Executive Committee Meeting #1/14

Transcription

1 Executive Committee Meeting #1/14 Chair: Vice Chair: Members: Ben Cachola Ronald Chopowick Glenn De Baeremaeker Michael Di Biase Jack Heath Colleen Jordan Gloria Lindsay Luby Mike Mattos Jim Tovey Richard Whitehead March 7, :30 A.M WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE AGENDA EX1. MINUTES OF MEETING #12/13, HELD ON FEBRUARY 7, EX2. EX3. EX4. EX5. EX6. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF DELEGATIONS PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE 1

2 EX7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION EX7.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York Sanmike Construction Ltd. CFN EX7.2 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York Berkley Homes Ltd. CFN EX7.3 JULY 8TH, 2013 STORM DAMAGE PHASE 2 DETAILED SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENTS Contract #RSD Area I 11 EX8. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION EX8.1 EX8.2 EX8.3 IRE-YONGE DEVELOPERS INC., 4155 YONGE STREET Proposed Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Applications Ontario Municipal Board Order City of Toronto, North York Community Council Area 15 ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER PROGRAM IN HUMBER BAY Technical Support Services 20 JULY 8th, 2013 STORM DAMAGE PHASE 2 DETAILED SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENTS Contract #RSD Area E, Contract #RSD Area F, Contract #RSD14-03 Area G, Contract #RSD Area H and Contract #RSD14-03 Area J 22 EX9. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD EX10. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX EX10.6 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 2

3 CITY OF BRAMPTON EX10.1 AYR MOTORS EXPRESS To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on Lot F, Plan 636, (317 Orenda Road), in the City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by Ayr Motors Express. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Etobicoke Creek Watershed in order to facilitate the demolition of the northern portion of the existing industrial building, construct a new office area, new asphalt for the parking area, interior renovations and replacement of windows. 28 CITY OF TORONTO [ETOBICOKE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA] EX TREELAWN PARKWAY To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, change a building or structure so that it alters its use or potential use, increases its size or increases the number of dwelling units and site grade on Lot 194, Plan 3309, (82 Treelawn Parkway), in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to construct a new two-storey single family detached dwelling and inground pool, fountain and associated landscaping. 31 CITY OF TORONTO [NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA] EX BLYTH HILL ROAD To 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 Lot 12, Plan 3833 YORK, (68 Blyth Hill Road), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed. The purpose is to acknowledge the construction of a replacement concrete patio and reinforcement of the existing retaining wall in the rear yard at 68 Blyth Hill Road in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area). The previous patio and the existing retaining wall were damaged in the July 8th, 2013 storm. 33 CITY OF TORONTO [TORONTO AND EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA] EX10.4 CITY OF TORONTO To 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, at Chorley Park between Summerhill Avenue and Roxborough Drive, east of Douglas Drive, 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 construct a switchback trail connection. Works will involve construction of a new switchback trail connection and restoration of the existing trails to a natural state. No in-water works are within the scope of this project. 36 3

4 CITY OF VAUGHAN EX ONTARIO INC. O/A AMICORP DEVELOPMENTS INC. To 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 Lot PARCEL G & H, Plan RP 449, (86 Woodbridge Avenue), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Ontario Inc. o/a Amicorp Developments Inc. The purpose is to conduct site grading on the subject lands, in order to develop a 6-storey residential condominium building with 125 units. 38 CITY OF AJAX EX10.6 DELCO HOMES INC To 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 15, Concession 1, (Kingston Road and Randall Drive), in the Town of Ajax, Duffins Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by Delco Homes Inc. The purpose is to excavate, grade and construct twenty-nine row townhouses and associated rear patios and decks. 41 EX11. NEW BUSINESS NEXT MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #2/14, TO BE HELD ON APRIL 11, 2014 AT 9:30 A.M. IN WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE Brian Denney Chief Administrative Officer /jr 4

5 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Mike Fenning, Senior Manager, Property Services Item EX7.1 RE: GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York Sanmike Construction Ltd. CFN KEY ISSUE Acquisition of property located south of Elgin Mills Road East and east of Bayview Avenue, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. RECOMMENDATION THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT hectares (4.616 acres), more or less, of vacant land being part of Lot 25, Concession 2, and designated as Blocks 2 and 3 on a Draft Plan of subdivision prepared by KRCMAR Surveyors Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No , dated October 22, 2013, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, located south of Elgin Mills Road East and east of Bayview Avenue be purchased from Sanmike Construction Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND Resolution #A94/10 at Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for Negotiations have been conducted with Paul Rycroft, Land Development Consultant, who acts as agent on behalf of Sanmike Construction Ltd. As part of the conveyance, an access easement will be granted in favor of TRCA through the internal road and Common Elements Block at the end of the cul-de-sac for the future maintenance of these subject lands. 5

