Loading...
AGENDA - General Committee - 20240206Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Time:7 p.m. Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel. To participate, please visit aurora.ca/participation. Pages 1.Call to Order Councillor Thompson in the Chair. 2.Land Acknowledgement 3.Approval of the Agenda 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Community Presentations 6.Delegations 7.Consent Agenda 7.1 Memorandum from Councillor Thompson; Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of November 24 and December 15, 2023 1 That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of November 24 and December 15, 2023, be received for information. 1. 8.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes *8.1 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2024 8 That the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2024, be received for information. 1. *8.2 Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2024 12 That the Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2024, be received for information. 1. 9.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 9.1 OPS24-001 - Urban Forest Study Update 16 (Presentation to be provided by Michelle Sawka, Senior Research Scientist, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) That Report No. OPS24-001 be received; and1. That the recommendations in the Urban Forest Study be endorsed in principle, allowing staff to implement recommendations subject to Council approval of budgetary implications where applicable. 2. 9.2 OPS24-002 - Parkland Naming 55 That Report No. OPS24-002 be received; and1. That Council approve the selection of names for four Town of Aurora parks as presented. 2. 9.3 CMS24-004 - Facility Allocation Policy - Update 62 That Report No. CMS24-004 be received; and1. That the Facility Allocation Policy be approved.2. 9.4 PDS24-002 - Aurora Heights Drive Pedestrian Crossover 77 That Report No. PDS24-002 be received; and1. That a mid-block-controlled Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed on Aurora Heights Drive near the southern terminus of the Machell Park trail and the northern terminus of Fleury Park Trail; and 2. That Parking By-law No. 4574-04.T be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on both sides of Aurora Heights Drive approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed pedestrian crossover location. 3. 9.5 PDS24-003 - Hollandview Trail Pedestrian Crossover 90 That Report No. PDS24-003 be received; and1. That a mid-block-controlled Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed on Hollandview Trail south of St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School to the walkway located between Hollandview Trail and Bowler Street; and 2. That Parking By-law No. 4574-04.T be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on both sides of Hollandview Trail approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed pedestrian crossover location. 3. 10.Member Motions 10.1 Councillor Gilliland; Re: Council/Committee Meeting Structure Under Strong Mayor Powers 103 *10.2 Mayor Mrakas; Re: Supporting Affordable Housing and Gentle Density 104 11.Regional Report 12.New Business 13.Public Service Announcements 14.Closed Session 15.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Councillor’s Office Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of November 24 and December 15, 2023 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Michael Thompson Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of November 24 and December 15, 2023, be received for information. Attachments Attachment 1 – Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of November 24, 2023 Attachment 2 – Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of December 15, 2023 Page 1 of 105 Board Meeting Highlights November 24, 2023 Announcements: a)Chair Emmerson advised that Mayor Hackson has taken a three-month medical leave, and that her spot on the Board of Directors will remain vacant during this time. Board members and staff wished Mayor Hackson a speedy recovery. b)CAO Baldwin advised that he was pleased to attend a provincial announcement in Barrie on November 9th. The Hon. Andrea Khanjin, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, announced funding of three Lake Simcoe projects, which are to be led by the Conservation Authority. Presentations: Third Quarter 2023 Financial Report and Year -End Forecast General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services/CFO, Mark Critch, provided an overview of the third quarter 2023 financial results, noting an operation surplus of $545K at September 30th, with all annual priorities progressing well and within budget. Drivers of the surplus are spread across the Conservation Authority’s various service areas. He reviewed the year-end forecasted expenditures for projects, noting that projects aren’t typically completed within the calendar year and progress is often determined by schedules and timelines of municipal and landowner partners, making accurately budgeting in-year spending in Offsetting Programs challenging. He reviewed the 2023 year-end forecasted Capital expenditures and reserve activity. To view this presentation, please click this link: Third Quarter 2023 Financial Report and Year- End Forecast Chloride in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Manager, Environmental