since 1994, no changes have been made to the Woodbridge SPA policies or boundaries. Subsequent to the receipt of a number of development applications in recent years, the Province (MMAH) requested that a comprehensive analysis and update to the SPA be undertaken to address all of the growth across the SPA. In addition, the City of Vaughan developed a new Official Plan that was adopted by Council in 2010. The SPA review is a component of the Woodbridge Focused Area Study, a product of which has been the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan. The two main components of the SPA review include undertaking a review of the SPA boundary, land use and policies and a risk assessment. The risk assessment was undertaken within the context of the City-wide Emergency Management Plan and considered aspects of geographic risk (i.e. avoiding risk) and operational risk (i.e. hazard response).

The City of Vaughan, in collaboration with TRCA, developed a submission package in accordance with the MNR 2009 technical guidelines for amending the policies and boundaries of existing SPAs. The City presented the main results of the SPA review at public consultation meetings in April 2010 and in May 2010; the first draft of the SPA Justification Report was posted on the project website for the Vaughan Official Plan. The City of Vaughan submitted a revised SPA Justification Report to MMAH and MNR in November 2011 for provincial review. MMAH and MNR provided a preliminary review and requested additional information in their correspondence of April 12, 2012. The City's response to the Province's additional information request was provided on March 1, 2013, together with a revised SPA Justification Report. MMAH and MNR provided their formal 'one-window' response on December 17, 2013. Since the release of these comments, the City, MMAH, MNR and TRCA have been engaged in ongoing consultation and meetings in an effort to advance through the final stages of the SPA update and approval process. The City has now prepared a final revised SPA Justification Report to address the provincial 'one-window' comments. This includes the updated SPA policies that will rest within the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan and an associated Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA).

The provincial approval procedures require an endorsement of the proposed SPA Justification Report, Secondary Plan SPA policies and Zoning By-law Amendment by City Council as part of the City’s final submission package to the Province. A similar endorsement on the technical material and the proposed Secondary Plan SPA policies and ZBA from TRCA's board is also required. A report to the City's Committee of the Whole was received on April 28, 2014. The recommendations of that report, together with revisions to two of the proposed SPA policies agreed to by the City, MMAH, MNR and TRCA, were endorsed by City Council on May 6, 2014. The details of the City’s report, including the SPA Justification Report, the Woodbridge Secondary Plan, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment can be found at the following link: https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/AgendaItems/CW0429_14_35.pdf.

The following is a summary of the key components of the Woodbridge SPA Justification Report.

216

Flood Risk within the Woodbridge SPAA fundamental element of the comprehensive review was to update the boundaries of the SPA based upon current flood plain mapping. The analyses of flood risk are based on the technical updates to the hydrologic modelling (Aquafour Beech, 2002) and hydraulic models for the Humber River (Greck and Associates Limited, 2002, Acres & Associates 2003, Acres International, 2004). These studies were finalized, peer reviewed and approved by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The methodology for preparing hydrologic/hydraulic models and the specifications for regulatory mapping are prescribed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002).

TRCA prepared a series of maps to illustrate the current technical flood plain information to inform and assist the City with the risk analysis, land use and emergency management components of the comprehensive SPA review. This included maps illustrating flood depths and velocities for both the Regulatory (Regional/Hurricane Hazel) Flood event and the 1:350 year storm. Modelling shows that flood depths during a Regulatory Flood will range from 0 to 3 plus metres within the SPA, with the areas of greatest depth along the Islington Avenue Corridor. The area of the historical commercial core, northwest of Woodbridge Avenue and Clarence Street experiences 0 to 1 metres of flooding during a Regulatory Flood and is not subject to flooding during a 1:350 year storm (more frequent event). In addition, TRCA generated a Regional Risk Analysis map (Attachment 2) in accordance with criteria set by MNR, to identify areas within the SPA that would be considered low and high risk for pedestrian access during a Regional Flood, and areas where flood depths would be less than 0.3 metres, (considered to be safe for vehicular access). Similarly, these results indicated areas along the Islington Corridor to be high risk and the historical commercial core to be low risk with safe vehicular ingress/egress access available during a Regional flood. Land Use Planning - Growth DistributionThe Province required supporting rationale for the projected growth in the SPA given that SPAs are not intended for intensification if there are feasible opportunities outside the floodplain. Land use designations in the SPA are intended to match previous approvals in OPA 440, with the exception of the low risk part of the SPA in the Woodbridge Commercial Core. The northwest corner of Woodbridge Avenue and Clarence Street, the only low risk part of the SPA with redevelopment potential for residential units, in which the Province's "risk to life" thresholds are not exceeded and ingress/egress is achievable during a Regulatory Flood, is recommended for modest additional dwelling units. The Mixed Use Commercial designation in OPA 440 is proposed to change to Mid-Rise Mixed-Use and Low-Rise Mixed-Use designations in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan.

