INDEX TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #3/10. Friday, May 7, 2010

Transcription

1 INDEX TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #3/10 Friday, May 7, 2010 MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on April 9, DELEGATIONS Carbone, Rose and Michael Di Biase re: Request for Disposal (109 Autumn Grove Court, Vaughan) 85 CORRESPONDENCE Patterson, Brenda, General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, City of Toronto re: Bluffers Park Marina 86 HEARING REPORT 102 Banbury Road, City of Toronto 88 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND 109 Autumn Grove Court, Vaughan 97 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Nine-Ten West Limited 102 MARIE CURTIS PARK Award of Contract 105 URBAN FOREST STUDIES Award of Sole Source Contract R GLEN ROAD, CITY OF TORONTO Mining and Lands Commissioner Hearing Decision and Future Divisional Court Hearing 111 ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 112

2 PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN Sustainable Hospitality Consortium Partnership 119 PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN Green Cleaning Program Collaboration 123 CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 620 Black Creek Pioneer Village North Master Plan 127 LONG TERM OFFICE ACCOMMODATION PROJECT Acquisition Update 131 BLUFFER'S PARK ENTRANCE CHANNEL EMERGENCY DREDGING, TENDER RSD ONTARIO REGULATION 166/ Edenbridge Drive Coe Hill Drive Tudor Gate Ninth Line Strathearn Road Walker Road West Strathearn Road Bathgate Drive Treelawn Boulevard Brule Gardens Brass Drive Humber Station Road Strathgowan Avenue Kestell Lane Humberland Drive Ida Street Canterbury Crescent York Valley Crescent Fletcher Drive Pine Ridge Drive Delroy Drive Keele Street Victoria Avenue Dunning Crescent Harcroft Road Damascus Drive Nattress Street Fallingbrook Crescent Grandvista Crescent Rykert Crescent King Street Chester Hill Road Riverside Boulevard Prince Edward Boulevard 161

3 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 (Cont'd) 39 Cliffcrest Drive Beech Grove Sideroad North Lake Road Rougemount Drive John Street Russell Hill Road Glen Elm Avenue Old School Road Arlington Avenue Grenadier Heights Sunset Beach Road Bayhampton Drive Circle Ridge Humber Crescent Shropshire Drive Townwood Drive Ninth Line th Sideroad Keele Street 149 Amber Plains Investment 160 Arbint Construction Co. Ltd. 162 Bell Canada 167 Brampton Heights Development Limited 152 Caledon, Town of 160 Castlederg Sideroad 149 Chateaux of Caledon Corporation 159 Cornell Rouge Development Corporation C/o Madison Properties 150 Digram Developments Inc. 160 Distillery SE Development Corporation 146 Duke of Richmond Developments Inc. 163 Durham, Regional Municipality of 155, 166 Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited 176 Ferncastle (Front Street) Inc. 146 Forward Signs Inc. 173 Genisis Lodge 152 Heathwood Homes (Rothbury) Limited 164 Markham, Town of 177 Mississauga, City of 153 Osmington Incorporated 165 Peace Ranch 175 Peel, Regional Municipality of 141, 152, 154 Pickering, City of 166 Purdue Pharma 142 Richmond Hill, Town of 164 Senlac Green Homes Ltd. 172 Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto 148 Toronto, City of 142, 155, 156, 157, 158, 167, 168, 169 Parks Forestry and Recreation 144

4 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 (Cont'd) Toronto Transit Commission 165 Toronto Zoo 173 Vaughan, City of 169 York, Regional Municipality of 161, 162

5 MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #3/10 May 7, 2010 The Executive Committee Meeting #3/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, May 7, The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall Jack Heath Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser Gerri Lynn O'Connor Anthony Perruzza Maja Prentice Richard Whitehead ABSENT David Barrow Vice Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Chair Member Member Member Member RES.#B23/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Ron Moeser Suzan Hall THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on April 9, 2010, be approved. CARRIED DELEGATIONS (a) A delegation by Mrs. Rose Carbone of 109 Autumn Grove Court, Vaughan, and Mr. Michael DiBiase in regard to item EX8.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned Land. 85

6 RES.#B24/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: DELEGATIONS Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall THAT above-noted delegation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter dated April 30, 2010 from Brenda Patterson, General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, City of Toronto, in regard to dredging at Bluffers Park Marina. RES.#B25/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: CORRESPONDENCE Gay Cowbourne Suzan Hall THAT above-noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 86