6 Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. RATIONALE The subject property falls within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Rouge River watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for Through the review of residential subdivision 19T(R)-06003, TRCA Planning and Development staff established the limits of the open space land (i.e. Blocks 2 and 3 on Draft Plan of Subdivision) which is situated partially within the Regional Storm Flood Plain and a portion of the valley corridor of headwater tributaries of the Rouge River at this location. TAXES AND MAINTENANCE Based on TRCA's preliminary review of the environmental criteria for lands that are eligible to receive a property tax exemption under the Provincial Land Tax Incentive Program and TRCA's own field data, it would appear that all of the subject property may be eligible for exemption for the 2015 taxation year. Based on TRCA-owned property in the vicinity, taxes without the exemption are estimated to be $1,200 for The addition of the subject parcel of land will not significantly impact TRCA's maintenance costs at this location. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the costs related to his purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account. Report prepared by: Joseph Nickerson, extension s: jnickerson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Joseph Nickerson, extension 5620 Jae Truesdell, extension s: jnickerson@trca.on.ca Date: January 27, 2014 Attachments: 1 6

7 Attachment 1 7

8 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Mike Fenning, Senior Manager, Property Services Item EX7.2 RE: GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York Berkley Homes Ltd. CFN KEY ISSUE Acquisition of property located north of Nashville Road and west of Regional Road 27, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. RECOMMENDATION THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT hectares (8.244 acres), more or less, of vacant land being part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 8, and designated as Blocks 49 and 50 on a Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Nanfara & NG Surveyors Inc., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Project No M1, dated September 24, 2013, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located to the north of Nashville Road and west of Regional Road 27 be purchased from Berkley Homes Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; That Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND Resolution #A94/10 at Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for Negotiations have been conducted with Nadia Zuccaro, of EMC Group Ltd., acting as agent on behalf of the Berkley Homes Ltd. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. 8

9 RATIONALE The subject property falls within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Humber River watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for Through the review of residential subdivision 19T-84076, TRCA Planning and Development staff established the limits of the open space land (i.e. Blocks 49 and 50 on Draft Plan of Subdivision) which is situated partially within the Regional Storm Flood Plain and the valley corridor of the Humber River at this location. TAXES AND MAINTENANCE Based on TRCA's preliminary review of the environmental criteria for lands that are eligible to receive a property tax exemption under the Provincial Land Tax Incentive Program, it would appear that all of the subject property may be eligible for exemption for the 2015 taxation year. The adjacent TRCA-owned parcels are already exempt as significant areas of natural heritage under the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement as issued under the Planning Act. The addition of the subject parcel of land will not significantly impact TRCA's maintenance costs at this location. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the costs related to his purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account. Report prepared by: Joseph Nickerson, extension s: jnickerson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Joseph Nickerson, extension 5620; Jae Truesdell extension s: jnickerson@trca.on.ca Date: January 28, 2014 Attachments: 1 9

10 Attachment 1 10

11 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services Item EX7.3 RE: JULY 8TH, 2013 STORM DAMAGE PHASE 2 DETAILED SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENTS Contract #RSD Area I KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #RSD Area I for completion of detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments for properties located in Area I categorized as medium-high to high priority sites following the July 8th, 2013 storm event. RECOMMENDATION THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS the significant rainfall event of July 8th, 2013 caused very high flows and resulting erosion damages along a number of river systems, creating new sites where existing development and infrastructure is endangered, particularly within the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS the preliminary assessment process recommended detailed geotechnical investigations of 147 additional properties be carried out as part of the July 8th, 2013 storm damage response efforts to confirm the full extent of risk; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #RSD Area I to complete detailed assessments for 57 properties within the West Humber River subwatershed be awarded to Terraprobe Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $214, plus a contingency allowance of $200, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for Area I; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is necessary to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND In the early evening hours of July 8 th, 2013 a severe thunderstorm rolled through the Toronto area, bringing large amounts of rainfall over the span of a few hours to the west end and downtown areas of the city. This intense downpour of precipitation not only resulted in extensive flooding of major roadways and transit infrastructure, but also caused significant damage to the river and valley systems and park amenities, water infrastructure and private properties found in and bounding these natural areas. 11

