meeting - executive committee · window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in...

1

Executive Committee Meeting #11/13

Chair: Gerri Lynn O'ConnorVice Chair: Maria AugimeriMembers: Ben Cachola

Ronald ChopowickGlenn De BaeremaekerMichael Di BiaseJack HeathColleen JordanGloria Lindsay LubyMike MattosJim ToveyRichard Whitehead

January 17, 2014

9:30 A.M.WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE

AGENDAEX1. MINUTES OF MEETING #9/13, HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2013

Minutes Summary Enclosed Herewith on PINK

EX2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

EX3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

EX4. DELEGATIONS

EX5. PRESENTATIONS

EX6. CORRESPONDENCE

EX6.1 An email dated November 28, 2013 from Mr. Joe Grogan, resident, Bolton, in regard to the Canadian Tire Warehouse Distribution Centre Proposal 4

2

EX7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION

EX7.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek WatershedCity of Pickering, Regional Municipality of DurhamCFN 48944 6

EX7.2 THE LIVING CITY POLICIES FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHEDS OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 10

EX7.3 PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 16

EX7.4 ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATEDPROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF LANDHeart Lake Conservation Area, Regional Municipality of PeelCFN 48537 33

EX7.5 PARKS CANADA AGENCYRouge National Urban ParkCFN 46156 37

EX8. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION

EX8.1 TORONTO ZOOGovernance Model 44

EX8.2 HUMBER RIVER HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION PROGRAM FORTRAN MODEL UPDATE 51

EX8.3 BLACK CREEK CHANNEL MAINTENANCEDisposal of Stockpiled SoilsTender RSD13-158 55

EX8.4 APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERRenee Afoom-Boateng 58

EX9. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

EX10. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX10.1 - EX10.2 ARE MAJOR APPLICATIONS

Applications that involved a more complex suite of technical studies to demonstrate consistency with policies; applications that cover a significant geographic area (e.g. subdivisions, stormwater management ponds), extensive modifications to the landscape, major infrastructure projects, emergency works, resolution of violations/after the fact permits, trail construction

3

CITY OF TORONTO [NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]

EX10.1 CITY OF TORONTOTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere, and alter a watercourse, in G. Ross Lord Park south of Fisherville Road, between Sunnycrest Road and Fisherville Creek, in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed, as located on property owned by TRCA under management agreement to the City of Toronto. The purpose is to undertake storm sewer upgrades. Works will involve replacement of various segments of storm sewer, as well as replacement of an outfall structure. The Ministry of Natural Resources warm water fisheries timing window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR. 59

CITY OF VAUGHAN

EX10.2 301 MILLWOOD PARKWAYTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Lot 2, Plan 65M-2868, (301 Millwood Parkway), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to recognize a modified retaining wall and conduct restoration works within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed at 301 Millwood Parkway in the City of Vaughan. 62

EX10.3 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDEDStandard Delegated Permits, Permission for Routine Infrastructure Works and Minor Works Letter of Approval 64

EX11. NEW BUSINESS

NEXT MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #12/13, TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 7, 2014 AT 9:30 A.M. IN WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE

Brian DenneyChief Administrative Officer

/jr

4

CORRESPONDENCE EX6.1

An email dated November 28, 2013 from Mr. Joe Grogan, resident, Bolton, in regard to the Canadian Tire Warehouse Distribution Centre Proposal

From: grogan_joeTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RES.#A104/13-June 18, 2013-CTC Proposal-WAREHOUSEDate: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:31:10 -0500

This week, I requested and received from the Authority this document. I read with interest that since 2010 the Authority has worked with the Town of Caledon to "identify and assess the natural heritage and aquatic features on this site......". The report you prepared on June 18, 2013 for the Conservation Authority also contains much other important information for the public of which the public is not aware. However, the report does NOT contain additional significant information that the executive and elected members of the Conservation Authority need to be aware of. By means of this e-mail I am now requesting that the executive and elected members of the Conservation Authority receive this information because the entire matter of the proposed Canadian Tire Depot in South Bolton is a major concern to thousands of families living in Caledon. As one member of the Caledon community who has been very much concerned by many aspects of this matter, I wish to draw to the Authority's attention (executive and elected members) the following partial record of community opposition to this proposal: 1/July 19, 2012 notice in the Caledon Enterprise of a proposed CTC warehouse in South Bolton causes much public concern. 2/August 18th, 2012 meeting in Caledon East when members of the public expressed our concerns in a public forum. 3/September 11, 2012 when the writer and others delegated Council in opposition with petitions filed. 4/November 26, 2012 the public in a stormy meeting at the Wellness Centre in Bolton, again expresses opposition. 5/February 12th, 2013, Bolton residents asks for information as to the date of the next public meeting and requests that it be held in Bolton not Caledon East. 6/May 28th, 2013, public meeting held in Caledon East and many questions raised re: the proposal-no response from any members of the Council to the questions raised; instead, some answers provided by Town consultants and reps from CTC. 7/June 25, 2013, Town Council approves the land zoning application changing the land use from Agricultural to Serviced Industrial In spite of presentations made by 15 members of the general public who indicated our opposition. Subsequently on July 18, 2013 the Ontario Government via a MZO approves the change supported by both Caledon Council and the Region of Peel. 8/Since July, 2012, more than 1,000 residents of Bolton, Palgrave, Wildfield and North Brampton have signed petitions in opposition to the proposed CTC warehouse in South Bolton as the Depot will bring to our communities more than 700 trucks daily with some of these trucks very likely powered by diesel engines. A June, 2012 report from the World Health Organizations clearly identifies diesel engine exhaust as cancer producing. A copy of the press release from the WHO was provided to all members of Council. Since July of this year, a community organization Your Voice for Bolton has organized additional activities to educate the public as to our concerns and has filed documentation with the Ontario Government asking that the MZO requested by Caledon Council be revoked. In addition, I believe a legal challenge will be filed against this proposed Depot. While your report for the Authority was prepared in June, 2013, before the MZO was issued, I am shocked that it does NOT include some of the community information being summarized here.

5

Since your report is a public document, should it not also have included the information noted here which is also part of the public record? Furthermore, given the potential for more than 2800 trucks weekly going to and from the proposed Depot, (a facility replacing 1,500,000 square ft. approx. of prime farmland) what concerns does the Authority have re: possible increased damage to the natural environment and the community's Quality of Life due to a possible significant increase in diesel fume emissions? I would appreciate please a written response to this note via e-mail. Thank you. Joe Grogan, Bolton Resident, 1975 to present

6

Item EX7.1TO: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee

Meeting #11/13, January 17, 2014

FROM: Mike Fenning, Senior Manager, Property Services

RE: GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek WatershedCity of Pickering, Regional Municipality of DurhamCFN 48944

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEAcquisition of property located to the south of Bayly Street and west of Church Street South in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed.

RECOMMENDATION

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT 2.839 hectares (7.016 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lots 15 & 16, Broken Front Concession, being Parts 11, 14, 29 and 30, Plan 40R-22677, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from the Corporation of the City of Pickering;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands subject to existing service easements and the reservation of three storm drainage easements by the Corporation of the City of Pickering;

THAT Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction and all reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

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

BACKGROUNDResolution #A94/10 at Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015.

7

The development of a property located to the south of the subject property and municipally known as 1400 Church Street South included the creation of a wetland on the subject property to offset loss of wetlands through the development of 1400 Church Street South. Pickering accepted title to the subject property for a five year minimum period, during which time TRCA's Ecology staff monitored wetland operations. TRCA's Ecology staff has completed a review of the wetland monitoring operations and support the acquisition of the subject property at this time. Pickering will reserve three easements for storm drainage purposes. Water inflow to the subject property includes clean rain roof run-off from the 1400 Church Street South development by way of an existing underground pipe. The area involving this inflow pipe will be the third storm drainage easement, which is located is between the other two storm drainage easements that Pickering will reserve.

Negotiations have been conducted with Denise Bye, Supervisor, Property & Development Services at the City of Pickering.

Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands.

RATIONALEThe subject property falls within the Duffins Creek watershed and the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015.

The subject property is a wetland feature, which satisfies one of the criteria in the Greenlands Acquisition Project. The majority of the lands are included in TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and provide a connection to other adjacent natural features, including portions of the Lower Duffins Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex to the west, north and east, and significant woodlands to the west. The latter has been previously acquired by TRCA. The subject property adds to the size of these existing natural features, which are currently protected through public acquisition and Provincial policy. Situated approximately two kilometres from Lake Ontario in the southern, primarily urban, fabric of the City of Pickering, this property offers migratory opportunities to songbirds and waterfowl migrating across the lake.

TAXES AND MAINTENANCEBased on TRCA's preliminary review of the environmental criteria for lands that are eligible to receive a property tax exemption under the provincial Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, it would appear that a portion of the subject property would be eligible for an exemption for the 2014 taxation year as it is Provincially Significant Wetlands. The remainder of the subject property is zoned ‘M’ or ‘Industrial’, which is not eligible for exemption. The estimated 2014 taxes would be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000. Pickering’s Planning staff has agreed to change the zoning for the subject property in order to accurately match its current wetland use at such time that Pickering's Planning staff is processing a by-law to address other miscellaneous zoning issues. Upon rezoning of the subject property, the remainder would be eligible for exemption. Furthermore, the addition of the subject parcel of land should not significantly impact TRCA's maintenance costs at this location.

8

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds for the costs related to this purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account.

Report prepared by: Dan O'Donohue, Jae R. TruesdellFor Information contact: Dan O'Donohue, 416-661-6600 extension 5767,

Jae R. Truesdell, 416-661-6600 extension 5247 Emails: DO'[email protected], [email protected]: December 12, 2013Attachments: 1

9

Attachment 1

10



FROM: Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development

RE: THE LIVING CITY POLICIES FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHEDS OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUETo report on the results of public consultation and on revisions to the draft of The Living City Policies, and to release the revised draft for final public and stakeholder review.

RECOMMENDATION

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff conducted public and stakeholder consultation on The Living City Policies draft document and have revised the draft document based on stakeholder feedback;

AND WHEREAS staff committed to reporting back to the board on the results of public consultation and on revisions to the draft document;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA release a revised draft of The Living City Policies draft document for final public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in this report;

THAT TRCA's municipal partners, provincial ministries, the Building Industry and Land Development Association, environmental non-governmental agencies, watershed and waterfront interest groups, neighbouring conservation authorities, and other stakeholders be so advised by the CEO'S Office;

AND FURTHER THAT staff return to the board later in 2014 for formal adoption of The Living City Policies document.

BACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #11/12, held on January 25, 2013, Resolution #A263/12 was approved as follows:

WHEREAS conservation authorities have a legislated and mandated responsibility under the Conservation Authorities Act to have board-approved policies to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources;

AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have drafted a policy document entitled: The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of TRCA, to update and replace TRCA’s Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994);

11

AND WHEREAS public and stakeholder consultation on the draft policy document is a provincial requirement and will improve the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the document;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA release The Living City Policies draft document for public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in this report;

THAT all of TRCA's municipal partners, provincial ministries, the Building and Land Development Industry (BILD), environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), watershed and waterfront interest groups, neighbouring conservation authorities and other stakeholders be so advised by the CEO's Office;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the outcomes of the consultation process and proposed revisions.

The purpose of The Living City Policies (LCP) is four-fold:

1) to guide TRCA review of applications under the Planning Act and undertakings subject to the Environmental Assessment Act ;

2) to provide the basis for approving permit applications under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act ;

3) to inform TRCA’s advocacy role for The Living City and sustainable communities in the planning and development process; and

4) to assist and enable TRCA's partners’ and stakeholders’ contributions to building The Living City.