7 CORRESPONDENCE (A) 87

8 HEARINGS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 HEARING REPORT BANBURY ROAD, CITY OF TORONTO RES.#B26/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Suzan Hall Maria Augimeri THAT the committee sit as a Hearing Board. MEMBERS PRESENT FOR HEARING Maria Augimeri Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall Jack Heath Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser Gerri Lynn O'Connor Anthony Perruzza Richard Whitehead CARRIED Vice Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Chair Member Member Following the roll call, a hearing was held re: Application #0898/09/TOR for a permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06, by CSBI Group Ltd., for permission to develop within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed to facilitate construction of two decks below top-of-bank on the wall of a well defined valley, at the property described as 102 Banbury Road, City of Toronto (North York Community Council). The applicants propose to construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed. The owner of 102 Banbury Road has applied to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), under Ontario Regulation 166/06, to develop within a Regulated Area to facilitate construction of two decks below top of bank on the wall of a well defined valley. The works were substantially completed prior to application for an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. Staff do not support the application on the basis that it impacts the conservation of land. A written staff report was submitted and a presentation was made by Mr. Steven Heuchert, Manager, Development, Planning and Regulation, TRCA. A presentation was made by Mr. Harry Poch, Environmental Lawyer, Mr. Steven Mann, Arborist, SJM Arboricultural and Mr. Derek Broomfield, Patriot Engineering Ltd, representatives for CSBI Group Ltd. A presentation was made by Ms. Carmen Digas of 106 Banbury Road, Toronto, in support of the staff report. The Hearing Board asked questions of the presenters. 88

9 DECISION OF THE HEARING BOARD RES.#B27/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Gay Cowbourne THAT Application #0898/09/TOR to develop within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed to facilitate construction of two decks below top-of-bank on the wall of a well defined valley, at the property described as 102 Banbury Road, City of Toronto (North York Community Council) be refused as it impacts the conservation of land. RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall Jack Heath Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser Gerri Lynn O'Connor Anthony Perruzza Richard Whitehead THE MOTION WAS Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea CARRIED MOTION TO RECONVENE RES.#B28/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Colleen Jordan Ron Moeser THAT Executive Committee Meeting #3/10 reconvene. MOTION TO RATIFY RES.#B29/10 CARRIED Moved by: Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Gay Cowbourne THAT Application #0898/09/TOR to develop within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed to facilitate construction of two decks below top-of-bank on the wall of a well defined valley, at the property described as 102 Banbury Road, City of Toronto (North York Community Council) be refused as it impacts the conservation of land. CARRIED 89

10 BACKGROUND This proposal was submitted for the approval of works after they were constructed. The proposal asks for permission to, in effect, "regularize" the construction of two wooden decks connected by a staircase, in the rear yard. An inspection of the premises took place on September 14, 2009, in response to a complaint from a neighbour. TRCA enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation September 18, 2009 in response to the construction of the two decks without approval by permit from TRCA in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06. TRCA staff received the permit application and associated materials on October 23, 2009, following the enforcement activity. Legal proceedings in the form of charges before Provincial Court commenced January 6, 2010 with summons served February 1, The proposal is also subject to a Notice of Infraction issued by the City of Toronto Urban Forestry Services on September 18, 2009, for unauthorized tree injury and removal in a ravine associated with deck construction, subject to the Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-Law. In addition, a municipal building permit was required for the construction of the deck structures but was not obtained. If a TRCA permit is similarly not obtained, then the City of Toronto Buildings Department will not be able to issue a building permit under the applicable law provisions of the Building Code. PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the west side of Banbury Road, adjacent to Wilket Creek and Windfields Park, within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed (Attachment 1). Banbury Road is located in a residential neighborhood east of Bayview Avenue, north of Lawrence Avenue East, in the City of Toronto's North York Community Council Area. There is an existing single family dwelling located between 10 metres to 15 metres from the top of the bank of the valley. In 2001, TRCA issued the current owner a letter clearing the construction of the dwelling as the proposed dwelling was located just outside of the former "Fill Regulated" area. At the time, the rear yard and the remainder of the valley was regulated by TRCA. This portion of the property continues to be regulated under Ontario Regulation 166/06. TRCA JURISDICTION Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, a permit is required from TRCA prior to any development, if in the opinion of TRCA, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development. Development is defined as: i) the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind, ii) any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure, iii) iv) site grading, the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. 90