12 On July 26, 2013 staff brought a report to Authority Meeting #6/13 providing an overview of the information collected to date with recommendations for further action. At that time, 141 properties had been inspected, six of which were initially flagged as critical (three were later downgraded to high priority following third-party reviews), 20 were flagged as high priority, 33 were flagged as medium priority, 66 as low priority and 16 sites with a priority of none, the latter being primarily recently completed TRCA erosion control sites where no appreciable damage was observed following the storm event, or where the damage was not related to river flooding or land erosion (e.g., basement flooding). At that time, preliminary damage estimates were in the order of $28 million. A follow up report was brought to Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014 noting that as of January 20, 2014 staff has inspected 482 sites reportedly damaged during the July 8th storm event. The report also included but was not limited to providing updated preliminary estimates of the damage observed, now in the order of $37 million across all regions; and a request for approval to proceed with a list of projects using enhanced funding from the City of Toronto and core erosion management funding from the Region of Peel, subject to all necessary approvals and confirmation of available funding. Approval to proceed with the aforementioned was granted by the Authority under Resolution #A225/13. Within this list of projects included a second phase of detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments for an additional 147 properties inspected by TRCA and/or Terraprobe Inc. that ranked as medium-high or high by TRCA upon completion of the preliminary assessment phase. As with the first phase of detailed assessments, which grouped properties by watershed or subwatershed as Area A, B, C or D, the phase 2 properties were grouped accordingly as Area E, F, G, H, I or J. Area I is as follows: Area I: West Humber River - City of Toronto 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 Moon Valley Drive 87, 93, 101 Bankview Circle 22, 24 Bucksburn Road 49 Collingdale Road 32, 38, 40 Esther Lorrie Drive 30 Grovetree Road 21, 23 Hackmore Avenue 4 Hardwood Gate 33, 35 Lakeland Drive 600 Rexdale Boulevard 75 Strathavon Drive 28, 30, 62, 64 Topbank Drive 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, Watercliffe Road 12

13 RATIONALE TRCA requires the services of qualified geotechnical engineering firms to complete the detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments of the above noted properties in Areas E - J in order to determine the full extent of risk and inform the priority ranking for potential stabilization works, subject to all necessary approvals and funding. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was publicly advertised on the procurement website Biddingo.com on January 22, 2014, with expressions of interest subsequently received from seven qualified consulting firms as follows: Sarafinchin Associates; Terraprobe Inc.; Coffey Geotechnics; Soil Probe; Cole Engineering / Soil Eng.; LVM Consulting; AMEC Environmental. Five proposals were received by the deadline and opened by TRCA staff (Nick Saccone, Judith Reda and Lori Colussi) on February 6, 2014, and revised pricing received by TRCA staff (Moranne McDonnell, Patricia Newland and Patrick White) on February 18, 2014 with the following final results: Company Total Cost (Plus HST) Sarafinchin $211, Terraprobe $214, Coffey Geotech. $479, Soil Probe $343, Cole Eng. & Soil Eng. No Bid LVM Consulting No Bid AMEX Environmental No Bid To aid in determining the preferred consulting firm to undertake the assignment, proposals were evaluated by TRCA s Selection Committee based upon the criteria stated in the RFP as follows: Criteria Sarafinchin Terraprobe Coffey Geotech. Soil Probe Cole Eng. + Soil Eng Expertise and 30% 30% 27% 27% 24% Qualifications (30%) Understanding of work 25% 25% 23% 13% 20% (25%) Conformance with terms 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% of RFP (10%) Expertise and availability 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% of key personnel (15%) Reasonableness of cost 16% 18% 4% 8% 16% (20%) Total (100%) 96% 98% 79% 73% 85% 13