Stakeholder ConsultationSince receiving consent from the Authority to consult externally on the draft policy document, staff posted the draft document on TRCA’s website with a series of questions to evoke comments from all stakeholders. Staff also conducted three Orientation Sessions at Black Creek Pioneer Village (March 2013) on The LCP, which were well attended by: municipalities, provincial ministries, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and neighbouring conservation authorities. Attendees were asked to provide their written comments by the end of June 2013. Between May and August 2013, staff met individually with several municipalities (by region), the City of Toronto, BILD, Humber Watershed Alliance, Don Council, Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (by phone). Written comments were received over this time period from these and other stakeholders, with extensions granted to municipalities requesting more time to review the document. At the municipal sessions, both regional and local staff attended mainly from planning departments, but some staff representatives from engineering, public works, capital projects (roads and water departments), urban design and parks, also attended.

Through the process, the feedback was generally positive and many stakeholders indicated that the document aligned well with their objectives for building sustainable communities. The following is an overview of input grouped by stakeholder type.

12

Municipalities: The main message from municipalities was to provide greater clarity in identifying roles and responsibilities to clearly state that municipalities are responsible for the design and planning of communities and that TRCA is not the approval authority under the Planning Act or the Environmental Assessment Act . Municipalities expressed in person and in writing to TRCA staff that the policies in The LCP, as drafted, do not make this sufficiently clear. They commented that the document’s language should be adjusted in order to emphasize that TRCA can only make recommendations in the advocacy (Chapter 6), planning and environmental assessment realms (Chapter 7); conversely, they generally felt that the policy language in the Regulation section (Chapter 8) was generally sufficient as drafted because TRCA is the approval authority in the permitting process.

Next, municipalities expressed concern over the policies that recommend protection of the “Natural System” as defined only by TRCA. They felt that they, as the approval authorities in the planning process, should be defining a natural system in accordance with the natural heritage systems and policies in their municipal official plans. In general, they felt that The LCP’s Natural System policies were too prescriptive, did not account for the natural systems work done by municipalities, and that municipal natural heritage systems in official plans should prevail over TRCA’s Natural System. They noted that none of these points were made clear enough in the policy language as drafted.

Another common municipal comment was that certain technical guidelines referred to in The LCP that are still under development, such as the Compensation Protocol and the Stream Crossings Guideline, should be consulted on and finalized before having status in The LCP.

Finally, a number of municipalities were of the opinion that The LCP should have municipal council endorsement prior to its final approval by the Authority. Accordingly, they requested an extension in The LCP’s proposed timeline in order to allow time for municipal staff reporting to their respective Councils.

Provincial Ministries: Provincial ministries and the Niagara Escarpment Commission were supportive of the document and made only minor comments for clarification in wording where provincial matters are referenced in the draft. The ministries that commented were: Natural Resources (MNR), Environment, and Municipal Affairs and Housing. MNR stated in their comments: “It is apparent that a lot of work went into developing this draft and TRCA should be commended for a job well done.”

BILD: The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)’s commented that The LCP was “clear and well organized”. BILD's only major issue with the draft was that they wanted further emphasis on the fact that the Regulation policies were the only chapter for which TRCA is the decision maker. Their comments took this view one step further, by requesting that only the Regulation policies remain as policies, and that the advocacy and planning chapters be made “guidelines” only and not “policies.” This would help ensure, in their opinion, that staff would implement the three different types of policies in the appropriate way, i.e., advocacy and planning policies as recommendations; regulation policies as requirements.

13

ENGOs: ENGOs were generally content with The LCP draft as written but expressed the need to strengthen the policies to provide more protection for natural systems. In particular, the Peel Federation of Agriculture’s comments stood out given that they took the opportunity to express their discontent with the already “multi-layered maze” of environmental regulation in Ontario that, in their opinion, TRCA’s policy document compounds. Other ENGOs that commented in writing were Cycle Toronto and Environmental Defense. Both organizations were supportive of The LCP, but wished to see an overall strengthening of the policies to further promote active transportation alternatives to the automobile, and to avoid environmental degradation from development and infrastructure.

Other Stakeholders: Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation provided supportive comments on the draft LCP with requests for some minor adjustments. Others who also made minor comments in writing were a private citizen, a private consulting firm and a neighbouring conservation authority.

TRCA Staff Internal ReviewPlanning and Development staff also conducted another round of internal review of The LCP in the last several months with TRCA Planning and Development and Ecology staff involved in day-to-day plan review. In September and December, two workshops were held for staff on select chapters in the document; staff from other divisions and sections such as Restoration Services, Watershed Management and Property Services were also invited. A number of theoretical but typical planning and development proposals were presented as case study examples, for which staff had to provide comments using the draft policies. Feedback from this “testing” of The LCP was generally positive with many suggestions for minor adjustments to improve the clarity and usability of the document. Staff have also been keeping TRCA’s Directors’ Committee up-to-date on the progress of the project.

Summary of Responses and RevisionsAt consultation sessions with external stakeholders, such as municipalities and BILD, staff gave presentations scoped to written comments received and were able to address many stakeholder issues through these presentations and the discussions that ensued. The remaining issues will be addressed through written responses, comment by comment, in a chart that will be made available to commenters. The responses indicate how the comments are addressed either through explanations of what is already in the draft document or through revisions to the document. The following summarizes the main revisions to the document by issue:

Issue: The advocacy and planning policies do not make it as clear as they should that municipalities are the decision makers in these realms, especially where the natural heritage systems in municipal official plans conflict with TRCA’s Natural System. As suggested by BILD, a solution may be to convert the advocacy and planning chapters to guidelines “only”.

14

Response/Revision: Staff are confident that having policies for all three chapters (advocacy, planning and regulation) is consistent with provincial direction to conservation authorities (CA) to indicate to all stakeholders the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and development process through a set of publicly consulted-on policies. And in general, most stakeholders were pleased to see all of what TRCA “does” all in “one place”, and therefore would not want to see the document split out into separate documents for guidelines and policies. However, staff have revised The LCP with enhanced wording and formatting in the advocacy and planning chapters that further emphasizes the municipal decision making role in the planning and development process and further wording describing how the policies in each section will be used.

In particular, the planning policies in The LCP that recommend the protection and dedication of TRCA’s Natural System now further emphasize that under the Planning Act review process, the final boundaries of the System are ultimately up to the municipality. The policies reflect current practice whereby the process to determine the boundary is a cooperative endeavour among municipalities and TRCA. TRCA will continue to use our watershed-based research and science to inform this decision making process, including identifying opportunities for restoration, enhancement and compensation. To this end, TRCA will use the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) and natural hazard boundary delineation and management in order to maintain the long term health of our watersheds. As well, more diagrams will be added to the document in order to better express the intent of the Natural System delineation policies.

In addition to the above, revisions to The LCP acknowledge, as per TRCA's municipal planning advisory service agreements, that TRCA is in no way limited to exercising its rights under the Planning Act , the Conservation Authorities Act, or any other applicable legislation nor limited from independently appealing a planning decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. This is also applicable to TRCA's delegated responsibilities from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Natural Resources as part of the Provincial One-Window Plan Review Service to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards encompassed by Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005.

Issue: New technical guidelines referred to in The LCP that are still under development, such as the Compensation Protocol and the Stream Crossings Guideline, should be consulted on and finalized before having status in The LCP.

Response/Revision: Before any new technical guidelines that support the policies are used in plan review, they will be consulted on externally in draft and then revised and finalized based on feedback. The Compensation Protocol has undergone some initial consultation with municipalities and will be undertaking further consultation in 2014. Consultation on the Stream Crossing Guidelines is anticipated for Spring 2014. These guidelines are based on recent watershed plan recommendations, ongoing monitoring and scientific research of TRCA staff and its partners, and experience from current practice. Should TRCA’s Compensation Protocol or Stream Crossing Guideline not be finalized concurrently with the approval of The LCP, these two policy areas will be “held” while the remainder of the document comes into effect. The current practice for these two areas will apply until the Guidelines are finalized.

Issue: Municipal Council endorsement of The LCP should take place prior to Authority approval.

15

Response/Revision: In accordance with provincial guidance, as a CA policy document, The LCP only requires Authority approval. Staff, however, acknowledge that municipal council endorsements are welcome as an added layer of support for implementing the policies in the document. Adoption of any of the policies from The LCP by municipalities in their official plans would be an even more helpful initiative.

TimelineTRCA staff are maintaining communication with commenters and are using the TRCA website, to continue to inform and consult with all stakeholders. The ongoing process to revise, consult and finalize The LCP over the first half of 2014 is described below. The timeline has shifted since the last report to the Authority, given that most stakeholders required extra time to review and provide comments on the document.

Both the discussions and the written comments from external stakeholders and TRCA staff have helped inform revisions to the draft. Staff have now inventoried and reviewed all of the written comments received and the revisions are being completed and confirmed through consultation with senior TRCA staff. Following the Authority meeting on January 31, 2014, a copy of this report and the revised draft document will be posted on the TRCA website welcoming comments from any interested parties. As requested by the stakeholders, the revisions will be in "track changes" Word version format so that differences from the previous version can be easily reviewed. A chart documenting all comments with corresponding responses from TRCA staff will be made available to all stakeholders and in particular, those parties who provided written comments. While waiting for the revised draft to be reviewed, staff will hold a public open house at Black Creek Pioneer Village on the revised document. The draft will also be submitted to TRCA’s legal counsel for their review. Once staff receive the final round of comments from all of these parties, final revisions to the document will be made where necessary. Staff anticipate returning to the Authority to recommend adoption of The LCP in mid-2014.

FINANCIAL DETAILSConservation authorities have a legislated and mandated responsibility under the Conservation Authorities Act to have board-approved policies. Funding for this project is part of the regular planning and development divisional budgeting process.

SUMMARY In consultation with other TRCA staff, municipalities, provincial staff, ENGOs and BILD, TRCA Planning and Development staff have revised a draft policy document to replace the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. The revised draft will be ready for public release in February 2014 so that TRCA’s partners and the general public will have a second and final opportunity to provide their input to the revised document. Public consultation is a provincial requirement for CA plan review policy documents similar to a municipal official plan review. Staff anticipate that this final consultation process will continue to help create a comprehensive and effective document for TRCA’s roles in the planning and development process and, in cooperation with TRCA's partners, will ultimately contribute to a healthy and sustainable city-region.

Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Email: [email protected] Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, David Burnett, extension 5361Emails: [email protected], [email protected]

16




RE: PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY____________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUECost of living adjustments for the 2014-2015 Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services Fee Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 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;

AND WHEREAS staff has 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 TRCA's stakeholders on the status of cost recovery;

AND WHEREAS TRCA follows the guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees 1997 and TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, which provides for an inflationary adjustment for review fees every two years and provision for a comprehensive service delivery and cost recovery assessment study;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2014-2015 Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated January 2014, incorporating a 5% cost of living increase, be approved, to be effective on January 31, 2014;

THAT a comprehensive service delivery/cost recovery assessment report be provided for the years 2012 and 2013 as soon as year end accounting numbers are available and review is finalized with any required modifications and streamlining proposals effective later in the spring of 2014;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA discuss the outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment with our municipal partners, stakeholders and BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) prior to Authority approval.

17

BACKGROUNDThe last major fee schedule adjustment for TRCA’s Planning and Development role took place in January 2012. At that time, a new fee schedule was initiated based on the trends of submissions for the previous few years and assessing the potential forecast of submissions - setting a new approach for fee recovery targeting moving forward to a 100% revenue stream for development related submissions. The cost of staff delivery was also assessed on a projected basis. However, there is a need to review actual staffing requirements relative to the submissions and project demands of the last two years to determine level of service and cost recovery.

A set of guidelines accompanied all the fees schedules that were developed in consultation with BILD to improve the execution of the fee schedule and to provide greater clarity of fee administration for applicants. This work helped the implementation of the fee schedule greatly and the process of fee collection has progressed smoothly over the last two years for planning and permitting applications with the development industry.

The Environmental Assessment fees have been more difficult to collect in a few municipalities that do not have service agreements or have constrained budgets and limited development revenue of their own, as well as provincial and crown agencies.