11 An Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit must be applied for and obtained before a municipal building permit can be issued. In the case of 102 Banbury Road, an application for an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit was submitted to TRCA after substantial completion of construction of the two deck structures following the initial investigation by TRCA Enforcement staff. A permit is required as the works fit the definition of development, and are located within a Regulated Area of the Don River watershed. In the case of the proposal for approval of works "after the fact" for 102 Banbury Road, TRCA staff conclude that the conservation of land has been affected. For an application to be refused, Section 28(12) of the Conservation Authorities Act requires that the applicant be given the opportunity for a hearing. It should be noted that TRCA reviews all permitting requirements in concert with our Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP, 2004) policies. VSCMP integrates TRCA's public safety responsibilities and reaffirms its commitment to ecosystem planning at a watershed level. VSCMP outlines policies for new development, including property improvements and ancillary structures, within highly urbanized areas such as the area surrounding and including the subject property. THE PROPOSAL The submission is for the prior construction of two connected deck structures within the Regulated Area of the Don River watershed (Attachment 2). The decks are built on a vegetated portion of the valley wall, approximately one to four metres below top-of-bank. The upper deck is approximately 18 feet x 18 feet and the lower deck is approximately 13 feet x 13 feet. The total area of the two decks is approximately 490 square feet, and they are located between 2 feet and 7 feet above the grade of the valley slope. The works are not located within the Regional Storm floodplain. STAFF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL Conservation of Land The submission impacts the conservation of land as it negatively impacts a portion of the valley corridor and degrades the habitat function of the valley system. The proposal is also inconsistent with the following policies in the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. 1. Policy 4.1, New Development, of VSCMP emphasizes the need to protect and rehabilitate valley and stream corridor landforms, features and functions while being sensitive to the development characteristics and needs of the Region as a whole and to the use of these important resources by the community. The addition of the proposed decks to the valley portion of the subject property is for the private use by the owner at the cost of the local environmental feature. 91

12 Policy 4.1 further states that (T)he main thrust of the Authority s policies and procedures for undeveloped valley and stream corridors is to prevent new development that would introduce risk to life and property associated with flooding, erosion and slope stability and/or is not compatible with the protection and rehabilitation of these natural resources in their natural state (underline added). The valley wall where the proposed decks are located hosted a variety of vegetation that has been removed. Although the slope is stable at this point in time, the additional development on the subject property may increase the risk of erosion from overland flow of stormwater. Additionally, the structures have the impact of diminishing the environmental resources on the site in their natural state. 2. Policy E.5 of VSCMP outlines that ancillary structures, such as the proposed decks, may be permitted where development exists within valley and stream corridors however, it must be recognized that property improvements and ancillary structures can negatively impact valley and stream corridor landforms, features and functions. There is no precedent of decks located on the valley wall in this section of Wilket Creek, therefore staff consider this proposal to be new development in the valley. If the development is reviewed as a property improvement, Subsection 3 requires that ancillary structures minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant Area and not result in the loss of its significant features. TRCA Ecology staff concludes that the proposed works have resulted in removals of and injuries to trees and other vegetation. The area beneath the constructed decks will not support any vegetative cover, and may be more susceptible to erosion. TRCA staff is of the opinion that the valley feature functions at a high level given its urban context. The proponent submitted an Arborist Report along with the permit application. The Report was initiated after the construction of the decks. Based on the Report, the proposed works may have resulted in removal of eight small trees (5-11cm in diameter), injury to 24 trees in moderate to good health, the removal of approximately 490 square feet of vegetation, and a precedent whereby the developed urban edge is extended further into the valley, all of which result in a loss to the overall habitat value. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND THE PRECEDENT The submission is also not supported because it contributes to the impact created by cumulative loss and degradation of natural areas and biodiversity within the Don River valley system, and indeed within the City of Toronto and other urban areas in the TRCA jurisdiction. Permitting this intrusion could be argued by future applicants to have established a precedent which will lead to similar proposals within the TRCA jurisdiction, given the constant pressure for more land use intensification. TRCA's Planning and Development staff receive inquiries for similar works such as amenity structures within the valley corridor where none existed before on a frequent, regular basis. Most inquiries for such works do not progress beyond the inquiry stage in part because staff can fall back on the precedent of TRCA not having permitted similar works in the past. 92