14 The Selection Committee determined that Terraprobe Inc. and Sarafinchin Associates Ltd. were the strongest candidates for completing Contract #RSD14-03, based on previous experience with the scope and magnitude of works required. Coffey Geotechnics provided a solid proposal with a clear understanding of the assignment and mechanisms in place to tackle the magnitude of the assignment required, however there was a significant variation in price over that of the other consulting firms for a comparable scope of services, the reason for which could not be determined by the Selection Committee. Cole Engineering submitted a very good proposal but has less demonstrated experience than Terraprobe Inc. and Sarafinchin Associates Limited. Soil Probe submitted a good proposal but did not conform with a key requirement of the RFP and the pricing was significantly higher than the most competitive bid. Based on the scores, and the need to expedite the results to align with secured and anticipated funding, TRCA staff recommend that Contract #RSD14-03 be awarded to multiple consulting firms with a distribution of work based the best value for services and TRCA's confidence in the consulting firm's ability to complete the work in the timeframe specified in the RFP. Taking the aforementioned into consideration, TRCA staff recommend that Contract #RSD Area I be awarded to Terraprobe Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $214, plus a contingency allowance of $200, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for that Area. TRCA staff has recommended that the contingency allowance for Area I be carried at $200,000 to complete detailed investigations for up to 20 additional properties on Bankview Circle and Topbank Drive, which have properties with no reported failures, but which are situated between others included in the detailed study that may potentially also be at risk over the long term. FINANCIAL DETAILS The upset limit for Contract #RSD Area I with the recommended contingency is $414, plus HST. Funding for the completion of Area I is available from 2014 enhanced funding from the City of Toronto within account Report prepared by: Patricia Newland, s: pnewland@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Patricia Newland, s: pnewland@trca.on.ca Date: February 26,

15 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development Item EX8.1 RE: IRE-YONGE DEVELOPERS INC., 4155 YONGE STREET Proposed Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Applications Ontario Municipal Board Order City of Toronto, North York Community Council Area KEY ISSUE Report and recommendations in response to an Ontario Municipal Board decision with respect to development within a valley corridor and the natural heritage system. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS IRE Yonge Developer s Inc. applied to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for a permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06 to develop within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed to facilitate the construction of a 12-storey residential building at 4155 Yonge Street, City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS TRCA Planning and Development staff recommended refusal of the TRCA permit as the proposal would negatively impact the conservation of land and the proposal was inconsistent with existing municipal planning approvals; AND WHEREAS the TRCA Hearing Board approved the Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit application; AND WHEREAS IRE Yonge Developer s Inc. applied to the City of Toronto for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control approvals under the Planning Act to facilitate the same development as approved by the TRCA Hearing Board; AND WHEREAS City of Toronto City Planning staff recommended denial of the Planning Act applications, City of Toronto Council refused the Planning Act applications, and IRE Yonge Developer s Inc. appealed the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); AND WHEREAS the OMB refused the Planning Act applications on the grounds that the development was inconsistent with the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, City of Toronto Official Plan and TRCA s programs and policies; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the following procedure be added to TRCA's Planning and Development Procedural Manual: 15

16 "Where a land owner has made or makes applications under the Planning Act for development upon which the relevant municipality or committee has not yet decided or, in the case of any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board a final decision has not been made, any application to the Authority under O.Reg 166/06, As Amended, for permission(s) in connection with such development shall be held in abeyance until such time as information has been received from the relevant municipality, committee, or in the case of an appeal, the Ontario Municipal Board, as to its consideration and decision." BACKGROUND The purpose of this staff report is to report on the outcome of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to the proposed development of 4155 Yonge Street in the City of Toronto, and to provide a recommendation for addressing future TRCA permit applications where planning permissions for a proposed development have not yet been received. At Executive Committee Meeting #1/12, held on March 2, 2012, TRCA Planning and Development staff reported on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications made to the City of Toronto in order to re-develop 4155 Yonge Street with a 12 storey residential condominium to be partially constructed into the valley slope. The report is available at On April 16, 2012, the owner applied for a TRCA permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06 for the same development proposal as was subject to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications at the City. TRCA staff did not support the proposal as it would have a negative impact on the conservation of land, and it had not yet received Official Plan, Zoning or Site Plan approvals from the municipality. At Executive Committee Meeting #4/12, held on June 1, 2012, the Committee sat as a Hearing Board to consider the application. The staff report recommending refusal of the application is available at At the meeting, the Hearing Board adopted Resolution #B62/12 approving the permit. The owner appealed the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications to the Ontario Municipal Board around the time of the Hearing Board s approval of the TRCA permit. City of Toronto staff position at the time was unsupportive of the applications for numerous reasons including traditional planning matters such as height and massing, but primarily due to the impacts on the Natural Heritage System which were inconsistent with the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Toronto Official Plan. The OMB hearing was held from April 29th to May 6th, TRCA Planning and Development staff was subpoenaed by the City of Toronto to provide their independent professional evidence against the application. Other evidence was presented in opposition to the proposal by ecologists, a forester and independent professional planners on behalf of the City of Toronto and the Yonge Ridge Homeowners Association. The owner relied heavily on the TRCA Hearing Board s approval of the permit. On June 7, 2013, the Ontario Municipal Board issued an Order respecting File No. PL ( The Order states that: 16