Workload and Revenue Trends 2012-2013Planning and Development is currently reviewing the workload volume and types of application reviews conducted for both 2012 and 2013. In 2012, Planning and Development had one of the highest volumes of planning matters in about 12 years, with a distinct increase in the review of large scale Secondary Plans and associated MESP (Master Environmental Services Plans) as well as, complex draft plans of subdivision. The 2012 the projected revenue target for development review was $5,157,000. TRCA achieved revenues in the first year of fee modifications and procedural change in the order of approximately $4,800,000, from Environmental Assessment (EA), MESP and development review fees.

The 2013 revenue actuals are still being confirmed and staff is estimating approximately $4,500,000 based on the performance during the first three quarters of the year.

Staff require final figures for 2013 to base a detailed analysis of the cost recovery picture on for 2012 and 2013, and to confirm any required modifications for cost recovery. Staff need to determine where the workload pressures are that are not generating revenue and where shortfalls may exist, if any, in the current revenue picture.

The outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment will be completed with any required modifications and streamlining proposals later in the spring 2014 for stakeholder discussions and Authority approval.

18

Streamlining EffortsPlanning and Development has worked diligently this year to improve many areas of daily operations for efficiencies. Staff has worked to improve accounting and financial tracking through new corporate accounting improvements; has established a pilot project for on-line payment; worked toward more digital submission improvements with TRCA's partner municipalities and the consulting industry; and has streamlined the approvals process for minor and standard permitting applications with the new provincially approved staff delegation process. Details of the staff delegation process and continuous strategic improvements can be found in the report "Planning and Permit Administration, Continuous Strategic Improvements and Delegation of Permit Approvals" to the Executive Committee on November 1,

2013 (Resolution #B138/13, pages 540-543 - http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/175348.pdf) and approved by the Authority on November 22, 2013 (amended Resolution #A198/13, pages 462 and 463 - http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/175883.pdf).

Modifications have been made to the fee schedules to reflect recent amendments to the Fisheries Act (November 25, 2013), whereby TRCA will no longer review projects as per 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 memorada 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.

FINANCIAL DETAILSAccording to the approved TRCA Fees Policy Guideline 2009, the fee structure and cost recovery assessment is completed every two years. As part of TRCA's annual corporate budgeting process, staff is recommending a cost of living inflationary increase of 5% (inclusive of 3% 2012, 2% 2013) to be effective on January 31, 2014 upon approval by the Authority. Based on current levels of work, this increase would generate additional revenue of about $200,000 which will cover TRCA's staffing inflationary costs (COLA) over the last two years. A revised fee schedule for 2014-15 is outlined in Attachments 1 - 3, reflecting the 5% adjustments for planning, permitting and environmental assessment review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEA comprehensive service delivery/cost recovery report will be provided for the years 2012 and 2013 as soon as year end accounting numbers are available and review is finalized with any required modifications and streamlining proposals later in the spring of 2014. TRCA will discuss the outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment with our municipal partners, stakeholders and BILD prior to Authority approval.

Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: [email protected]: January 6, 2014Attachments: 3

19

Attachment 1TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for

PLANNING SERVICESIMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

January 2014Introduction

TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Planning Services was approved by Resolution #xxx/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 CAO'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.

20

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

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

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.

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).

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).

21

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.

22

TRCA Adminsitration Fee Schedule forPLANNING SERVICES

January 2014Fee Schedule for Planning Services

Application Type Application Fee Clearance Fee NotesScreening letter (Residential/Minor projects)

$85 N/A Generally, this fee does not apply to major developments.

Vulnerable Areas Screening Fees (Source Water Protection)

$85

Concept Development/ Property Inquiry

minor $275standard $2,625major $5,775

N/AN/AN/A

This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.

Variance screening assessment $315minor $525major $1,680

See notes Where a site visit and/or extended review is required for a variance application, a clearance fee of $145 is applicable.

Consent/Severance/Land Division

screening assessment $315minor $1,260major $4,200

N/AN/A$795

Refer to Note #8.

Single Residential Site Plan minor $735major $3,060

N/A$665

Refer to General Note #8 and #12.

Site Plan minor $1,470standard $5,250major $14,700complex $22,050

N/A$1,575$3,150$3,150


Official Plan Amendment (OPA)

screening assessment $315minor $1,680standard $4,620major $8,190complex $12,600

N/AN/A$2,730$2,730$2,730


Zoning By-law Amendment/Rezoning (ZBA/RZ)

screening assessment $315minor $1,680standard $4,620major $8,190complex $12,600

N/AN/A$2,730$2,730$2,730


Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use)

standard $15,910major $32,815complex $37,800

$5,460$12,035$12,035

Refer to General Note #12.

23


January 2014Application Type Application Fee Clearance Fee Notes

Draft Plan of Subdivision(Residential/Industrial/Commercial Subdivision)

5ha or lessStandard $18,900Major $27,300Complex $36,750

5ha to 25haStandard $27,300Major $36,750Complex $43,050

25ha and greaterStandard $36,750Complex $43,050

Per unit (if applicable) $105/unitPer ha (if applicable) $475/ha

$5,460$12,035$12,035

$12,035$12,035$12,035

$12,035$12,035

Residential subdivisions without 1.prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $105 per unit. Industrial subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $475 per hectare. See General Note #8 and #12.Refer to Definitions for 2.application category criteria.As the file review progresses, 3.should the issues and review become more complex than originally anticipated, then the fee will correspondingly increase as per scope of work.For sites greater than 50 ha, 4.there will be a site specific discussion on scope of review depending on size and complexity of the specific application.

Golf Courses, Aggregate Pits or Commercial Fill Pits

Standard 25ha or less $21,000Complex > 25ha $31,500

N/AN/A

Refer to General Note #12.

Block and Tertiary Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)(Residential & Industrial/Commercial)

Base fee 25ha or less $7,500Base fee > 25ha $15,000Comprehensive $475/ha

N/AN/A

Additional charge of $475 per hectare for comprehensive MESP. Refer to Notes related to Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Application.

Urban MESP Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement.

to be determined

Optional Expedited Review (Director approved)

N/A $5,250 The Expedited Review charge applies to special circumstances around fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director’s approval and as workload allows. This generally applies to efforts that are required to be completed within 1 - 2 week period.

24


January 2014Other Applicable Fees

Description Fee NotesPre-consultation meeting no chargePre-consultation technical team site visit $2,730 This is not a mandatory fee. This is

a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.

Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $735up to 1 day $1,470

Includes travel time. First site visit is included as part of processing. Multiple field assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.

Additional Clearance fee for Subdivision Phases standard $2,625with new technicalinfo. $5,250

Applicant Driven Formal Modification (requiring re-circulation)

minor $1,095major $3,675

See Definitions on page 3.

Re-submission due to incomplete submissions $3,675 See Definitions on page 3.All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% or 75% premium on the applicable fee.

minor 25%major 75%

File Reactivation $525 To reactivate files that have been inactive for 2 years or more.

Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review

$1,575 - 2,625

To be determined based on scope.

25

Attachment 2TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For

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

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINESJanuary 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 #xxx/13 of the Authority Board 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:

All permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and 1.Development Division of TRCA.General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the 2.Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the permit 3.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.Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's 4.Director, Planning and Development and/or CAO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development.5.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 6.paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of 7.effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. All permits are issued for two years. 8.There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, and upon 9.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. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. 10.Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked approvals 11.(primarily clearance).

26

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 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.

27

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES

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

January 2014Fee Schedule for Ontario Regulation 166/06 Applications

Application Type Application Fee NotesWorks on Private Residential Property minor $380

standard $770major $5,250

See definitions.

Municipal EA Projects See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services

Municipal Development Projects(NOT EA related)

$1,210

Utilities• Single residential• Development project based

$1,155minor $2,100major $4,200

Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Resource-based Recreation and Other Projects.

Minor Projects: • Topsoil stripping/temporary stormwater

management • Minor outfalls • Minor alterations/restoration of watercourse

and wetlands • Minor Improvements (trails, minor recreational

facilities, etc.)

Standard Projects: • SWM Ponds and associated outfalls• Standard Road Crossings • Major Filling/Grading/Earth Works • In-stream Remediation Works • Alterations/Restoration of Wetlands • Major Outfalls

Major Projects:• Major Road Crossings • Natural Channel Modifications • Relocation of Stream Corridor/New Channel

Design • Major Commercial Fill Project

per project $4,200

per project $8,400

per project $14,175$14,175$15,750

$15,750

Fee charged per project component within a larger submission. Multiple permit fees are common for subdivision and site plan applications.

All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% or 75% premium on the applicable fee.

minor 25%major 75%

Permission for Minor Works - Letter of Approval private residential $105with site visit $380municipal $2,940

See Minor Works qualification criteria as approved June 9, 2006.

Permit Revisions – % of current fee. residential minor/major25%others 50%

Permit Re-Issuance (Extension) for Ont. Regulation 166/06 – % of current fee.

50% One time only.

28

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES

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

January 2014Other Applicable Fees

Application Type Application Fee NotesGIS Fee Direct Charge Fish Timing Window Extension $5,775 Emergency Works $4,330 Emergency Works fee to be added to

applicable permit fee.Red Line Revisions by TRCA minor $735

major $1,575 File Reactivation $525 To reactivate files that have been inactive

for 2 years or more.Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review.

$1,575 - $2,625 To be determined based on scope.

Optional Expedited Review additional charge (Director approved) – Percentage of current fee.

minor 25%major 50%

The Expedited Review charge applies to special circumstances around fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director’s approval and as workload allows. This generally applies to efforts that are required to be completed within 1 - 2 week period.

Negotiated Technical/Management Agreements

$1,050 - $1,575 Management agreements, major filling or grading, etc.

Repeat Submissions – Percentage of current fee for each additional submission

25% TRCA will charge a fee directly to the applicant when technical reviews of required studies, plans, drawings and models go beyond the first submission and 2 re-submissions. Notification will be provided in writing to landowner.

Project Management Assistance (voluntary as required)

$1,575 - $5,250 To be determined based on scope. Project Management Assistance fee is applied to assist applicants to address complex technical design issues to meet regulatory requirements. Working sessions are recommended.

Compliance Monitoring: • Permit Non-compliance • Compliance Reports-Clearance Letter

$2,310$170

Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee.

Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $295

29

Attachment 3TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule forENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICESIMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

January 2014

IntroductionTRCA’s Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services was adopted by Resolution #xxx/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 NotesAll EA and permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and 1.Development Division of TRCA.General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's EA Senior Manager or the Director, 2.Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the EA or 3.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.Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's 4.Director, Planning and Development and/or CAO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the EA Senior Manager or Director, Planning and 5.Development.The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be 6.processed until fees are received.Generally, only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA 7.Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies.TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort 8.(e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit.9.Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule.10.For Class Environmental Assessments, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA document 11.or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied.Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.12.Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.13.Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies and engineering review 14.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.

30

In accordance with the Crown Agency Act , R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act , R.S.O. 15.1990, C. 27, the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act :

GO Transit

Hydro One

Ministry of Transportation

Ontario Realty Corporation (Infrastructure Ontario)

Ministry of Natural Resources

Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and

Downsview Park.

As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required). However, in circumstances where the review is considered major, TRCA can negotiate funding to compensate for its review time. These proponents 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 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act , R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.

16. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act :

Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (Waterfront Toronto)

CN Rail, and

CP Rail.

As such, these 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). In accordance with agreements between TRCA and the Ministry of Natural Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act . In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act , R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.

17. 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. For all others, an application form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion.

31

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule forENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICESJanuary 2014

Fee Schedule for Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Applications or Applications made in Accordance with Utility Board Environmental Assessment Requirements

Environmental Assessment Review

Application Type Application Fee NotesMaster Plan Minor $11,550

Standard $20,475Major/Complex $28,875

Subject to negotiation

Individual EA $28,875 Subject to negotiationClass EA – Schedule/Category Cor equivalent

Minor $5,775Standard $12,075Major/Complex $18,480

Class EA – Schedule/Category Bor equivalent

Minor $5,515Standard $9,345Major/Complex $12,810

Class EA – Schedule/Category A/A+or equivalent

N/A EA pre-approved and an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit may be required. See below.