13 There is sufficient tableland between the existing house and the top of bank to construct a deck that would meet TRCA policy (Attachment 2). There is between 10 and 15 metres of open tableland available and TRCA staff would work with the applicant to facilitate a permit to allow for the relocation of the existing deck. There is no need for a deck of this size to be located on the valley wall at this particular site given the option to relocate the deck above the top of bank, and the lack of precedent within the area. If this application is approved, then staff will have difficulty in opposing other applications for structures and/or fill within the valley corridors, which will result in additional negative impacts to our more urbanized watersheds. Indeed, the TRCA's position before the Mining and Lands Commissioner on future appeals will become less defensible, especially given the recent Mining and Lands Commissioner decision regarding 119R Glen Road. This decision resulted in the dismissal of an appeal of TRCA s refusal to issue a permit based, in part, on the following: 1. recognizing that TRCA policy has, as its basis, a concern for the "conservation of land"; 2. accepting that the loss of a piece of the natural heritage system within the valley corridor has an impact on the conservation of land through the effect on the overall ecosystem of the valley corridor; 3. recognizing that new development over the top of bank is prohibited under TRCA's policies; and 4. upholding the ability of TRCA to consider the impacts of a precedent when considering permit applications (Russell v. TRCA, File No. CA , May 27, 2009). This application, in the view of staff, does not have merit and potentially, if approved, could be argued by future applicants to have created a significant and negative precedent for TRCA and undermine the legitimacy of TRCA's policies which have also been upheld by the Mining and Lands Commissioner. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, staff recommends that the application be denied for the following reasons: 1. The submission does not comply with the overall objective of TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Specifically, it does not conform with Sections 4.1, New Development, or E.5., Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures. 2. The submission will affect the conservation of land as it: (i) results in negative impacts to a portion of the Don River valley corridor for the purpose of creating amenity structures within the undeveloped valley portion of the property; (ii) results in removal of eight trees likely due to construction, probable injury to twenty-four trees, the removal of ground cover, and pushes the urban edge further into the valley, resulting in a loss to overall habitat value; and (iii) has a detrimental impact due to the cumulative loss of natural cover within the City of Toronto. 93

14 Even if a deck is permitted, it is not necessary to locate it in the valley corridor as the subject property has sufficient tableland to locate a deck in an alternative location or configuration to mitigate the loss of valley lands, therefore reducing the impacts to the environmental features. 3. The submission could be argued by future applicants to have created a precedent that will: (i) result in future consideration of similar proposals within the City of Toronto and other urbanized areas of the TRCA s jurisdiction; (ii) undermine TRCA's policies; and (iii) reduce TRCA's ability to defend such policies at the Mining and Lands Commissioner. Report prepared by: Michelle Stafford, extension 5250, Steven Heuchert, extension s: mstafford@trca.on.ca, sheuchert@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steven Heuchert, extension s: sheuchert@trca.on.ca Date: April 15, 2010 Attachments: 2 94

15 Attachment 1 95

16 Attachment 2 96

17 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#B30/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Rear of 109 Autumn Grove Court Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, CFN Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request from Mr. Piero Carbone to explore the possibility of a sale of a fragment of TRCA-owned land located north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Regional Road 27 (rear of 109 Autumn Grove Court), Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located directly behind 109 Autumn Grove Court, Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be retained for conservation purposes; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to arrange for the removal of the existing encroachment on TRCA property at this location. AMENDMENT#1 Moved by: Seconded by: Richard Whitehead Anthony Perruzza THAT staff negotiate and encroachment agreement for the full area of encroachment on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located directly behind 109 Autumn Grove Court, Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York. AMENDMENT #2 Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Maria Augimeri THAT staff negotiate and encroachment agreement for the area of encroachment around the pool only on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) land located directly behind 109 Autumn Grove Court, Village of Kleinburg, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York. AMENDMENT #1 WAS AMENDMENT #2 WAS THE MAIN MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED NOT CARRIED CARRIED 97