17 the proposed development and amendments do not represent good planning and the Board s approval of these is not in the public interest. The proposal to remove natural area first and then seek to restore runs counter to the themes of protection of the natural heritage system in the City s and TRCA s policies and is, therefore, flawed and assigned little weight by the Board for the reasons given. Approval of this proposal would result in a net loss of ecosystem services and the permanent removal of natural feature that cannot be recovered. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The hearing officer raised a number of concerns with the applicant s proposal in reaching his decision, including: The Natural Heritage Impact Study (NHIS) submitted by the applicant assumed that half of the valley slope/natural feature would be removed and developed, and that this would be compensated for by a combination of clearing the remaining slope and planting native species, as well as green initiatives on the new building such as greenroofs and permeable paving. The hearing officer found that the NHIS does not address sufficiently how the proposed development is consistent with the relevant provincial, municipal and TRCA policies (OMB File No. PL120694, pg. 19). These policies include the Provincial Policy Statement, the City of Toronto Official Plan and TRCA s Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP). In the Board s determination, this approach is not consistent with the well-stated premise in the official plan s environmental policies and various TRCA documents that natural features must be protected and preserved first before one begins to restore and enhance (pgs ). The decision states that the Applicants approach is to develop first and restore second. This is inconsistent with the purpose of the VSCMP as cited and cannot be used as a means to justify the proposed removal of the natural feature (pg. 35). Throughout the decision, the hearing officer refers to the Natural Heritage System policy direction from the provincial level down being offended by the application (pgs. 23, 26, 28, 29 31, 34 and 36). TRCA staff consider the issue of cumulative impacts when reviewing development applications. Cumulative impacts to the Natural Heritage System occur by the consistent nibbling away (pg. 20) of the natural features due to successive development within the System. As such, decisions with respect to preventing the loss of the Natural Heritage System need to be consistent. The hearing officer states that the Board also finds persuasive the statement of TRCA staff that the proposed development creates a significant loss of trees within the valley and a significant loss of the valley slope landform which cannot be recreated. This alteration to the valley would create a loss to its overall habitat value and would contribute to the cumulative loss of natural cover in Toronto. (pg. 36). The proposed development would have extended well into the valley slope as opposed to providing a minimum 10 metre buffer from the valley slope. The hearing officer recognized that this buffer is consistent with the City s Official Plan and something that the TRCA calls for on a consistent basis to protect the natural heritage system. The Board determined that the lack of buffer would be detrimental to the natural functions of the natural heritage system (pg. 16). 17

18 4. The Board considered the fact that the TRCA Hearing Board granted a TRCA permit for the proposed development. The hearing officer concluded that the TRCA Review Board clearly failed to accord sufficient weight to the direction and central premise of the City s official plan policies that natural heritage features should not be removed and that it also failed to safeguard and uphold the guiding principles of the TRCA s own policies to protect the valley and stream corridors from development that can cause permanent loss to natural features (pg. 24). CONCLUSION 1. Consistent Approach to Environmental Policies The OMB hearing officer placed great weight on existing provincial, conservation authority and municipal planning policies when rendering his decision. It is important to ensure that this environmental policy is not undermined. To do so will result in cumulative impacts to the ecological health of the watersheds. As such, staff will continue to make recommendations consistent with existing environmental policy when commenting on municipal planning and TRCA permit applications. 2. Permit vs. Planning Reviews The issuance of TRCA permits for a development proposal prior to the proposal receiving municipal planning approval is problematic. Doing so does not allow the municipality to engage the public and consider staff recommendations prior to a permit being granted. This approach to development where the landowner applies for what is, in reality, a construction permit prior to resolving basic planning matters is a recurring theme in much of TRCA s jurisdiction, especially in redeveloping areas. Without necessary planning permissions a proposed project will go nowhere and the TRCA permit becomes irrelevant. TRCA staff tries to streamline the development review process by reviewing both planning and permit applications along the same track, where appropriate. However, TRCA staff suggest that the time and effort spent reviewing permit applications is not well spent when the municipality and / or the OMB have not yet decided on the basic statutory planning matters (such as the development footprint, including natural hazard, natural heritage or land use issues). That is, it is premature and inefficient for TRCA to issue permits when the development limits have not been resolved and it is difficult, professionally, for staff to complete the permit review. To do so is akin to issuing a construction permit for a structure that does not meet zoning, and is inconsistent with applicable law under the Building Act. 18