EA Addendum Reports Minor $2,100Standard $3,045Major $3,990

EA Property Screening or Inquiry $280

GIS Fee Direct charge to non-levy partners through GIS

Detailed Design Review

Application Type Application Fee NotesProject Clearance – No Permit Required Minor $2,100

Major $4,830EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions

Project Clearance – Environmental Management Plan for Dewatering

Minor $2,100Major $11,550

EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions

Repeat Submission 25% for each additional submission.

EA Related Planning Act Application See TRCA Planning Services Fee Schedule for appropriate rates

32

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule forENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and

INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICESJanuary 2014

Permit Application Review Fees

Application Type Application Fee NotesOntario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application Individual or Class EA or Schedule/ Category B & C or equivalent

Service Agreement $3,045Minor $4,200Standard $8,400Major $14,175Complex * $15,750

EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions* A site specific discussion related to

size and complexity of the application will be conducted.

Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit ApplicationClass EA – Schedule/Category A/A+ or equivalent.

Service Agreement $1,260Minor $2,625Major $3,990

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions

Routine Infrastructure Works – Letter of Approval

Service Agreement $370Minor $790Major $1,470


Emergency Works $4,330 To be added to the applicable permit or detailed design review fees

Project Clearance – No Permit Required Minor $2,100 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions

Permit Screening $280

Additional Review Fees

Application Type Application Fee NotesFish Timing Window Extension $5,775

Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $735up to 1 day $1,470

The first site visit is included as part of processing

Red Line Revisions by TRCA Minor $735Major $1,575

Additional Submissions 25% for each additional submission

GIS Fee Direct charge to non-levy partners through GIS

Permit Revisions and Reissuances (Extensions)

Application Type Application Fee NotesRevision to Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit

Minor change - 25% of current feeMajor change - 50% of current fee


Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Reissuance (one-time only)

50% of current fee

Compliance Monitoring

Application Type Application Fee NotesPermit Non-Compliance $2,310 Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of

permit revision feeEnvironmental Management Plan Compliance

To be determined Subject to negotiation

Compliance Reports - Clearance Letter $170

33




RE: ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATEDPROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF LANDHeart Lake Conservation Area, Regional Municipality of PeelCFN 48537

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEProposal to lease Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned land located within the Heart Lake Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, to construct and operate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment.

RECOMMENDATION

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been requested by Rogers Communications Incorporated (RCI) to enter into a lease agreement for lands located within the Heart Lake Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality Peel;

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 RCI in this instance;

THAT TRCA enter into a lease with RCI for approximately 0.003 hectares (0.007 acres), more or less, together with use of the existing road surfaces for access and utilities, to construct and operate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment, said land being Part of Lot 14, Concession 2 E.H.S., City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel;

THAT the lease with RCI be premised on the following general terms and conditions:

(i) The initial term of the lease will be five (5) years, with three (3) renewal options for successive five (5) year periods, all at the sole option of TRCA;

(ii) The lease rate shall be approximately Sixteen thousand five hundred dollars ($16,500.00) per annum;

(iii) RCI shall be responsible for any and all approvals required for the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower and associated equipment;

(iv) RCI shall bare the sole responsibility for any and all costs associated with the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower and associated equipment;

34

(v) Any further terms or conditions as deemed necessary or appropriate by TRCA's staff or chosen solicitor;

THAT an archaeological review shall be completed by RCI, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of the TRCA, all at the sole expense of RCI;

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

BACKGROUNDTRCA had originally been approached by RCI to locate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment on TRCA lands within the Heart Lake Conservation Area. This request was in response to RCI's customers' request for improved coverage in this area. RCI investigated opportunities to co-locate onto existing towers of other cell phone providers; however these towers were all beyond the required distance and/or below the required height in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area. Through TRCA's review of this leasing opportunity, approximately 300 local residents were contacted and offered information through the Heart Lake Community Association, informing them of the RCI proposal, with no concerns or objections being raised.

Staff feel that a telecommunications tower in the Heart Lake Conservation Area will not impact the use and enjoyment of the park by visitors.

The proposed tower is a 40 metre shrouded tri-pole and a walk-in equipment cabinet located within a fenced eight metre by eight metre compound. The access right-of-way will be across existing roadways for initial construction and ongoing tower maintenance. RCI has indicated that they will work with TRCA to develop a visually pleasing design for the top of the tower. RCI has advised that the design will accommodate future co-location requirements. As an additional benefit to TRCA, RCI shall be responsible for the capital cost of installing cabling and other equipment to allow access to high speed internet at TRCA's Heart Lake facility.

Lease AgreementThe subject area consists of approximately 0.003 hectares (0.007 acres), all of which is made up of tableland. A sketch showing the subject lands is attached.

The following are the key terms of the proposed lease arrangement:

1. Lease Payment: $16,500.00 plus HST per annum to be increased by two percent (2%) per year;

2. Initial Term: Five years;3. Renewals: Three successive five year terms, conditional upon TRCA approval;4. Access: RCI will be provided with access to the tower and fenced compound at all times; 5. Insurance: RCI will provide five million dollars in commercial general;6. Realty Taxes: RCI will pay all taxes levied against the property as a result of this installation;7. Hydro: RCI will be responsible for electrical connections and charges relating to this use;8. Approvals: RCI will comply will all required laws, directions, rules and regulations;9. Equipment Removal: RCI will remove all equipment and restore the site to the satisfaction of

TRCA within 120 days following termination of the lease.

35

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe revenues generated from this lease will be used for TRCA purposes.

Report prepared by: Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5417Email: [email protected] Information contact: Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5417, Mike Fenning, extension 223Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]: December 13, 2013Attachments: 1

36

Attachment 1

37




RE: PARKS CANADA AGENCYRouge National Urban ParkCFN 46156

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEConveyance of land for the Rouge National Urban Park, in the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering, regional municipalities of York and Durham, Rouge River watershed.

RECOMMENDATION

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #2/12, held on March 30, 2012, the "Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley" was endorsed;

AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering it's objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Park Canada Agency (PC) in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA lands containing 2,266 hectares (5,600 acres), more or less, and highlighted on the attached plan be conveyed to PC for the Rouge National Urban Park, in the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering, regional municipalities of York and Durham subject to the following terms and conditions;

a) the consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00;

b) PC is to be responsible for all legal, survey and other costs related to the land conveyance;

c) retention by TRCA of the lands included in the tripartite agreement between City of Toronto, Toronto Zoo and TRCA subject to refining the boundaries;

d) conveyance by TRCA of lands and/or easements for municipal infrastructure to the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering and the regional municipalities of York and Durham if requested by the municipality and subject to concurrence by PC;

e) any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor.

38

THAT said conveyance be subject to the Province of Ontario releasing its interest in the lands conveyed by it to TRCA for Rouge Park and Bob Hunter Memorial Park purposes;

THAT said conveyance is 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;

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

BACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #2/12 held on March 30, 2012, Resolution #A22/12 was approved as follows:

THAT the "Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley" be endorsed;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request direction from the Ministry of Infrastructure regarding the disposition of provincial lands conveyed to TRCA in title or by management agreement for Rouge Park purposes;

THAT TRCA express its thanks to Minister Peter Kent for the support of the Government of Canada to create the National Urban Park;

THAT TRCA express its thanks to Mr. Alan Wells, Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance for his leadership in pursuit of the resolution of the governance and funding solutions for the Rouge Park;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA continue to offer its assistance to Parks Canada regarding the transition period and provision of other services to Parks Canada after the National Urban Park is established.

In June 2011, the Speech from the Throne set the direction for the Government of Canada to establish a national urban park in the Rouge Valley. In May 2012, the Government of Canada announced $143.7 million in funding over the next 10 years for the establishment of the park and a subsequent $7.5 million annually for ongoing park operation.

The Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP) requires a management approach reflective of its urban character. As such, since early July 2011, PC has worked closely with more than 100 national, provincial and regional organizations, Aboriginal partners, RNUP tenants, and youth, along with individuals and organizations with expertise related to conservation, farming, tourism, recreation, youth engagement and education, to develop a proposed RNUP concept. In June 2012, PC released the RNUP concept. The concept presented a vision for the park, a study area and a broad overview of how the park will be established, protected and managed. The RNUP concept enshrines the following four fundamental elements of the RNUP; connect people to nature and history, support a vibrant farming community, conserve natural heritage and celebrate cultural heritage character.

39

Public feedback on the park concept will inform the development of recommendations on legislative process, policies and strategic management plan for RNUP. PC is moving forward with its recommendations for a federal legislative framework that will establish and govern the park. PC expects to have a draft strategic management plan available for review and comment in early 2014.

AgricultureAgriculture in the RNUP was strongly supported by the public in the summer 2012 public engagement process. The presence of long-term farming in the RNUP will be supported by long-term leases that provide farmers the security of tenure and encourage investment in assets and beneficial management practices. PC supports the continuation of the present range of farming operations, and will seek opportunities to diversify agriculture that offer more opportunities for visitor and community contact.

Cultural ResourcesThe RNUP has a diversity of cultural resources, including archaeological sites, heritage buildings and landscapes that speak to the agrarian life of the early European settlers and the travel routes and settlements of Aboriginal peoples. PC will work with municipalities and other organizations such as TRCA to improve the unique cultural assets which enhance the profile and visitor experience of RNUP. PC will also work with municipal governments to ensure that locally designated heritage homes in the park remain occupied whenever possible, and will use its leasing strategy with appropriate tenures to ensure pride of ownership and proper maintenance over the long term.

Original Rouge Park Plan, Rouge North Management Plan, Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan, East Markham Lands Plan, Greenbelt Plan and Trails Master PlanThe original plan for the Rouge Park, south of Steeles, the Rouge North Management Plan, the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan, the plan for the East Markham lands and the Greenbelt Plan have been extensively reviewed by PC, as have the background reports that supported their formulation. These plans and related background information serve as important resources in the continuing development of park data bases that integrate planning on the Transport Canada lands with those lands in the current Rouge Park. The land transfer agreement with the Province of Ontario commits PC to work with the Province in developing its policies for RNUP. This will ensure that relevant past policy is considered when developing current and future policy relating to the RNUP.

The trails master plan recently completed by the Rouge Park has been a key component of continuing trail planning for RNUP. PC staff used the plan as a starting point, and then considered the plan in view of PC’s trail policy and its experiences in its other protected areas. PC staff also engaged many of the same individuals that contributed to the Rouge Park trails plan. The trails component of the upcoming draft strategic management plan is more conceptual in nature than the 2012 trails master plan. More detailed trail planning will continue following the public engagement process on the draft strategic management plan.

40

Rouge Park AllianceThe Province of Ontario terminated the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Ministry of Natural Resources, Rouge Park Alliance and TRCA effective July 31, 2012. This MOU related to the Rouge Park Alliance and operations, administration and management of the Rouge Park. On July 23, 2012, TRCA received a letter from PC confirming PC's intention to have TRCA be responsible for the interim management of the Rouge Park until it is formerly established as RNUP and PC assumes operational control. In May of 2013, TRCA and PC entered into an Interim Management Agreement.

Provincial LandsIn January 2013, the Government Canada and the Province of Ontario entered into a Memorandum of Agreement relating to the transfer of the provincial government's 1,600 acres (648 hectare) of land to PC for the creation of the RNUP as well as relinquishing reversionary rights to approximately 3,700 acres (1,497 hectares) lands which were previously conveyed by the Province to TRCA.

Transport Canada LandsIn June 2013, the Government of Canada announced that Transport Canada will transfer nearly 5,000 acres (2,024 hectares) to PC for the proposed RNUP.

Memorandum of AgreementThe Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley identified the following:

Government of Canada (represented by the PC);

Province of Ontario (represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure);

City of Toronto;

City of Markham;

City of Pickering;

The Regional Municipality of York;

The Regional Municipality of Durham;

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

As noted above the Government of Canada and the Province on Ontario entered into a separate Memorandum of Agreement, leaving the remaining as parties to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which identifies the lands to be included and excluded from the proposed park and the process by which the lands will be transferred to PC.