In total, the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan provides for the 102 additional units in the SPA, directed to the Woodbridge Commercial Core, in addition to densities provided for in OPA 440. Of this 83% or 85 units are directed to the low risk part of the SPA and the remaining 17% or 17 units reflect a modest increase resulting from attempts to match density provisions in previous approvals in the commercial core with density provisions specified as Floor Space Index (FSI) in the new Vaughan Official Plan and Woodbridge Secondary Plan.

217

The Woodbridge Commercial Core is a Local Centre within Vaughan's urban structure as noted in Section 2.2.5.7 of the Vaughan Official Plan, adopted by City Council in September 2010 (VOP 2010). Pedestrian in scale, and featuring a mix of commercial and residential uses, Local Centres will continue to serve the surrounding Community Areas and accommodate moderate intensification. In the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan, the vision of the historical commercial core is one of an enhanced local centre, with some residential intensification, a strong animated commercial avenue and a designated public square. Permitting redevelopment in the Woodbridge Commercial Core is essential to strengthening its position as a Local Centre for the surrounding community. As a pedestrian oriented, mixed-use centre offering a range of commercial services and housing types, the Woodbridge Commercial Core fulfills both provincial and municipal planning goals related to the creation of compact mix-use centres. Redevelopment in the Market Lane area will allow this space to become the focal point of the Woodbridge Community. The Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan completes the revitalization process for the Woodbridge Commercial Core in the areas determined to be 'low risk' within the SPA. The redevelopment and revitalization of the historical commercial core is in keeping with the original intent of the SPA designation.

Emergency ManagementUnder the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities have the primary responsibility and authority for response to flooding and flood emergencies and the welfare of residents. The City of Vaughan and TRCA work closely together to ensure that the most current flood risk information is shared to facilitate the coordination of flood forecasting and emergency planning. TRCA operates a Flood Forecasting and Warning System that monitors watershed and weather conditions daily in order to issue timely warning of anticipated or actual flood conditions. Conditions during a flood event are closely monitored by TRCA and communicated to the municipality.

The City of Vaughan Emergency Management Response Plan is in compliance with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and Regulations. The City of Vaughan Emergency Plan and Re-Entry Evacuation Plan are publically available on the Emergency Planning Department website. In addressing the provincial SPA guidelines, the City of Vaughan developed a comprehensive risk assessment within the context of the City-wide Emergency Management Plan that considered aspects of both geographic risk (i.e. avoiding risk) and operational risk (i.e. hazard response). In addition to the City-wide, all hazards approach described in the City of Vaughan Emergency Plan, the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan includes specific policies to address emergency response and safe access through the development review process. The Emergency Planning Program and Vaughan Fire and Rescue Service (VFRS) are responsible for the review development applications in the SPA. Each proposed future development will be assessed based on its degree of risk, which will be included in the development review process. New residential apartment and or commercial/institutional development applications will be required to provide an emergency response plan specific to the proposed development. The application must also demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA that safe access is available in accordance with the criteria set as set out in the policies. The Emergency Planning Program and the VFRS have reviewed the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan and the Woodbridge Special Policy Area Justification Report and have confirmed in a letter to MMAH dated February 20, 2014 that the emergency management standards and practices currently in place support the proposed development as described in the Secondary Plan.

218

Summary of Changes to the SPA Boundary and Policies:The proposed SPA boundaries result largely from the an update to the flood plain mapping. In addition, an assessment was conducted of the land use designations and property boundaries of each parcel within the SPA. The following is a summary:

the existing 40.1 hectare SPA has been reduced to 29.8 hectares, resulting in an overall

reduction in 10.3 hectares or 25.7% of the existing SPA;parcels designated Natural Areas, including property owned by TRCA, were removed from

the SPA as development is not intended to occur on these lands; andlands located inside the previous regulatory flood plain but outside the updated flood plain

were removed from the SPA.