19 This is consistent with direction provided by the Province of Ontario which states that the "...'principal of development' is established through the Planning Act approval process, whereas the CA Act permitting process provides for technical implementation of matters pursuant to Section 28 of the CA Act..." and that Conservation Authorities "...should ensure that concerns they may have regarding the establishment of the 'principal of development' are conveyed to the municipality/planning approval authority...during the Planning Act approvals process and not through the CA Act S.28 permitting process ". In addition, "an established 'principle of development' does not preclude the ability of the CA (or MMAH as per the MOU) to appeal a planning matter to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (e.g., based on newer technical information relevant to the PPS). It is recognized that there may be historic planning approval decisions that were made in the absence of current technical information which could now preclude development under the CA Act regulations. Where possible, if an issue remains unresolved, the CA should work with the proponent and the municipality to pursue a resolution." (Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities, MNR, May 2010, page 13). To resolve this, staff recommends that a new procedure be adopted stating that: "Where a landowner has made or makes applications under the Planning Act for development upon which the relevant municipality or committee has not yet decided or, in the case of any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board a final decision has not been made, any application to the Authority under O.Reg 166/06 for permission(s) in connection with such development shall be held in abeyance until such time as information has been received from the relevant municipality, committee, or in the case of an appeal, the Ontario Municipal Board, as to its consideration and decision." Notwithstanding, this does not obligate TRCA to provide a permit that cannot be implemented. Report prepared by: Steve Heuchert, extension s: sheuchert@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension s: sheuchert@trca.on.ca Date: October 31,

20 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services Item EX8.2 RE: ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER PROGRAM IN HUMBER BAY Technical Support Services KEY ISSUE Award of a preferred source contract to provide technical support services for an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Program in Humber Bay. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #5/12, Resolution #A94/12 approved Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to lead an individual 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 Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) Program in Humber Bay is a key data collection process required for the calibration of the computer surface water simulation program to be used during the Humber Bay Individual Environmental Assessment; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the contract to provide technical support services for the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Program in Humber Bay be awarded to ASI Global Limited at a total cost not to exceed $76,000.00, plus HST; THAT staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures through the course of ASI Global Limited's workplan to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary. AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of any documents. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/12, held on Friday, June 22, 2012, Resolution #A94/12 approved TRCA staff to lead an individual environmental assessment study for the Humber Bay landform in collaboration with Toronto Water, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and Toronto Waterfront Secretariat. 20

21 RATIONALE In order to calibrate computer surface water simulation programs that will be used during the Humber Bay Individual EA, the actual water current velocity measured within Humber Bay will be required. Water current velocity is collected by an ADCP unit; which is a meter that measures and records the water current velocity, at a defined depth, over a specific temporal period. TRCA staff recommends that ASI Global Limited (ASI) be retained to provide technical support services for the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) program. ASI is the most qualified firm to complete the required services. ASI recently completed ADCP programs for the City of Toronto, such as the Ashbridge's Bay Treatment Plant outfall study ( ) and the Don River and Central Waterfront study (2007 to 2008). TRCA staff consulted with several other consulting firms (i.e. XCG Consultants Ltd., W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd., GHD Canada), as well as TRCA staff to gain an understanding of their qualifications and expertise for the required scope of work. The consultation confirmed that ASI was the most qualified and experienced firm to undertake the required scope of work. As a result, staff recommends awarding the contract on a preferred source basis as per Section 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. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE ASI s proposed project scope of work includes four tasks as follows: preparation of five ADCP units for deployment; ASI to configure and install five ADCP units at five specific locations throughout Humber Bay. Estimate April 2014; ASI to retrieve all five ADCP units from their respective locations within Humber Bay. Estimate November, 2014; Download water current velocity data from each ADCP unit. Clean and store each of the ADCP units. For the installation and retrieval of the ADCP units, ASI will use an remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) and/or commercial divers. Operations will be staged from ASI s survey vessel. Downloaded data will be provided to the City of Toronto s surface water modeler for the Humber Bay Individual Environmental Assessment Project. FINANCIAL DETAILS Total budgetary costs will have an upset limit of $76,000 (excluding tax), plus a contingency of $15,200 (20%). 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 The contract will not be executed until funding for this work, from Toronto Water has been confirmed. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension s: egriesbach@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension s: egriesbach@trca.on.ca Date: February 13,