The proposed RNUP boundary is shown on the attached plan. The RNUP will include all publicly owned lands within the park boundary with the exception of the Toronto Zoo, the former Beare Road landfill site, rail corridors, hydro transmission corridors and existing infrastructure including existing roads, road allowances and stormwater management facilities. Privately owned lands are also excluded from the RNUP.

The MOA includes the following terms and conditions:establishment of the RNUP by federal legislation;

the lands each party will be contributing to the RNUP;

mechanism for conveyances and/or easements for future municipal infrastructure

requirements;

41

entering into Supplemental Agreements to establish further terms and conditions respecting

the transfer;If the transferred lands are not designated as part of the park within five years, the lands will

be transferred back to the party without any charge; all lands will be transferred for nominal value;PC will reimburse each party for any "out of pocket expenses" associated with the transfer

of lands to PC;PC will assume all existing tenancies.

Toronto ZooThe Zoo is strategically located adjacent to the RNUP with its overflow parking and some other facilities being located in the Park study area. This creates a significant opportunity for collaboration and partnering on programs and possibly capital projects of mutual interest and benefit. In addition, attendance at both the Zoo and the Park could be enhanced as each venue, through collaboration, could provide complimentary attraction content.

The City of Toronto has recently completed a review of the governance of the Zoo and one of the recommendations is to update the Tripartite Agreement between the Zoo, the City of Toronto and TRCA for operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo. This update will include a review of the existing Zoo boundaries to determine if they are still relevant based on the current use and needs of the Zoo as well as the future needs of the RNUP. Lands not included in the Tripartite Agreement will be conveyed to PC.

Infrastructure RequirementsSince the RNUP is located in a large urban area which continues to grow, it is necessary for the RNUP to accommodate some existing and future infrastructure. Existing municipally owned infrastructure such as roads and stormwater management facilities will be excluded from the proposed RNUP boundary. Prior to transfer of lands to PC, TRCA may be requested to grant certain easements for this infrastructure. The municipal parties to the MOA have also identified a number of road improvements which are anticipated to occur on roads which pass through the Park including provision of bike paths and safety improvements. TRCA may also be requested to transfer these lands to the municipality prior to the PC transfer. PC will be consulted on all such requests. To date TRCA has processed a request from the City of Toronto relating to the ramps that provide access to and from the Toronto Zoo.

Transition Under the MOA, landowners will be responsible for their lands until such time as the lands are transferred to PC. TRCA will continue to manage the day to day operations of the Park as it did under the now dissolved Rouge Park Alliance. The existing management agreements between TRCA and City of Toronto will continue to remain in effect until the lands have been transferred to PC or as mutually agreed to. A Transition Advisory Committee chaired by PC will be established to provide advice and input on the establishment process and provide input on interim management direction until a permanent governance strategy is created. The signatories to the MOA will be represented on the Committee.

Supplemental AgreementsAs noted above, the MOA provides for Supplemental Agreements to establish further terms and conditions respecting the transfer between one or more of the parties and PC. The items to be addressed in Supplemental Agreements involving TRCA include:

identifying ongoing collaboration, joint programming, shared facility management and

boundaries related to the Toronto Zoo;

42

identifying and transferring or granting easement for future municipal infrastructure

requirement on TRCA lands prior to the transfer of these lands to PC (to date the City of Toronto is the only municipality requesting this agreement);TRCA's ongoing role in the RNUP relating to management of rentals, leases, the Glen

Rouge Campground and regeneration activities;interface between the RNUP and TRCA's policy and program interests relating to the Rouge

watershed;interface between RNUP and TRCA lands outside of the RNUP ie. Port Union Waterfront

Park, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area, Rouge/Duffins corridor;costs associated with any staff displaced by the creation of the RNUP.

FINANCIAL DETAILSPC will be responsible for all survey, legal and other costs associated with the completion of this transaction

Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223; Mike Bender, extension 5287Emails: [email protected], [email protected]: December 12, 2013Attachments: 1

43

Attachment 1

44




RE: TORONTO ZOOGovernance Model

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEUpdate on the status of the governance of the Toronto Zoo.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT staff be directed to facilitate discussions between Parks Canada (PC), Toronto Zoo (Zoo), and the City of Toronto (City) for an agreement for ongoing collaboration, joint programming and shared facility management related to the Zoo and the Rouge National Urban Park;

THAT staff be directed to enter into discussions with the City and the Zoo to finalize the terms of a revised Tripartite Agreement for the use of the Zoo lands;

THAT staff be directed to explore opportunities for ongoing collaboration and joint programming with the Zoo;

AND FURTHER THAT a report regarding these discussions be brought forward to a future Executive Committee meeting.

BACKGROUNDAt Executive Committee Meeting #10/12, held on December 7, 2012, Resolution #B170/12 in regard to the Toronto Zoo was approved as follows:

THAT Chief Administrative Officer and the Senior Manager, Property Services be directed to work with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Zoo regarding the future governance and management of the Toronto Zoo;

AND FURTHER THAT a report regarding these discussions be brought forward to a future Executive Committee Meeting.

City Council on October 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2013, adopted the following:

1. City Council retain the Toronto Zoo and the Zoo Board of Management as a City Board and agency pursuant to the City of Toronto Act.

2. City Council request that the Toronto Zoo Board of Management's forthcoming 2014 Strategic Plan include the following: a. a Facility Master Plan;

45

b. sources of capital and operating program funding including: fundraising, sponsorships and partnerships, with an emphasis on the promotion of wildlife and habitat conservation, environmental sustainability, and public education;

c. strategies to improve on site visitor spending, and possible addition of new compatible activities or other measures which boost attendance and net revenues;

d. possible joint programs and capital projects in partnership with Parks Canada within the implementation of the Rouge National Urban Park; and

e. service efficiencies that reduce the need for government operating funding.

3. City Council acknowledge the regional importance of the Toronto Zoo and request that the Province of Ontario take a strong role in the future of the Toronto Zoo given its function as a major regional attraction and its importance to the regional economy as a major tourism, recreation, wildlife conservation and education venue, and City Council request the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, to initiate discussions with the Province on these principles and to establish a funding partnership for Toronto Zoo programming and shared capital infrastructure.

4. City Council request Parks Canada to enter into an agreement with the Toronto Zoo, the City of Toronto, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for ongoing collaboration, joint programming and shared facility management related to the Rouge National Urban Park; and request the Government of Canada to provide funding for any new or shared joint capital infrastructure.

5. City Council request the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, in consultation with the City Manager, to further engage stakeholders such as the University of Toronto, the University of Guelph, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other GTA municipalities on their financial and program participation in the future of the Toronto Zoo.

6. City Council direct the City Manager, with appropriate City Officials and the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, to finalize the terms and report back to City Council on a revised Tripartite Agreement for the use of the Zoo lands between the City, the Toronto Zoo Board and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

7. City Council request the Toronto Zoo Board of Management, in consultation with the City Manager, to facilitate the establishment of a separate and independent charitable foundation for fundraising, sponsorship, donation and partnership purposes in alignment with its 2014 Strategic Plan.

8. City Council request the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo and Zoo Board of Management, to review the board governance and develop a Relationship Framework between the City and the Toronto Zoo for Council approval, incorporating Parts 1 to 7 above.

9. City Council refer the following Executive Committee Recommendation to the City Manager to include in his future report outlining a shareholder relationship framework with the Toronto Zoo.

46

Referred Recommendation:City Council affirm that the Toronto Zoo Board of Management is solely responsible for any future decisions regarding the acquisition, disposition and overall management of the Zoo's animal and plant collection.

10. City Council request the Toronto Zoo Board of Management to convene an expert panel to undertake an animal collection welfare assessment and audit and create a scientific standard of care for the zoo animal collection, based on the biological and behavioural needs of the animals, relying on scientific data collected in situ; such expert panel be composed of representatives from:

- Canadian Federation of Humane Societies- Canadian Council on Animal Care- Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association- Zoocheck Canada- Bornfree Canada- Animal Alliance of Canada- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food- Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

11. City Council request that the findings of the expert panel in Part 10 above be incorporated into the Zoo/City of Toronto Relationship Framework, the Zoo Strategic Plan and the Capital Master Facilities Plan.

12. City Council request the Zoo Board of Management to submit an Annual Report to the City Manager for transmittal to the Executive Committee and City Council, following Council's approval of the Zoo Board Relationship Framework.

History of the Toronto ZooThe Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road between Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, City of Toronto and is approximately 280 hectares (700 acres) in size. Over 80% of the Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, comprised of valley and table lands. The subject TRCA lands were acquired between 1962 and 1970 and are included in the June 14, 1961, Management Agreement with the City (formerly Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto).

On April 6, 1967, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro Toronto) Council approved in principle a proposal to construct a new zoological park on a site in the Rouge River area. In March of 1968, Raymond Moriyama Architect and Site Planner submitted to the Metropolitan Parks Commissioner a Feasibility Study and Master Development Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Park, Glen Rouge. On April 29, 1969, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Society (the Society) was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and operating zoological facilities in the Metropolitan Area. On October 17, 1969, Metro Toronto Council approved the Master Zoo Plan submitted by the Society for the long term development of the Zoo.

47

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

The following are the general provisions of the 1978 Agreement:TRCA approves the continued use of TRCA lands for a zoological garden;

TRCA approves the location and type of buildings in the Master Zoo Plan approved by

Metro Toronto Council on October 17, 1969;TRCA receives no compensation for the use of the TRCA lands for Zoo purposes;

the Board assumes all the assets and liabilities of the Society including all agreements;

the Board is responsible for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo as a

public zoological garden in accordance with the agreement and any general policies established from time to time by Metro Toronto Council;the role of the Society is to assist in maintaining the philosophical integrity of the Zoo and its

facilities for the edification, education and enjoyment of the general public and for the advancement, encouragement of and research in zoology, conservation, wildlife and plant life;Metro Toronto has financial responsibility for the operation of the Zoo including any surplus

or deficit incurred by the Board and any capital improvements to the Zoo;Metro Toronto or the Board can terminate the Agreement with three months' written notice.

Zoo ProposalIn September of 2012 the Zoo Board adopted a proposal which recommended the Zoo separate from the City by reorganizing into a private non-profit corporation to operate and manage the Zoo through a management agreement with the City. City staff has reviewed the proposal and has identified the following potential risks to the City:

there is no assurance of financial sustainability for the Zoo within a 10 year time frame;

even if the Zoo is restructured to become more independent of government control, it will

still require municipal and other government funding;the Zoo's ability to maintain City assets;

the Zoo's ability to secure commercial financing.

As a result, the City will retain the Zoo as a City Board and Agency.

Rouge National Urban ParkAs noted above, the Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road. The Zoo is strategically located adjacent to the Rouge National Urban Park with its overflow parking and some other facilities being located in the Park study area. This creates a significant opportunity for collaboration and partnering on programs and possibly capital projects of mutual interest and benefit. In addition, attendance at both the Zoo and the Park could be enhanced as each venue, through collaboration, could provide complimentary attraction content.

Staff is recommending that TRCA facilitate discussions between the Zoo, the City and PC to explore the feasibility of achieving the following objectives:

a joint visitor experience and education centre;1.determining potential future uses and restoration responsibility for ValleyHalla;2.shared use of other facilities such as parking;3.

48

joint and/or complimentary programming dealing with environmental education, endangered 4.species, conservation strategies and other public programming;delineate the boundaries of lands that will be included in the tripartite agreement between 5.the City, TRCA and the Zoo and the boundaries of lands that will be transferred by TRCA to PC;how the area in the vicinity of the Zoo can provide a significant, welcoming entrance for the 6.Rouge National Urban Park;how security interests of both the Zoo and PC can be achieved;7.opportunities to collaborate on sustainable community objectives such as waste 8.management, energy conservation, renewable energy and low impact development.