The SPA policies from the previous Official Plan Amendment were generally brought forward and updated in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan to be consistent with current provincial legislation and the comprehensive SPA review. The following is a summary of changes:

the flood proofing standard is specified in one clear policy;

clarification of safe access with respect to pedestrian movement and vehicular traffic;

requirement for emergency response plans in accordance with the City's emergency

management standards and practices;a 'notwithstanding' policy to ensure that single-detached units are not converted to

townhouse developments in the Low-Rise Residential designation, which would otherwise be a form of intensification in the SPA;a 'notwithstanding' policy that new lot creation or unit creation in the Low-Rise Residential

designation is prohibited; and a density bonus is not permitted for properties in any land use designation in the SPA.

At the request of the Province, the City has prepared a Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to ensure that residential dwellings and/or overnight accommodation uses on certain parcels within the updated SPA do not exceed the land use permissions in the new Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan. The Draft ZBA is an interim measure until the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is amended in conformity with the VOP 2010.

TRCA staff is satisfied that the updated SPA policies in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan and the Draft ZBA captures TRCA planning and regulatory interests, roles and responsibilities for development within the SPA. Staff recommends that they be supported.

Next Steps in the SPA ProcessThe following is a summary of the concluding steps in the process to update the Woodbridge SPA boundary and policies, in accordance with the provincial guidelines:

City Council endorsement of the SPA Justification Report and Woodbridge Centre

Secondary Plan (May 6, 2014).TRCA resolution of endorsement of the technical information to support the proposed

update to the SPA boundary and policies in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan and the Draft ZBA.Council/TRCA resolutions forwarded to MMAH/MNR.

City submission of final documentation to MMAH.

MMAH/MNR provide recommendation to Ministers.

Ministers of MMAH and MNR make a decision.

219

The Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan is currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). It is anticipated that the Ministerial decision will be entered through the OMB process. It should be noted that in response to the notice of the recent Committee of the Whole meeting that was sent to all landowners in the SPA, the City of Vaughan did receive a few written communications from landowners or their agents, expressing concerns related to the SPA component of the Secondary Plan and the future redevelopment/intensification of their property. It is unknown at this time, to what extent these concerns will advance through the OMB process.

CONCLUSIONThe City of Vaughan, in collaboration with TRCA, has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Woodbridge Special Policy Area in accordance with provincial guidelines for amending the policies and boundaries of existing SPAs. The Woodbridge SPA Justification Report is based upon a flood risk assessment using the most current flood plain information for the Humber River to inform land use and emergency management planning. The proposed SPA policies in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan set out a policy framework that will enable the continued revitalization and redevelopment of the historic commercial core and ensures that all development and redevelopment in the SPA is assessed for risk within the context of the City's emergency management standards and practices. The development of the City's submission package, proposed SPA polices, and ZBA have been subject to extensive discussions with MMAH and MNR. On this basis, TRCA staff recommends that the Authority support the Woodbridge SPA Justification Report and the proposed updates to the Woodbridge SPA policies and boundaries as set out in the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan, and Draft ZBA, in order to advance to the next steps of the Provincial approval process.

Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281Emails: [email protected]: May 20, 2014Attachments: 2

220

Attachment 1

221

Attachment 2

_________________________________________

222

RES.#A81/14 - CITY OF TORONTORequest for a Permanent Easement for the Replacement of a Sanitary Trunk Sewer Beneath the G. Ross Lord Dam and Reservoir, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed, CFN 50751. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the replacement of a sanitary trunk sewer beneath the G. Ross Lord Dam and Reservoir, located to the east of Dufferin Street and north of Finch Avenue West, in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River watershed.(Executive Res.#B30/14)

Moved by: Mike MattosBen CacholaSeconded by:

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the replacement of a sanitary trunk sewer, located to the east of Dufferin Street and north of Finch Avenue West, Don River watershed in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area);

AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 1.72 hectares (4.26 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto for the replacement of a sanitary trunk sewer beneath the G. Ross Lord Dam and Reservoir, as shown on a plan prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department, Engineering Services Section, Land and Property Surveys, Sketch No. PS-2013-109, dated November 20, 2013;

THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the City of Toronto;

THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction;

THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto;

THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines;

THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained by the City of Toronto prior to commencement of construction;

223

THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required;

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

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A82/14 - ONNI GROUPRequest for Permanent Easement for Stormwater Outfall and Purchase of Property Located at the Southwest Corner of Park Lawn Road and Lakeshore Boulevard West in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Mimico Creek Watershed, CFN 50556 and CFN 50557. Receipt of a request from Onni Group to provide a stormwater outfall, located at the southwest corner of Park Lawn Road and Lakeshore Boulevard West in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Mimico Creek watershed.(Executive Res.#B31/14)