22 TO: FROM: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #1/14, March 7, 2014 Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services Item EX8.3 RE: JULY 8TH, 2013 STORM DAMAGE PHASE 2 DETAILED SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENTS Contract #RSD Area E, Contract #RSD Area F, Contract #RSD14-03 Area G, Contract #RSD Area H and Contract #RSD14-03 Area J KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #RSD Area E, Contract #RSD Area F, Contract #RSD14-03 Area G, Contract #RSD Area H and Contract #RSD14-03 Area J for completion of detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments of properties categorized as medium-high to high priority sites within the subject areas following the July 8th, 2013 storm event. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS the significant rainfall event of July 8th, 2013 caused very high flows and resulting erosion damages along a number of river systems, creating new sites where existing development and infrastructure is endangered, particularly within the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS the preliminary assessment process recommended detailed geotechnical investigations of 147 additional properties be carried out as part of the July 8th, 2013 storm damage response efforts to confirm the full extent of risk; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Contract #RSD Area E to complete detailed assessments for 35 properties within the Black Creek subwatershed area be awarded to Cole Engineering at a total cost not to exceed $122, plus a contingency allowance of $20, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA) specifications for Area E; THAT Contract #RSD Area F to complete detailed assessments for eight properties within the East and West Don River subwatershed areas be awarded to Sarafinchin Associates Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $67, plus a contingency allowance of $10, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for Area F; THAT Contract #RSD Area G to complete detailed assessments for 20 properties within the Humber River watershed be awarded to Sarafinchin Associates Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $115, plus a contingency allowance of $20, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for Area G; 22

23 THAT Contract #RSD Area H to complete detailed assessments for 12 properties within the Mimico Creek watershed be awarded to Cole Engineering at a total cost not to exceed $50, plus a contingency allowance of $10, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for Area H; THAT Contract #RSD Area J to complete detailed assessments for 15 properties within the Etobicoke Creek watershed be awarded to Terraprobe Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $56, plus a contingency allowance of $10, for the expansion of the proposed works as authorized by staff, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting TRCA specifications for Area J; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is necessary to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND In the early evening hours of July 8 th, 2013 a severe thunderstorm rolled through the Toronto area, bringing large amounts of rainfall over the span of a few hours to the west end and downtown areas of the city. This intense downpour of precipitation not only resulted in extensive flooding of major roadways and transit infrastructure, but also caused significant damage to the river and valley systems and park amenities, water infrastructure and private properties found in and bounding these natural areas. On July 26, 2013 staff brought a report to Authority Meeting #6/13 providing an overview of the information collected to date with recommendations for further action. At that time, 141 properties had been inspected, six of which were initially flagged as critical (three were later downgraded to high priority following third-party reviews), 20 were flagged as high priority, 33 were flagged as medium priority, 66 as low priority and 16 sites with a priority of none, the latter being primarily recently completed TRCA erosion control sites where no appreciable damage was observed following the storm event, or where the damage was not related to river flooding or land erosion (e.g., basement flooding). At that time, preliminary damage estimates were in the order of $28 million. A follow up report was brought to Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 31, 2014 noting that as of January 20, 2014 staff has inspected 482 sites reportedly damaged during the July 8th storm event. The report also included but was not limited to providing updated preliminary estimates of the damage observed, now in the order of $37 million across all regions; and a request for approval to proceed with a list of projects using enhanced funding from the City of Toronto and core erosion management funding from the Region of Peel, subject to all necessary approvals and confirmation of available funding. Approval to proceed with the aforementioned was granted by the Authority under Resolution #A225/13. Within this list of projects included a second phase of detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments for an additional 147 properties inspected by TRCA and/or Terraprobe Inc. that ranked as medium-high or high by TRCA upon completion of the preliminary assessment phase. As with the first phase of detailed assessments, which grouped properties by watershed or subwatershed as Area A, B, C or D, the phase 2 properties were grouped accordingly as Area E, F, G, H, I or J. Areas E-J, with the exception Area I are as follows: 23