18 BACKGROUND A request was received on February 9, 2010 from Piero Carbone, requesting the sale of a fragment of TRCA-owned land situated east of Regional Road 27, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, for an addition to his residential lot. Through the subdivision approval process, TRCA acquired the valley corridor behind Mr. Carbone's lot and the neighbouring residential properties at the end of July in Shortly after the transaction was completed, Mr. Carbone enclosed a strip of TRCA-owned land with a chain link fence, measuring approximately two metres deep along the entire width of the rear yard. The area of TRCA-owned land enclosed by the fence, which is part of the tableland buffer of the valley corridor, has been landscaped with ledge rock gardens, a sunken fire pit, trees and a manicured lawn area. A letter was sent to the owner, requesting removal of the encroachment by April 15, 2010; at the request of the owner, an extension to June 30, 2010 was agreed to by TRCA staff. Subsequently, Mr. Carbone has requested to purchase the occupied TRCA property rather than remove the encroached area. TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) sets out the program framework for staff's review of proposed development applications adjacent to valley corridors. One of the principles in the VSCMP states: "the successful management of valley and stream corridors is dependent on good tableland management". As part of the approval of residential subdivision 19T-98V04, the subject valley lands (i.e. Block 68 on Plan 65M-3738) were brought into public ownership. The acquisition of this valley land Block included a buffer for additional protection of the valley corridor behind the subject residential lots. Mr. Carbone proceeded to landscape his property and extended the landscaping into the buffer area. The purpose of the buffer is to protect the valley edge from this type of landscaping and loading of the slope. Removing lands that are included as buffers, as is the case in this request, does not meet the criteria of good tableland management. Therefore, the removal of tableland buffers would be contrary to TRCA's VSCMP policies as well as TRCA's mandate to conserve natural areas and protect adjacent, developed lands from natural hazards. The TRCA valley lands in this vicinity were acquired from Jofian Holdings Limited on July 27, 2009, originally under the "Natural Heritage Lands Protection and Acquisition Project ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. RATIONALE The acquisition and retention of tableland buffers are essential to the protection of the ecological features/functions of stream and valley corridors as well as providing additional protection to abutting private lands, particularly those situated in erosion prone locations. The lack of tableland buffers has resulted in substantially greater risks to private properties and human habitation and the potential for costly remediation projects as is presently being experienced in the case of the Royal Rouge Trail and Troutbrooke Drive erosion sites. 98

19 Accordingly, staff recommends that the request for disposal be denied and the property be retained. Report prepared by: George Leja, extension s: For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342, Mike Fenning, extension 5223 or Ron Dewell, extension s: Date: April 16, 2010 Attachments: 2 99

20 Attachment 1 100

21 Attachment 2 101

22 RES.#B31/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Nine-Ten West Limited, CFN Purchase of property located north of Rutherford Road, east of Dufferin Street, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Gay Cowbourne Glenn De Baeremaeker THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT 0.77 hectares (1.90 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 17, Concession 2 and designated as Blocks 63 and 65 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer & Dzaldov Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No , dated April 22, 2009, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located north of Rutherford Road, east of Dufferin Street, be purchased from Nine-Ten West Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, 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 the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation. CARRIED BACKGROUND Resolution #A260/05 at Authority Meeting #9/05, held on November 25, 2005, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for Negotiations have been conducted with Mr. Luch Ognibene, Vice President of Land Development, of Nine-Ten West Limited. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. Access to the subject lands will be directly available from the internal road system of the proposed subdivision. RATIONALE The subject property falls within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Don River watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for Through the review of residential subdivision 19T (Phase 3), TRCA staff established the limits of the open space lands (i.e. Blocks 63 and 65 on draft Plan of Subdivision) which are comprised of a portion of valley corridor of the East Don River at this location. 102

23 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 Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, it would appear that all of the subject property would be eligible for exemption for the 2011 taxation year. 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 this purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account. Report prepared by: George Leja, extension s: gleja@trca.on.ca For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342 or Ron Dewell, extension s: gleja@trca.on.ca or rdewell@trca.on.ca Date: April 19, 2010 Attachments: 1 103

24 Attachment 1 104

25 RES.#B32/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: MARIE CURTIS PARK Award of Contract. Award of contract for a landscape architect firm to provide full design services for Marie Curtis Park on the Toronto waterfront. Jack Heath Ron Moeser THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT the contract to provide full design services for Marie Curtis Park (East and West) be awarded to The MBTW Group at a total cost not to exceed $240,000, plus applicable taxes; THAT staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total cost of the contract for eligible disbursements and as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; THAT staff be authorized to proceed to initiate Phase 1 - Site Inventory, Assessment and Concept Design prior to Authority Meeting #4/10, scheduled to be held on May 21, 2010, to facilitate very restricted timelines for public consultation; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining the necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto s Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division (PF&R) intends to undertake a revitalization of Marie Curtis Park (West and East) on the waterfront. The park revitalization is being carried out in conjunction with the City of Mississauga s and TRCA s development of a new park on the former Arsenal Lands which is located immediately adjacent to the Marie Curtis West site. The intent is that Marie Curtis Park West and the Arsenal Lands site will be developed as a regional destination park, while Marie Curtis Park East will continue to serve as a local park. Taken together the site comprises 41-hectares of prime waterfront parkland (Marie Curtis Park 25.4 hectares/arsenal Lands 15.7 hectare) at the western edge of the City of Toronto. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is limited to the design and construction of Marie Curtis Park. Together with TRCA and City of Toronto PF&R, the selected proponent will work collaboratively with all partners to ensure a functional and aesthetic continuity between the two parkland sites. Summary of Required Work The proponent is required to provide full professional and technical services, including stakeholder and community consultation and facilitation, design, contract document development (drawings and specifications), permit application, construction supervision and contract administration to carry out the following tasks: 1. review and assess the existing site conditions, maintenance practices, traffic movement, pedestrian and cyclist activity, existing site activities and uses (including seasonal patterns and variations); 105