Moved by: Jim ToveySeconded by: John Parker

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Onni Group for a stormwater outfall which will facilitate the development of Onni Group's property at 2200 Lakeshore Boulevard in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area);

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Onni Group in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.0116 hectares (0.0286 acres), more or less, be granted to Onni Group for a stormwater outfall, described as Part 15 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by KRCMAR Surveyors Ltd. Job No. 10-076, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) the easement price is for a nominal consideration of two dollars ($2.00), plus all legal and survey costs incurred to complete the transaction;

(b) in addition, Onni Group will provide the following:

224

(i) conveyance of a parcel of land to TRCA for nominal consideration of $2.00 containing 0.3408 hectares (0.8421 acres), more or less, being Part of Lot 7 and Part of The Street (closed by By-Law 7415, Instrument No. ET75216) on Registered Plan 83, designated as Parts 2, 3, 5-14 inclusively on draft R-Plan by KRCMAR Surveyors Ltd. Job No 10-076, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), subject to a permanent easement for stormwater outfall;

(ii) construct the trail and landscaping works and implement the Ravine Stewardship Plan;

(c) all disturbed areas are to be restored to the satisfaction of TRCA as soon as possible after completion of construction;

(d) sediment control measures in a manner satisfactory to TRCA are to be practiced during construction;

(e) Onni Group is to be responsible for all repairs and/or maintenance of the stormwater outfall which maybe required in perpetuity and for indemnifying TRCA from any and all claims arising from the construction and use of the easement area;

(f) an archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out all at the expense of Onni Group to the satisfaction of TRCA;

(g) any additional consideration as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor;

THAT the sale be subject to the approval of Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required;

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

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A83/14 - UNIFORMED ANNUAL AND SEASONAL SECURITY SERVICES 2014-2017Award of contract for uniformed security services for TRCA facilities.(Executive Res.#B32/14)

Moved by: Glenn MasonSeconded by: Ronald Chopowick

225

THAT the contract to provide uniformed security services for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) public use facilities, campgrounds, offices and select properties for a three year (2014-2017) be awarded to Knights On Guard Protective Services at a total cost not to exceed $722,929.68, plus 15% contingency, plus HST it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications;

THAT an option one year extension at the discretion of TRCA staff be available at an additional cost not to exceed $240,976.56 plus 15% contingency, plus HST;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the contract, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A84/14 - PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2014Highlights of the new Provincial Policy Statement 2014.(Executive Res.#B33/14)

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Bob Callahan

THAT the Province of Ontario be commended for adding policies to the new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 to address the "Urban Agenda";

THAT the Province be encouraged to begin immediately to hold consultation sessions with stakeholders to identify performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the PPS 2014 policies;

AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Conservation Ontario and municipal clerks in TRCA's jurisdiction.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A85/14 - EXPANDING ONTARIO'S GREENBELTConfirming a request from Toronto Environmental Alliance to support and assist the City of Toronto in Growing the Greenbelt in urban river valleys.(Executive Res.#B34/14 & Res.#B35/14)

Moved by: Mike MattosSeconded by: Ben Cachola

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) offer its support and assistance to the City of Toronto and to all municipalities within TRCA's watersheds who are considering recognizing the Greenbelt Plan's River Valley Connections in their official plans or adding public lands into the Urban River Valley designation of the Greenbelt Plan;

226

THAT TRCA continue its program of land acquisition in the valleys to complete the missing links and achieve a fully connected system of publicly owned urban valley lands;

THAT this report be circulated to all municipalities within TRCA watersheds;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the pilot projects with municipal partners in studying the impact of the expansion of the Greenbelt.

CARRIED _________________________________________

SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

RES.#A86/14 - ONTARIO CLIMATE CONSORTIUM PROJECTInformation on Award of Preferred Source Contract. Information regarding a preferred source contract awarded for the Ontario Climate Consortium project entitled “Comparison of Emerging Techniques for Updating Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves: Pilot Case Study for Toronto and Essex Regions.”