Tripartite AgreementThe 1961 Management Agreement is the mechanism that allows for the use and management of TRCA lands by the City for park and recreation purposes. This is an important foundation document to any agreement for Zoo related use of this property and should remain in place. The agreement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo has now been in place for 35 years and the parties have agreed that there is a need to update this agreement. Some of the items to be discussed during the update are as follows:

identify ownership of the various buildings, structures on site as well as the animals;

a process to review the buildings and structures at the end of the lease to determine future

need for these facilities;identify opportunities for TRCA to work with the Zoo on conservation/education programs;

acknowledgement that TRCA's regulations apply to the Zoo lands;

as set out in the 1961 Management Agreement, TRCA will need to approve the Facility

Master Plan or any other master/management/development plan for the Zoo;undertake a review of the existing Zoo boundaries to determine if they are still relevant

based on the current use and needs of the Zoo;need to identify permitted and non-permitted uses for the lands;

the agreement needs to include a non-competition clause. (a number of the new proposed

uses for the Zoo are similar to activities TRCA is undertaking at our various facilities and we do not want to be competing over these revenues);term of the agreement;

provision for early termination if the lands are no longer being used for Zoo purposes;

the agreement should provide for environmental clean up at the end of the term of the

agreement.

49

Public InstitutionsThe other source of collaboration being considered by the City is large public institutions such as the University of Toronto, the University of Guelph, the Toronto Board of Education and TRCA. Not only do these institutions provide a wealth of leading edge knowledge in animal science, biology, zoology, conservation, environmental science and environmental education but also undertake important research which can be operationalized at the Zoo to improve the animal care, conservation, environmental sustainability and public education efforts of the Zoo. While the Zoo has some connection to these institutions, particularly with veterinary sciences at the University of Guelph, the City is recommending that the Zoo further strengthen this collaboration.

Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223Emails: [email protected]: November 29, 2013Attachments: 1

50

Attachment 1

51



FROM: Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services

RE: HUMBER RIVER HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION PROGRAM FORTRAN MODEL UPDATE

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEAward a preferred source contract to undertake data collection and review of existing and future conditions (i.e. land use and water quality) within the Humber River watershed and if warranted, complete a Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran model update for the watershed to support a Scoping study in support of the Humber Bay Individual Environmental Assessment.

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #5/12, held on June 22, 2013, Resolution #A94/12 approved Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to lead an Environmental Assessment (EA) study in collaboration with Toronto Water, Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and Toronto Waterfront Secretariat, which will consider a Humber Bay landform to improve water quality at Sunnyside Beach, to allow for Blue Flag beach certification;

AND WHEREAS the Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN (HSPF) model update for the Humber River watershed is a key technical study required to focus an Individual EA, to evaluate structures at the mouth of the Humber River;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a preferred source engineering contract be awarded to XCG Consultants to complete a data review and undertake the Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN Model update as required, at a total cost not to exceed $99,225.00, plus HST;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of any documents.

BACKGROUNDThe Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) process was initiated by the City of Toronto in 1997, and adopted by City Council in 2003. The goal of the plan is to reduce and ultimately eliminate the adverse effects of wet weather flow on the environment and to improve the ecological health of the watercourses and waterfront within the City of Toronto. The plan aims to manage wet weather flow issues on a watershed basis using a hierarchical solution approach starting at the source, followed by drainage system conveyance, and ending with end-of-pipe methods.

52

Computer simulation modeling of lake water quality completed as part of the WWFMP utilized the HSPF Model for the Humber River watershed. At the time, the HSPF modeling determined that, even with the cooperation of upstream municipalities to implement best stormwater management practices, the City of Toronto would not be able to achieve water quality targets (i.e. Blue Flag certification) at Sunnyside Beach. The WWFMP indicated that construction of a deflector arm constructed on the east side of the mouth of the Humber River combined with all identified upstream stormwater management measures would enable water quality to improve sufficiently at Sunnyside Beach to meet Blue Flag certification.

Subsequent to the WWFMP, options to create a peninsular landform or series of islands were considered in place of a deflector arm. Concept drawings depicted a structure that would extend an estimated 1 km offshore into Lake Ontario. The City contemplates that the landform could be designed as a waterfront destination and recreational amenity that enhances the aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Lake Ontario shoreline.

Toronto Water staff recommended to Council that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be undertaken to consider potential impacts of a landform on the flow of the Humber River, river hydraulics, lake circulation, longshore sediment transport, shoreline erosion, navigation and other matters. On April 11, 2012, Toronto City Council adopted the recommendation; that TRCA and Toronto Water enter into a joint initiative to undertake an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for a landform within Humber Bay. At Authority Meeting #5/12, held on Friday, June 22, 2012, Resolution #A94/12 approved TRCA staff to lead an EA study for the Humber Bay landform in collaboration with Toronto Water, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and Toronto Waterfront Secretariat. RATIONALEPrior to the initiation of an Individual EA, TRCA staff is proposing the completion of a Scoping Study. The reason for the Study, is to inform the framework for a “focussed” EA, in accordance with EA Act subsection 6(2)(c) relating to the “Terms of reference” and subsection 6.1(3) relating to the “Preparation of an environmental assessment”.

XCG was responsible for the development of the Humber River watershed HSPF model during the 2003 WWFMP. The HSPF is a comprehensive modeling package capable of simulating hydrologic processes as well as pollutant generation and transport processes within drainage catchments and along watercourse networks. It is also capable of incorporating various stormwater management (SWM) features such as detention ponds. XCG has a long standing working relationship with Toronto Water and are well experienced with hydrological studies within the Humber River watershed. They are currently under contract to Toronto Water, to undertake combined sewer overflow studies within the Humber River watershed.

As a result, staff recommends that XCG Consultants (“XCG”) be retained to perform a HSPF Model update for the Humber River as per Section 9.3.3 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy as follows:

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.

53

As part of XCG’s proposed scope of work, the consultant team will collect and review existing and future conditions (i.e. land use and water quality) within the Humber River watershed and if warranted, complete a HSPF model update for the watershed. The intent of XCG’s workplan is to confirm if the conclusions made in the WWFMP 2003 are still valid and that future watershed based stormwater controls combined with some form of landform at the mouth of the Humber River will be required to improve water quality at Sunnyside Beach to allow for Blue Flag beach certification.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE XCG’s proposed project scope of work is based on a phased project approach and will be focused on assessing whether water quality in the Humber River has changed significantly since WWFMP (2003). Phase 1 is to review existing and foreseeable future Humber River watershed conditions (i.e. land use, internal drainage, stormwater management features and stream water quality/quantity) and document any changes from the original WWFMP (2003). In particular, an analysis of water quality and quantity will be done to identify any existing trends to be compared to the WWFMP 2003 data for Humber River flows. The intent will be to highlight in so far as possible the impact current land use and stormwater management features have changed stream water quality/quantity since 2003 and potentially forecast any future trends.

A Phase 1 technical memorandum will be drafted clearly stating the estimated impact of current land use and stormwater management features on Humber River water quality/quantity - compared to those identified in the WWFMP 2003 - and forecast any identified future trends in Humber River water quality/quantity. If the water quality conditions review for the Humber River indicates no significant variation between now and the WWFMP (2003), XCG will likely be able to conclude that the original findings remain valid. In the event significant change in flow conditions are observed, Phase 2 may be required.

Phase 2 will include an update to the HSPF model for the Humber River watershed. Water quality parameters will be limited to those that directly (i.e. E-coli) or indirectly relate to the achievement of Blue Flag beach certification.

Following the additional HSPF model update, the model output would then be used to form the basis of a lake circulation model (which is not part of XCG’s work) to confirm whether or not some form of deflector arm is still required to improve water quality at Sunnyside Beach sufficiently to achieve Blue Flag beach certification at Sunnyside Beach. XCG will prepare a technical memorandum, describing the updated model, updated model typical year analysis including compliance assessment, and the result of the lake circulation model update.

54

FINANCIAL DETAILSPhase 1 work program will have an upset limit of $32,240. Phase 2 work program will have an upset limit of $66,985. Total of all phases of the work program will have an upset limit of $99,225, plus HST.

Funds for the consulting team and TRCA staff (for project management, consultation, approvals and other related activities) will be invoiced and tracked through account number 212-01. The contract will not be executed until funding for this work, from Toronto Water has been confirmed.

Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364Emails: [email protected]: December 11, 2013

55



FROM: Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services

RE: BLACK CREEK CHANNEL MAINTENANCEDisposal of Stockpiled SoilsTender RSD13-158

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEAward of Contract RSD13-158 for supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for disposal of 4,000 tonnes of stockpiled soils.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Contract RSD13-158 for supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for disposal of 4,000 tonnes of stockpiled soils, in the City of Toronto be awarded to Iron Trio Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $162,472.50.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of $16,300.00 as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;

THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractors, 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 any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

BACKGROUNDThe Black Creek Flood Control Channel is a 9 km concrete lined, trapezoidal channel constructed in the 1960’s – early 1970’s, designed using engineering principals of the time to efficiently convey flow through the highly urbanized area. In the aftermath of the July 8

th

, 2013 flood event, large deposits of sediment were found in the limits of the channel, particularly in the area between Weston Road and Jane Street.

Following post-storm inspections by TRCA and City staff, it was determined that the accumulated sediment should be removed to restore conveyance capacity for future flood events. Phase 1, which consisted of removing sediment from Rockcliffe Boulevard to Weston Road was completed in November 2013.

Soil testing to determine off-site disposal options for the sediment removed from the channel confirmed that the material is 'impacted' and must be hauled and disposed of by a Ministry of the Environment (MOE) licensed contractor.

56

RATIONALEThis project is aligned with leadership strategy number two in TRCA’s new strategic plan. Through improvements to drainage and reduction of sediment inputs, this project will assist in the successful management of our regional water resources for current and future generations.

Tender RSD13-158 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Friday, December 6

th

, 2013 with a mandatory site information meeting held on Thursday, December 12

th

, 2013. Tender packages were sent to 28 contractors as follows:

Accuworx Inc;

AIM Environmental Group;

EcoTec Construction Limited;

Edgeway Paving Ltd.;

Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd.;

Ferdom Construction;

Four Seasons Site Development;

Germag Construction Ltd.;

Ground Force Environmental Inc;

Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd.;

Iron Trio Inc.;

J-Rock-Inc;

Kell's Garden City Landscape Construction

Inc.; Landvision Contracting Limited;

Layfield Geosythetics & Industrial Fabric;

Metric;

MultiBobcat Services Ltd.;

Northgate Farms Ltd;

Premier North Ltd.;

ProGreen Demolition Ltd;

Road-Ex Contracting Ltd.;

Sam Rabito Construction Ltd.;

Sassafras Farms;

Stilescape;

Tascan Corp.;

Tedescon Infrastructure Ltd;

Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc.;

The Cedarbrook Group Inc.;

Titanium Contracting Inc.;

Trisan Construction; and

York Excavating.

Tenders were opened on Thursday December 19th

, 2013 by the Tender Opening Committee with the following results:

Contract RSD13-158 Black Creek Channel – Disposal of Stockpiled Soils

BIDDERSTOTAL TENDER AMOUNT

(Plus HST)

Iron Trio $162,472.50Four Seasons Site Development $165,000.00Edgeway Paving Ltd. $167,000.00Road-Ex Contracting Ltd. $168,390.00Ground Force Environmental Inc. $170,130.00York Excavating $183,431.00Metric $242,000.00

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

57

Based on the bids received, staff recommend that Iron Trio Inc. be awarded Contract RSD13-158 for supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for disposal of 4,000 tonnes of stockpiled soils at a total amount not to exceed $162,472.50, plus a contingency amount of $16,300.00 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications.

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds to complete the project are available through TRCA's Black Creek Channel Maintenance account #107-11 from the City of Toronto.

Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, 416-786-5128Email: [email protected] Information contact: James Dickie, 416-392-9702Email: [email protected]: January 07, 2014

58




RE: APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERRenee Afoom-Boateng

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEAppointment of Enforcement Officer to administer Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06).