26 2. review and assess background planning material, including the Arsenal Lands Master Plan Addendum; 3. review the City of Toronto s Urban Forestry Services impacts on design solutions; 4. identify and confirm overall vision, design principles, issues and opportunities, and program of activities; 5. meet with park stakeholders, including TRCA, City of Toronto PF&R staff, City of Mississauga Community Services staff and representatives from the local Councillor s office; 6. prepare draft design concepts and alternatives for presentation and discussion and recommend activities or elements identified through the consultation process; 7. design refinement leading to a preferred approach; 8. review of preferred design with stakeholders and the public, complete with assessment of capital budget, phasing and operating implications; 9. prepare quotation call documentation and conduct construction administration; 10. prepare maintenance guidelines in consultation with Toronto PF&R and Mississauga Community Services staff to ensure consistent maintenance throughout the larger parkland site; 11. apply for and obtain any necessary permits; 12. facilitate and record all meetings as required, including regular administrative meeting with TRCA/City of Toronto staff, design meetings with stakeholders and two public meetings; 13. provide graphic or written information for web page content as set up by TRCA/City to communicate the intent, schedule and scope of the project to the community as needed; 14. construction and quotation call documents will be prepared to the level of detail, standard and quality required by TRCA/City staff, and the park quotation call will be issued through the City of Toronto s Finance Department, Purchasing and Materials Management Division; and 15. develop a phased construction plan that will allow for public parking and vehicular access to the site at all times. Description of Work Phases The work as described above shall be divided into five phases: 1. Site Inventory, Assessment and Concept Design Phase. 2. Design Development Phase. 3. Contract Documents Phase. 4. Bidding and Quotation Phase. 5. Contract Administration Phase and Commissioning including Warranty Period Review. TRCA will be the lead for the Site Inventory, Assessment and Concept Design Phase and the Design Development Phase. At the start of the Contract Documents Phase, a City of Toronto PF&R senior project co-ordinator will be assigned to the project to ensure that all documents and processes meet the City of Toronto s accepted standards. 106

27 RATIONALE On April 15, 2010, TRCA initiated a Request for Proposals. The RFP was published on the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects website. Fifteen RFP packages were picked up. A mandatory site visit was held on April 23, 2010 and was attended by 15 representatives of consulting firms. On May 5, 2010, six proposal packages were received by TRCA as directed in the RFP. Several firms advised TRCA that due to time constraints and the aggressive schedule put forward in the RFP, they would not be submitting a proposal. The six proposals received were evaluated through a detailed review by a Selection Committee, which was made up of staff from TRCA, the City of Toronto s Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division, and the City of Mississauga Parks and Recreation. The aim of the Selection Committee was to select one or more proposals which in its opinion meet the TRCA s requirements under this RFP and provide the best overall value to TRCA. Consulting firms Proposed fee Met Proposal Criteria EDA Collaborative Inc $299,500 Yes Janet Rosenberg Associates $257,728 Yes Land Inc $332,400 Yes MBTW Group $245,000 Yes MMM Group $240,000 Yes Schollen & Company $334,655 Yes Selection Criteria TRCA requires professional services from a single, qualified consulting firm, or a consulting team comprised of a number of firms of varied disciplines with exceptional skills in consulting with stakeholders and the community, a commitment to design excellence and a proven ability to design and implement innovative and high-quality community parks, proven environmental expertise and efficient contract administration skills. The successful proponent is being recommended in accordance with the following selection criteria. A) Proponent Company Profile Stability and professionalism of the proponent, and ability of proponent to address the demands of the project B) Experience and Qualifications of the Proponent Team experience with park concept development, design of high-quality public spaces Proven ability to work collaboratively with municipal staff and community stakeholders Strong technical, cost estimation, contract document preparation and implementation experience Proven ability to exercise control of project schedule and budget Previous successful involvement in recent projects of similar size and scope. C) Proposed staff team and resources Strength, experience & qualifications of project lead Project Team member composition and experience (appropriate staff of subconsultants with required skills) D) Understanding of RFP and Proposed Solution Design understanding and philosophy for this assignment 107