24 Area E: Black Creek - City of Toronto 7, 9,11 Eldorado Court 161,163,165,167 Grandravine Drive 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 Gravenhurst Avenue , 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 Ridge Point Crescent 37, 39 Topcliff Avenue 14 Appletree Court 12, 14 King George's Drive 18, 20, 22 Ladyshot Crescent 21, 23, 25 Peacham Crescent 178, 180 Strathnairn Avenue Area F: East and West Don River - City of Toronto 30 Northline Road 9 Alderbrook Drive 525, 527 Donlands Avenue 72 Hillside Drive 323 Riverview Drive 3800 Yonge Street Area G: Humber River - City of Toronto 108 Hadrian Drive 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 Norfield Crescent 5, 7, 9 Windhill Crescent 58 Bexley Crescent 21, 24 Disan Court 100 North Drive 90, 94 Old Mill Road 1025 Scarlett Road 35, 27 Shendale Drive 24

25 Area H: Mimico Creek - City of Toronto 2 Kevi Lane 194 Rathburn Road 19, 21, 23, 25 Ridgegate Crescent 767 Royal York Road 10 Burnhamthorpe Crescent 4, 6, 8 Earldown Drive 17 Treeline Court Area I: West Humber River - City of Toronto 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 Moon Valley Drive 87, 93, 101 Bankview Circle 22, 24 Bucksburn Road 49 Collingdale Road 32, 38, 40 Esther Lorrie Drive 30 Grovetree Road 21, 23 Hackmore Avenue 4 Hardwood Gate 33, 35 Lakeland Drive 600 Rexdale Boulevard 75 Strathavon Drive 28, 30, 62, 64 Topbank Drive 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, Watercliffe Road Area J: Etobicoke Creek - Region of Peel 3487, 3493, 3499, 3505, 3511, 3515, 3523, 3527, 3533 Ponytrail Drive, City of Mississauga 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892 Steepbank Crescent, City of Mississauga 23 Sunforest Drive, City of Brampton RATIONALE TRCA requires the services of qualified geotechnical engineering firms to complete the detailed slope stability and erosion risk assessments of the above noted properties in Areas E - J in order to determine the full extent of risk and inform the priority ranking for potential stabilization works, subject to all necessary approvals and funding. 25

26 A Request for Proposal (RFP) was publicly advertised on the procurement website Biddingo.com on January 22, 2014, with expressions of interest subsequently received from seven qualified consulting firms as follows: Sarafinchin Associates; Terraprobe Inc.; Coffey Geotechnics; Soil Probe; Cole Engineering / Soil Eng.; LVM Consulting; AMEC Environmental. Five proposals were received by the deadline and opened by TRCA staff (Nick Saccone, Judith Reda and Lori Colussi) on February 6, 2014, and revised pricing received by TRCA staff (Moranne McDonnell, Patricia Newland and Patrick White) on February 18, 2014 with the following final results: Area Sarafinchin Terraprobe Coffey Geotech. Soil Probe Cole Eng. & Soil Eng. Area E $158, $167, $342, No Bid $122, Area F $67, $85, $122, No Bid No Bid Area G $115, $124, $240, No Bid No Bid Area H $61, $99, $161, No Bid $50, Area J $72, $56, $197, $114, No Bid Start up meeting $1, $1, $ No Bid $ To aid in determining the preferred consulting firm to undertake the assignment, proposals were evaluated by TRCA s Selection Committee based upon the criteria stated in the RFP as follows: Criteria Sarafinchin Terraprobe Coffey Geotech. Soil Probe Cole Eng. + Soil Eng Expertise and 30% 30% 27% 27% 24% Qualifications (30%) Understanding of work 25% 25% 23% 13% 20% (25%) Conformance with terms 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% of RFP (10%) Expertise and availability 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% of key personnel (15%) Reasonableness of cost 16% 18% 4% 8% 16% (20%) Total (100%) 96% 98% 79% 73% 85% 26