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Renee Afoom-Boateng be appointed as Enforcement Officer for the purposes of enforcing Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 166/06) made by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.

BACKGROUNDThe Conservation Authorities Act provides for a conservation authority to appoint enforcement officers to enforce its regulations. There are several TRCA staff who currently have this designation, both for the purpose of enforcing TRCA's Ontario Regulation 166/06 and for authorizing the issuance of permits approved by the Executive Committee under the regulation.

RATIONALEMs. Renee Afoom-Boateng has recently been appointed to the position of Senior Planner within the Planning and Development Division. In this position, she has the responsibility for supervising TRCA's regulation services associated with the review and approval of applications. The appointment as Enforcement Officer will allow her to authorize the issuance of approvals for the work that she supervises and will enable her to assist with the enforcement of the regulation as required.

Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected]: January 08, 2014

59




RE: APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses

___________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEPursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, written permission from the Authority is required for:

a) straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland;

b) development, if in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development.

A permit may be refused through a Hearing Process, if in the opinion of the Authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land is affected.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT permits be granted in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 for the applications which are listed below:

PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX10.1 - EX10.2 ARE MAJOR APPLICATIONS

Applications that involved a more complex suite of technical studies to demonstrate consistency with policies; applications that cover a significant geographic area (e.g. subdivisions, stormwater management ponds), extensive modifications to the landscape, major infrastructure projects, emergency works, resolution of violations/after the fact permits, trail construction


EX10.1 CITY OF TORONTOTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere, and alter a watercourse, in G. Ross Lord Park south of Fisherville Road, between Sunnycrest Road and Fisherville Creek, in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed, as located on property owned by TRCA under management agreement to the City of Toronto. The purpose is to undertake storm sewer upgrades. Works will involve replacement of various segments of storm sewer, as well as replacement of an outfall structure. The Ministry of Natural Resources warm water fisheries timing window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

60

The permit will be issued for the period of January 17, 2014 to January 16, 2016 in accordance with the following documents and plans which form part of this permit:

Letter from the City of Toronto (Nancy Kim) to TRCA (Renee Afoom-Boateng)

committing to provide details regarding the isolation of the proposed outfall works to the satisfaction of TRCA; dated December 16, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. M-6824-001 (sheet 1 of 10); Basement Flooding Protection Program:

Assignment 28-07B, Sunnycrest Road Easement; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated n.d.; received by TRCA on December 4, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-004 (sheet 2 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: General Notes,

Abbreviation and Legend; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; received by TRCA on December 4, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-005 (sheet 3 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Existing Site and

Tree Inventory Plan; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; revised December 19, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-006 (sheet 4 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Limits of

Construction, Tree Preservation and Demolition Plan; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; revised December 19, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-007 (sheet 5 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Erosion and

Sediment Control Plan; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; revised December 19, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-008 (sheet 6 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Proposed Site

Plan; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; revised December 19, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-009 (sheet 7 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Site Restoration

Plan; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; revised December 19, 2013; received by TRCA on December 20, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-010 (sheet 8 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Miscellaneous

Details; prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; received by TRCA on December 4, 2013;

61

Drawing no. U-6824-011 (sheet 9 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Tree

Preservation and Replacement Details (1); prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; received by TRCA on December 4, 2013;Drawing no. U-6824-012 (sheet 10 of 10); Sunnycrest Road Easement: Tree

Preservation and Replacement Details (2); prepared by CH2M HILL on behalf of the City of Toronto; dated November 21, 2013; received by TRCA on December 4, 2013.

RATIONALEThe application was reviewed by staff on the basis of the following information:

Proposal:The City of Toronto is proposing upgrades to the existing storm sewer system within a section of G. Ross Lord Park, south of Fisherville Road. This project is part of the City’s ongoing Basement Flooding Protection Program. Works will involve replacing various sections of 675mm concrete storm sewer with new 975mm storm sewer, as well as replacement of an existing outfall structure discharging into Fisherville Creek. Replacement of the outfall structure will include new headwall and armour stone treatments. A coffer dam is to be established to isolate the outfall construction area from the watercourse, while a temporary flow diversion bypass for the storm sewer will discharge onto a rip rap surface that shall be removed once the outfall has been reconstructed. Access to the site will be obtained along an easement from Sunnycrest Road, as well as an asphalt path connecting to Torresdale Avenue through Harryetta Gardens Park, to the south of the construction area. A staging area will be established next to the easement, isolated with silt fencing and prepared with a ground covering comprised of granular on geotextile and mulch. Silt fencing will also be used to isolate the work areas and access routes, while SiltSoxx™ and mud mats will be employed to isolate the outfall construction area from the watercourse. Dewatering effluent is to be treated through a filter bag. There are to be 39 trees removed; site restoration is to include extensive tree and shrub plantings. The areas disturbed by the staging area and access route will be restored using topsoil and sod. Construction is expected to occur in winter and spring 2014.

Control of Flooding:The proposed works are not anticipated to impact flooding, flood storage or conveyance of flood waters. All grades will be maintained or matched.

Pollution:Erosion and sediment control measures (silt fence, SiltSoxx™, mud mats) will be installed prior to construction and maintained for its duration. These measures are being implemented to prevent the release of construction generated sediment into Fisherville Creek, a tributary of the West Don River. Erosion and sediment control measures have been provided in accordance with the TRCA Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006).

Dynamic Beaches:The proposal will not have any implications to dynamic beaches.

Erosion:There are no impacts identified to slope stability or erosion as a result of these works.

62

Conservation of Land:The Ministry of Natural Resources warm water fisheries timing window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

PlantingsThere are 39 tree removals associated with this project. Disturbed areas are to be restored by executing an extensive planting plan of native tree and shrub plantings, ensuring all disturbed areas are restored to pre-construction conditions, or better, upon completion of work.

Policy Guidelines:This proposal complies with Section 4.3, Infrastructure and Servicing, of the TRCA’s Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.

CFN: 43810 - Application #: 0206/10/TORReport Prepared by: Daniel Brent, extension 5774For information contact: Daniel Brent, extension 5774Date: January 7, 2014

CITY OF VAUGHAN

EX10.2 301 MILLWOOD PARKWAYTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Lot 2, Plan 65M-2868, (301 Millwood Parkway), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to recognize a modified retaining wall and conduct restoration works within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed at 301 Millwood Parkway in the City of Vaughan.

The permit will be issued for the period of January 17, 2014 to January 16, 2016 in accordance with the following documents and plans which form part of this permit:

63

Site Grading Plan, prepared by THAM Surveying Limited, dated September 26, 2013,

received by the TRCA December 10, 2013;Landscape Planting Plan, prepared by Landscape Planning Limited, revise dated July

5, 2013, received by the TRCA December 10, 2013.

RATIONALEThe application was reviewed by staff on the basis of the following information:

Proposal:The purpose is to recognize a modified retaining wall and conduct restoration works within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed. The subject property was an existing lot of record and the majority of the property is currently well vegetated with a mature forest. The property is almost entirely within the wide valley corridor of a tributary of the East Humber River.

TRCA staff reviewed a permit application for the construction a new dwelling and pool with an associated armourstone retaining wall for the property in 2010. A permit was subsequently issued for these works (Permit No. C-110154, issued December 3, 2010). Upon inspection of the works while they were underway, TRCA Enforcement Staff noted that the retaining wall had been extended beyond the limits shown on the permit approved drawings and grading and vegetation removals had extended further into the forested area than approved. As a result, a violation was issued to the property owner (Violation No. V2697). This permit application is to resolve this outstanding violation and is also required as the previously issued permit has since expired.

Through negotiations between the applicant and TRCA staff, it was agreed that the existing retaining wall should be modified (lowered) for the majority of the retaining wall length. By lowering the wall from a maximum of approximately 4 metres down to approximately 2 metres, the impact of the wall on the surrounding natural features is lessened. TRCA staff are also satisfied that the modified wall does not pose a geotechnical concern as the grades beyond the wall are very gentle.

The area which was graded beyond the approved area of disturbance is to be fully restored with native, non-invasive plantings.

Fees:As works that were conducted were beyond what was approved as part of a TRCA issued permit, an addition administrative fee has been applied to this application.

Control of Flooding:The subject property is not located within the Regional Storm Flood Plain. There will be no impacts on the storage or conveyance of flood waters.

Pollution:Sediment control fencing will be erected and maintained for the duration of the works to prevent the transport of sediment into the adjacent forested area.

Dynamic Beaches:Not applicable.

64

Erosion:TRCA staff are satisfied that there are no Geotechnical concerns through the modification of the existing retaining wall.

Conservation of Land:As a watercourse is not impacted by the proposal, no fisheries concerns will result. There are no other significant natural features on or adjacent to the site that may be negatively impacted by the project.

PlantingsAll disturbed areas between the retaining wall and the existing dwelling will be sodded. All disturbed areas beyond the retaining wall will be restored with native, non-invasive plantings and will act as a buffer between the residential use and the natural feature.

Policy Guidelines:The proposal is consistent with Section 4.2.2 E) - Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures - of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.

CFN: 50235 - Application #: 1047/13/VAUGReport Prepared by: Anthony Sun, extension 5724For information contact: Anthony Sun, extension 5724Date: December 20, 2013

EX10.3 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDEDStandard Delegated Permits, Permission for Routine Infrastructure Works and Minor Works Letter of Approval

RECOMMENDATION

THAT standard delegated permits, permission for routine infrastructure works, and minor works letter of approval granted by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, which are listed below, be received.

STANDARD DELEGATED PERMITS

CITY OF MARKHAM

36 MUMBERSON COURT - Rouge River WatershedThe purpose is to undertake works within TRCA's Regulated Area of the Rouge River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of a 60' x 120' tennis court.

CFN: 50211 - Application #: 1017/13/MARKReport Prepared by: Jeffrey Thompson, extension 5386For information contact: Doris Cheng, extension 5306Date: January 6, 2014

65

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

PIER PROPERTY INC. - Etobicoke Creek WatershedThe purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Etobicoke Creek Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of an industrial building associated with a municipal site plan application.

CFN: 50203 - Application #: 1024/13/MISSReport Prepared by: Anant Patel, extension 5618For information contact: Leilani Lee-Yates, extension 5370Date: January 6, 2014

CITY OF PICKERING

545 RODD AVENUE - Waterfront WatershedThe purpose is to construct a new two-storey single family detached dwelling on a vacant residential lot at 545 Rodd Avenue in the City of Pickering.

CFN: 50214 - Application #: 1019/13/PICKReport Prepared by: Vanessa Aubrey, extension 5662For information contact: Chris Jones, extension 5718Date: January 6, 2014

CITY OF TORONTO [ETOBICOKE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]

50 VAN DUSEN BOULEVARD - Mimico Creek WatershedThe purpose is to construct a new deck and below-grade storage area with a new basement walkout to the rear of the single family detached dwelling at 50 Van Dusen Boulevard in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York). This proposal also includes the construction of a one-storey vestibule addition to the rear and a two-storey addition to the front of the dwelling.

CFN: 49439 - Application #: 0570/13/TORReport Prepared by: Vanessa Aubrey, extension 5662For information contact: Mark Rapus, extension 5259Date: January 6, 2014

CITY OF TORONTO - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to replace a pedestrian bridge structure. Works will involve removal and replacement of the existing bridge structure. The Ministry of Natural Resources warm water fisheries timing window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

CFN: 49748 - Application #: 0794/13/TORReport Prepared by: Daniel Brent, extension 5774For information contact: Daniel Brent, extension 5774Date: December 19, 2013

66


HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to carry out stormwater management upgrades, create and re-surface roads, rehabilitate existing retaining walls and install new landscape berms along the top of bank at 215 Yonge Boulevard, Canadian Forces College in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area).