28 Understanding and approach to the site, context, community consultation, and design Proposed outcomes, results and deliverables Special skills the team offers to ensure project success E) Work Plan and Deliverables Detailed work plan, schedule and appropriate assignment of team members and staff F) Fees: Consulting fee is reasonable for the proposed project Submissions must meet mandatory requirements and a total technical score of 73%, with a minimum 50% in each of the categories A through E Lowest cost proposal / Proponent s proposal cost x 25 The Selection Committee scored the proposals using an evaluation table based on the criteria above. The MBTW Group proposal was second lowest in cost, but overall was ranked highest because it best addressed the requirements of the project and demonstrated a sound understanding of the site. The MBTW Group pulled together a cohesive team with an excellent mix of design ecology and value. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds will be available from the City of Toronto in account # Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension ngaffney@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension s: ngaffney@trca.on.ca Date: April 28, 2010 RES.#B33/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: URBAN FOREST STUDIES Award of Sole Source Contract. Award of sole source contract to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for itree modeling and analysis services. Jack Heath Glenn De Baeremaeker THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the contract for conducting the analysis of urban forest data from the cities of Pickering and Vaughan, and towns of Markham and Richmond Hill, be awarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, at a cost not exceeding $211, (CDN); AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approval, signing and executing the documents. CARRIED 108

29 BACKGROUND One of the recommendations in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy in 2007, was to undertake urban forest studies and strategies across the TRCA jurisdiction. (Urban forests by definition include all treed and shrub cover in urban areas, ranging from street trees to natural spaces). At that time, TRCA staff canvassed municipalities and others to identify urban forest initiatives within our watersheds. Through this exercise we found that a number of municipalities were either planning or already had funding to conduct studies within their own jurisdictions. TRCA staff took advantage of the coinciding studies by initiating an informal collaborative between the various municipal and conservation authority project managers, as well as academic and community stakeholders, to ensure that the outcome could be standardized across the GTA in order to facilitate comparisons between municipalities, the development of complementary strategies and ultimately the creation of a comprehensive regional report. The first consideration of the collaborative was choosing methods for data collection and analysis that would be used across the GTA, which resulted in selecting the USDA Forest Service methodology. The USDA Forest Service suite of analytical tools is known as itree (including the Urban Forest Effects or UFORE model) and is used to evaluate the structure and function of urban forests. Using field-collected forest data combined with local weather, pollution and hydrological data, itree provides information on the forest's health and its capacity to contribute to better air quality, water management, reductions in energy costs, amongst other calculations. These findings are then used as the basis for urban forest management plans and policies related to designing healthy and sustainable communities. All sample plots are set up in a manner that allows revisiting their exact location and thus permits long-term monitoring. Since 2008, TRCA has managed urban forest studies for the Region of Peel and the Town of Ajax, for which a contract was awarded to the USDA Forest Service for the analysis of data collected by TRCA staff (Executive Committee Meeting #3/09). At that time, other municipal partners in the Greater Toronto Area were not committed to their studies in terms of budget and scope and could not be included in that initial contract. However, since that time the City of Pickering and York Region (to date including Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan) were able to develop such partnerships with TRCA. RATIONALE The itree suite of analytical tools was selected by project managers in the collaborative as the standard suite of tools for the urban forest studies in the Greater Toronto Area because itree has been used successfully in city regions worldwide including Toronto, Oakville and, in 2009, the Town of Ajax study managed by TRCA. The USDA is the ideal source of urban forest analysis services because: the level of involvement by municipalities and millions of dollars invested by the USDA and arboriculture industry in the U.S. in the development of the models; the transparency of the methodology and science behind itree; the fact that pollution removal assessments are based on local hourly data; the fact that USDA staff provide a high level of technical support in the use of the model; and, their experience in conducting analyses of urban forests for municipalities worldwide. 109