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Ben Cachola

THAT the staff report regarding a preferred source contract with Dr. Paulin Coulibaly (McMaster University) for the project titled “Comparison of Emerging Techniques for Updating Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves: Pilot Case Study for Toronto and Essex Regions” be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDSince 2011, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has hosted the secretariat for the Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC). As the OCC Secretariat, staff is responsible for coordinating the activities of and acting as the administrative body for the OCC. The OCC has the mandate of leading initiatives aimed at mainstreaming climate change research across Ontario by linking partner universities with end-users, such as municipalities, conservation authorities and the private-sector. In seeking to address the challenge posed by incorporating climate change into the derivation of new intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves used in stormwater design, TRCA and the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) sought to engage OCC-member university researchers to undertake a study on this topic. Both TRCA and ERCA have identified a need to generate future IDF curves in their jurisdictions. There are however, a variety of methods for incorporating climate change into IDF curves and different approaches have been previously shown to result in highly divergent results. The aim of the study is to compare how a number of different methods currently being used in future IDF curve derivation compare.

227

Building on an initial literature review conducted by TRCA and ERCA staff, a concept note for a study comparing different methods for generating future IDF curves was developed and included a detailed list of researchers involved in IDF work in Ontario, Canada and a few international examples. A project review team comprised of members from ERCA, OCC and TRCA spoke to three different researchers across Ontario and concluded that Dr. Paulin Coulibaly (McMaster University) and Dr. Donald Burn (Waterloo University) had the right expertise, experience and were able to complete the study collaboratively and within the necessary timeline and budget. These two researchers were then invited to submit a detailed joint proposal for their collaborative work. Based on a satisfactory technical review of the proposal, and a cost estimate that was lower than originally budgeted by TRCA and ERCA, the project team proceeded with the administration of a contract to Dr. Coulibaly on behalf of both researchers. An agreement between TRCA and ERCA was also established, with ERCA contributing $35,636.00 (includes HST) toward the project and TRCA will be contributing $31,124.00. TRCA, as the OCC Secretariat is responsible for administering the agreement with Dr. Coulibaly.

As per criteria of 10 of Schedule “B” in TRCA’s Purchasing Policy, a contract was signed with the researcher, which staff had assumed was a representative of the University. Schedule 'B' allows for award of a contract on a preferred source basis without the need for approval of TRCA's Chief Executive Officer or the board if the following criteria 10 is met:

Research grants for special projects undertaken by qualified college or university staff

and/or students acting on behalf of their respective institution

However, the first invoice was issued directly by the researcher and not by the university. Upon investigating the apparent discrepancy, staff discovered that it is common practice for university researchers to administer contracts directly within their own research accounts, as opposed to those administered by the University. Ideally, a research project such as this would be administered as a grant to a university under criteria 10 of Schedule “B” in TRCA’s Purchasing Policy. Given that the funds are being transferred directly to the researcher and not the university, the normal practice would have been for staff to seek approval of the Executive Committee to award the contract. However the work has already begun so staff has prepared this report to advise the board of this contract award. The rationale for having awarded the contract on a preferred source basis as per Sections 9.3.3 of TRCA’s Purchasing Policy is as follows:

9.3.3 The required goods and services are to be supplied by a vendor or supplier having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be reasonably provided by any other supplier.

In this particular instance, both Dr. Paulin Coulibaly and Dr. Donald Burn possess specialized knowledge, skills, expertise, computational resources and experience required to undertake and successfully deliver a scientific study of this nature. Dr. Coulibaly has previously worked with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario to develop future IDF curves, and Dr. Burn is widely recognized as an international expert in future and regional IDF analysis. Both researchers are also currently leading larger national efforts associated with IDF curve guidance and stormwater management through an NSERC Strategic Network called FloodNet. These researchers are working collaboratively on the current IDF project.

228

FINANCIAL DETAILSTotal value of this research project is $59,079.65 (plus HST). ERCA is contributing $35,636.00 (includes HST) towards the costs of the project. TRCA will contribute $31,124.00 (including HST). Funding is available in climate science adaptation account 120-90.

Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237Email: [email protected] information contact: Harris Switzman, extension 5931Email: [email protected]: May 05, 2014

_________________________________________

RES.#A87/14 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

Moved by: Dave RyanSeconded by: Ben Cachola

THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - New Fisheries Act and Level III Agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/14, held on May 2, 2014, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED

RES.#A88/14 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Cynthia Thorburn

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, items EX10.1 - EX10.9, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/14, held on May 2, 2014, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

229

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:42 a.m., on Friday, May 23, 2014.

Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair

/ks

Brian DenneySecretary-Treasurer

Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/188773.pdf · Dave Ryan Member Deb Schulte Member John...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/188773.pdf · Dave Ryan Member Deb Schulte Member John...