CFN: 49281 - Application #: 0431/13/TORReport Prepared by: Jessica Bester, extension 5250For information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311Date: January 6, 2014

35 GREEN VALLEY ROAD - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to construct a new two storey dwelling and in-ground pool with associated pool decking and patio at 35 Green Valley Road. The original TRCA permit was expired on September 09, 2012. The old dwelling has been demolished and the proposed new dwelling is under construction.

CFN: 50168 - Application #: 1001/13/TORReport Prepared by: Tara Jahanarai, extension 5284For information contact: Mark Rapus, extension 5259Date: December 20, 2013

CITY OF TORONTO [TORONTO AND EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]

51 ASTLEY AVENUE - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to construct a three-storey and basement addition to the rear and a third storey above the existing two-storey single family detached dwelling at 51 Astley Avenue in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area).

CFN: 46552 - Application #: 0889/11/TORReport Prepared by: Vanessa Aubrey, extension 5662For information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311Date: January 6, 2014

4 BEAUMONT ROAD - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to realign the existing stone pathway and reconstruct the inground pool and patio in the rear yard of the existing single family detached dwelling at 4 Beaumont Road in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York).

67


TOMPAUL HOLDINGS LIMITED - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to construct a one-storey addition to the side of the existing commercial building at 601 Eastern Avenue in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York).


CITY OF VAUGHAN

CASTLE MANOR HOMES - Humber River WatershedThe purpose is to construct a rear yard deck attached to an existing dwelling within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed at 76 Gentile Circle in the City of Vaughan.

CFN: 50218 - Application #: 1026/13/VAUGReport Prepared by: Anthony Sun, extension 5724For information contact: Anthony Sun, extension 5724Date: December 16, 2013

TOWN OF AJAX

TOWN OF AJAX - Carruthers Creek WatershedThe purpose is to construct a new children's waterplay area adjacent to the Carruthers Marsh Pavilion and Carruthers Marsh Playground, just south of Ashbury Boulevard and east of Shoal Point Road, in the Town of Ajax. In addition, an outfall structure with an overflow drainage channel will be constructed south of the existing asphalt path. The warmwater fisheries timing window will be applied to the project unless otherwise specified in writing by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

CFN: 48439 - Application #: 0963/12/AJAXReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: January 3, 2014

68

TOWN OF CALEDON

2211585 ONTARIO INC. - Humber River WatershedThe purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of an industrial building associated within a municipal site plan application.

CFN: 50227 - Application #: 1042/13/CALReport Prepared by: Anant Patel, extension 5618For information contact: Leilani Lee-Yates, extension 5370Date: January 6, 2014

CITY OF BRAMPTON - Etobicoke Creek WatershedThe purpose is to widen an existing road and construct a new multi use trail along the widened road at Norton Park, from Clark Boulevard to the entrance of the new Education Center, Depot and Maintenance Facility, in the City of Brampton. The warmwater fisheries timing window will be applied to the proposed project unless otherwise specified in writing by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

CFN: 50128 - Application #: 1018/13/BRAMReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: January 2, 2014

ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. - Etobicoke Creek WatershedThe purpose is to conduct a visual inspection and undertake necessary repairs of the Line 9 pipeline at Enbridge locate MP 1895.9796 within the Enbridge right of way, north of Eastgate Parkway and east of Tomken Road, in the City of Mississauga. There are no in-water works involved as a part of this project.

CFN: 49752 - Application #: 0796/13/MISSReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: January 6, 2014

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL

33 GARDEN AVENUE - Don River WatershedThe purpose is to undertake works within TRCA's Regulated Area of the Don River Watershed in order to demolish an existing dwelling and garage, and construct a new two-storey single family dwelling with an internal garage associated with a municipal building permit.

CFN: 50176 - Application #: 1004/13/RHReport Prepared by: Jeffrey Thompson, extension 5386For information contact: Doris Cheng, extension 5306Date: January 6, 2014

69

TOWNSHIP OF KING

13195 CALEDON-KING TOWNLINE SOUTH - Humber River WatershedThe purpose is to construct an addition to an existing dwelling within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed at 13195 Caledon-King Townline in the Township of King.

CFN: 49328 - Application #: 0453/13/KINGReport Prepared by: Anthony Sun, extension 5724For information contact: June Little, extension 5756Date: January 3, 2014

PERMISSION FOR ROUTINE INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS

Permission for Routine Infrastructure Works Letter of Approval are implemented by Planning and Development Division staff and are received monthly by the Executive Committee. The permission of routine infrastructure works is subject to authorization by the Director, Planning and Development and signed by an appointed enforcement officer. All routine infrastructure works are located within a Regulated Area, generally within or adjacent to the hazard or natural feature and in the opinion of staff do not affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land.

CITY OF BRAMPTON

CITY OF BRAMPTONTo undertake structure maintenance on the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Dixie Road, in the City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek Watershed, as located on the property owned by the Regional Municipality of Peel. The purpose is to rehabilitate and repair an existing pedestrian bridge over the Spring Creek, on the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Dixie Road, in the City of Brampton. The warmwater fisheries timing window will be applied to this project unless otherwise specified in writing by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

CFN: 49366 - Application #: 0546/13/BRAMReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: December 17, 2013

70

CITY OF MARKHAM

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORKTo undertake structure maintenance, drainage structure general maintenance on Woodbine Avenue - 0.87km north of Highway 407, in the City of Markham, Rouge River Watershed as located on the property owned by the Regional Municipality of York. The purpose is to undertake culvert rehabilitation works, including the removal and patching of the culvert soffit, removal and patching around the pipe penetration in the culvert barrel, crack injection, guide rail replacement, removal of trees from the west end and the south west edge of culvert and repair of bank erosion at the north west corner at a concrete culvert located at Woodbine Avenue, 0.87km north of Highway 407. In water and near water works are subject to the warm-water fisheries timing window, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

CFN: 48768 - Application #: 0060/13/MARKReport Prepared by: Scott Smith, extension 5758For information contact: Scott Smith, extension 5758Date: December 10, 2013


CITY OF TORONTOTo undertake drainage structure general maintenance immediately west of Scarlett Road, north of Eglinton Avenue West, in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed, as located on property owned by the City of Toronto. The purpose is to protect an eroded bank adjacent to an existing culvert. Works will involve removal of felled trees and minor placement of stone.


CITY OF TORONTO [TORONTO AND EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]

BELL CANADATo undertake sewer and watermain or utility installation or maintenance within an existing roadway on the east side of O'Connor Drive between Sandra Road and Glenwood Crescent, in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed, as located on property owned by the City of Toronto. The purpose is to reconstruct an existing utilities maintenance chamber. Works will involve removal and replacement of the maintenance chamber. No in-water works are within the scope of this project.


71

CITY OF VAUGHAN

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORKTo undertake structure maintenance at Pine Valley Drive, 0.75km north of Major Mackenzie Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by the Regional Municipality of York. The purpose is to undertake culvert maintenance works, including concrete removal and patching, crack injection and guide rail replacement at a concrete arch culvert 0.75km north of Major Mackenzie Drive. In water and near water works are subject to the cold water timing window, unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

CFN: 48777 - Application #: 0071/13/VAUGReport Prepared by: Scott Smith, extension 5758For information contact: Scott Smith, extension 5758Date: December 10, 2013

TOWN OF AJAX

TOWN OF AJAXTo undertake road/pathway resurfacing or reconstruction on the east side of Salem Road South, from Bayly Street to Achilles Road, in the Town of Ajax, Carruthers Creek Watershed, as located on the property owned by the Regional Municipality of Durham. The purpose is to construct a multi-use trail on the east side of Salem Road South, from Bayly Street to Achilles Road, in the Town of Ajax. No fisheries timing window will be applied to the project since no in or near water works are involved in this project.

CFN: 50123 - Application #: 1003/13/AJAXReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: December 6, 2013

TOWN OF CALEDON

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELTo undertake utility pole installation at a trail crossing on Airport Road, north of Mountcrest Road, in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed, as located on the property owned by the Town of Caledon. The purpose is to provide trail crossing signalization on Airport Road, north of Mountcrest Road, in the Town of Caledon. No fisheries timing window will be applied to this project since no in-water works are proposed for this project.

CFN: 50127 - Application #: 1015/13/CALReport Prepared by: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785For information contact: Shirin Varzgani, extension 5785Date: December 10, 2013

72

TOWNSHIP OF KING

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORKTo undertake road/pathway resurfacing or reconstruction, and structure maintenance at the Jane Street bridge, 0.15km north of King Road, in the Township of King, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by the Regional Municipality of York. The purpose is to undertake maintenance of the Jane Street bridge 0.15km north of King Road. Maintenance works include resurfacing the bridge deck, concrete removal and patching, crack injection, and replacing the deck drains. In-water and near-water works are subject to the redside dace timing window unless otherwise specified in writing by MNR.

CFN: 48477 - Application #: 1030/12/KINGReport Prepared by: Scott Smith, extension 5758For information contact: Scott Smith, extension 5758Date: December 10, 2013

MINOR WORKS LETTER OF APPROVAL

Permission for Minor Works Letter of Approval are implemented by Planning and Development Division staff and are received monthly by the Executive Committee. The permission of minor works is subject to authorization by the Director, Planning and Development and signed by an appointed enforcement officer. All minor works are located within a Regulated Area, outside of the floodplain and in the opinion of staff do not affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

PRATT & WHITNEY CANADATo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on , (1801 Courtney Park Drive East), in the City of Mississauga, Etobicoke Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by Pratt & Whitney Canada.

CFN: 50222 - Application #: 1030/13/MISSReport Prepared by: Anant Patel, extension 5618For information contact: Anant Patel, extension 5618Date: December 19, 2013

CITY OF PICKERING

1802 BRONTE SQUARETo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) and construct a ground floor addition or structure greater than 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) but less than 150 sq. m (1614 sq. ft) on Lot 80, Plan M-1037, (1802 Bronte Square), in the City of Pickering, Frenchman's Bay Watershed.

CFN: 50158 - Application #: 0996/13/PICKReport Prepared by: Vanessa Aubrey, extension 5662For information contact: Chris Jones, extension 5718Date: January 6, 2014

73


47 ORCHARD CRESCENTTo change the use, size, or number of dwelling units of a structure, or undertake work that does not change the footprint of the existing structure on Lot 28, Plan 4064, (47 Orchard Crescent), in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Etobicoke Creek Watershed.

CFN: 50033 - Application #: 0934/13/TORReport Prepared by: Vanessa Aubrey, extension 5662For information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311Date: December 4, 2013


215 VEROBEACH BOULEVARDTo install a swimming pool, undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) and construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 75, Plan M-803, (215 Verobeach Boulevard), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed.


28 SANDRINGHAM DRIVETo install a swimming pool, undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) and construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Part Block A, Plan 2395, (28 Sandringham Drive), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed.


CITY OF TORONTO [SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]

14 CORINNE CRESCENTTo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 197, Plan 4150, (14 Corinne Crescent), in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Don River Watershed.

74


TOWN OF CALEDON

4608 BEECHGROVE SIDE ROADTo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 21, Concession 4, (4608 Beechgrove Side Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed.

CFN: 50386 - Application #: 1071/13/CALReport Prepared by: Anant Patel, extension 5618For information contact: Anant Patel, extension 5618Date: January 7, 2014

5318 OLD SCHOOL ROADTo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 23, Concession 5, (5318 Old School Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed.

CFN: 50264 - Application #: 1056/13/CALReport Prepared by: Anant Patel, extension 5618For information contact: Anant Patel, extension 5618Date: December 19, 2013

TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE

3 HILL TOP TRAILTo install a swimming pool and construct a ground floor addition or structure greater than 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) but less than 150 sq. m (1614 sq. ft) on Lot 12, Plan 65M-2412, (3 Hill Top Trail), in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Duffins Creek Watershed.

CFN: 50239 - Application #: 1068/13/WSReport Prepared by: Chris Jones, extension 5718For information contact: Chris Jones, extension 5718Date: January 2, 2014

meeting - executive committee · window will apply to this proposal, unless otherwise specified in...

Documents