30 Staff recommends award of the contract on a sole source basis as per section of TRCA's Purchasing Policy as follows: The required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular vendor or supplier having special knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be provided by any other supplier. The USDA continues to be widely recognized as such a supplier of urban forest analytical services. As well, all municipal and CA urban forest study partners desire to have comparable and complementary data and reports across the TRCA jurisdiction and GTA. For that reason, it is recommended to continue employing the USDA, who have already undertaken the analysis for the Ajax and Peel studies. Staff recommends that TRCA award the next phase of work to the USDA to undertake the itree analysis component of the York Region (Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill) and City of Pickering between 2010 to The recommended contract is an addendum letter to the earlier contract awarded in 2009 that encompasses the new analyses to be undertaken by the USDA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The procedure is as follows: 1. TRCA collects field data, compiles weather, pollution and land use information and provides it to the USDA; 2. USDA conducts the analysis and provides results to TRCA; 3. TRCA interprets findings and writes recommendations; 4. Municipalities host consultation on the findings and recommendations, facilitated by TRCA; and, 5. Partnership Technical Working Groups finalize the Studies. The following table summarizes the work to date and the work to be done. Progress on TRCA-managed Urban Forest Studies. Study Data Collection Data Analysis Consultation Final Study Ajax COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED Peel, Brampton, COMPLETED Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Fall 2010 Mississauga, Caledon and CVC Pickering COMPLETED Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Fall 2010 York, Vaughan and COMPLETED Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2011 Markham York, Richmond Hill Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2011 Winter 2011 FINANCIAL DETAILS Payment for a sum not to exceed $211,000 (CDN) will be made to the USDA upon completion of the analyses and reports for Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill and Pickering by 2012, according to the deadlines established in the agreement. York Region, City of Vaughan, Town of Markham, Town of Richmond Hill and City of Pickering have provided the full $211,000 to undertake these analyses outside of the capital budget process. 110

31 Report prepared by: Lionel Normand, extension s: For Information contact: Lionel Normand, extension s: Date: March 17, 2010 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#B34/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Ron Moeser Maria Augimeri THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item EX R Glen Road, City of Toronto, as it pertains to legal matters in which TRCA is involved. CARRIED ARISE AND REPORT RES.#B35/10 Moved by: Seconded by: Maria Augimeri Suzan Hall THAT the committee arise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES.#B36/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: 119R GLEN ROAD, CITY OF TORONTO Mining and Lands Commissioner Hearing Decision and Future Divisional Court Hearing. (1) To describe the history of the application to develop 119R Glen Road in the City of Toronto; (2) To summarize the key reasons and findings of the Mining and Lands Commissioner's decision with regard to the appeal of TRCA Hearing Board decision to refuse to grant permission for a TRCA permit on 119R Glen Road; and (3) To obtain direction with respect to the original TRCA Hearing Board decision on the matter. Glenn De Baeremaeker Gay Cowbourne THAT it is the position of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) that the initial TRCA Permit Application #029/03/TOR approved by TRCA Hearing Board Decision #B152/03 is of no effect having been superseded by the revised application #029/03/TOR which application was refused by the TRCA Hearing Board and further refused on appeal by the Mining and Lands Commissioner and that no permission of TRCA exists for development at 119R Glen Road; 111

32 THAT TRCA staff be authorized to retain legal counsel to represent TRCA interests at the hearing before the Divisional Court; THAT TRCA staff be directed to send the letter included in Attachment 3 to the applicant s Solicitor with copy to the neighbours Solicitor and the City of Toronto. CARRIED RES.#B37/10 - Moved by: Seconded by: ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Policy. Approval of Customer Service Standard policy and receipt of operating procedures. Glenn De Baeremaeker Suzan Hall THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) policy for the Customer Service Standard of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved AND FURTHER THAT the procedures for the Customer Service Standard of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, as outlined in Attachment 2, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND On June 13, 2005 the Government of Ontario passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), which was created to implement and enforce mandatory accessibility standards. The AODA calls on the business community, public sector, not-for-profit sector and people with disabilities or their representatives to develop, implement and enforce mandatory accessibility standards. Accessibility standards are the rules that businesses and organizations in Ontario will have to follow to identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility. The purpose of the AODA is to achieve a fully accessible Ontario by Noncompliance could result in substantial financial penalties for organizations and/or individuals impeding compliance. The first standard came into effect on January 1, 2008 and is called the Accessibility Standard for Customer Service. Ontario is developing standards in the following five areas: Customer Service; Built Environment; Employment; Information and Communications; Transportation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Prior to January 1, 2012, all TRCA staff will complete mandatory Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act training. All front line staff will participate in a training session presented by qualified TRCA trainers. This will include the legislated material as well as sensitivity training. Those who do not work with the public will participate in the online module on their own time before January 1, The e-learning module costs $6,825 for 500 employees. If further training is needed it is a cost of $13 per employee. A list of individuals that have completed the e-learning module is created by the company and is sent to Human Resources. 112

33 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are identified in the 2010 Human Resources Operating Budget. Report prepared by: Michelle Denney, extension s: For Information contact: Michelle Denney, extension s: Date: April 14, 2010 Attachments: 2 113