Science and Monitoring, David Lembcke, together with Manager, Watershed Plans and Strategies, Bill Thompson, provided an overview of the impacts of chloride on Lake Simcoe and its tributaries, along with efforts to address these impacts. Chloride concentrations in the surface waters of the Lake Simcoe watershed are above Canadian Water Quality Guidelines in many places and continue to increase due to the use of winter salt on roads and parking lots. This trend is not unique to the Lake Simcoe watershed and is mirrored in the lakes and streams across southern Ontario and the northeastern United States. Decreasing the amount of winter salt use throughout the watershed is critical to the long-term health of Lake Simcoe. Attachment 1 Page 2 of 105 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – November 24, 2023 Page 2 Research, including local studies on a large commercial parking lot in the Lake Simcoe watershed, has demonstrated that adopting best practices like those used in New Hampshire can reduce salt use by 40% without any increase in slips and falls. In fact, in some cases, the over-application of salt can create a slipperier surface for walking on. The most substantial barrier to reducing salt application, however, is concern over liability. The Conservation Authority believes that there is a solution within reach to reduce salt application and assist businesses in this sector, while ensuring public safety. The Conservation Authority has been working with organizations including Landscape Ontario and other partners to share information and seek solutions to address the issue of winter salt usage. A Salt Forum held this past October, led by the Conservation Au thority and Landscape Ontario, provided a platform for contractors, provincial staff, municipal staff, conservation authorities, academia, and non-governmental organizations to review lessons learned and solutions to the issue of winter road salt. There was unanimous agreement amongst participants that there are significant challenges for both water quality and business sustainability in Ontario. The solution that all participants are working towards, including contractors and property owners, is implementation of technical standards and a Regulatory framework similar to one in place in the state of New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, contractors that have been trained and certified in winter maintenance best practice and can demonstrate due diligence through appropriate record keeping have limited liability against slip and fall claims. This unanimous agreement amongst such a diverse range of stakeholders is rare, and creating technical standards and a Provincial regulatory framework that limits liability for contractors following best practices significantly benefits each sector and ultimately the environment. It will reduce salt application on private parking lots, provide more certainty and reduce risk for insurance underwriters, thereby helping with business sustainability, while maintaining public safety. It is important to note that the framework that exists in New Hampshire is built upon the Smart About Salt Program that was created and is in use here in Ontario, and that the liability limitation has been successfully defended in the highest level of New Hampshire state courts. Please click this link to view the presentation: Chloride in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Flood Management Programs Director, Engineering, Kenneth Cheney, provided an overview of the Conservation Authority’s Flood Management Programs, noting that a core mandate of the Conservation Authority is to undertake watershed-based programs to protect people and property from flooding. Conservation Authorities carry out programs that serve provincial and municipal interest, including Flood Forecasting and Warning and Floodplain Mapping, along with Review and Regulation of development activities within flood hazards, in accordance with t he provincial governing legislation. The Conservation Authority compiles rainfall data, land-use information Page 3 of 105 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – November 24, 2023 Page 3 (urban, rural, paved surfaces, wooded areas, etc.), topographic information (ground surface elevations to determine high ground and low ground) into computer models to determine flood hazard lands. These models simulate how much flow there will be and where it is expected. This information assists the Conservation Authority in delineating flooding hazards, in accordance with provincial guidelines. The Conservation Authority also conducts technical reviews, typically of Conservation Authorities Act and the Planning Act applications, as part of the approvals process. Within the Lake Simcoe watershed, there are typically three main types of flooding: •Riverine Flooding: Flooding associated with rivers, streams, watercourses. Conservation Authorities have a lead role associated with riverine flooding. •Shoreline Flooding: Flooding associated with the shorelines of large water bodies, such as lakes. Conservation Authorities have a lead role associated with riverine flooding. •Urban Flooding: Flooding in an urban area due to, often related to infrastructure. Municipalities have the lead role when it comes to urban flooding. Since floods are the most frequent natural hazard in Canada and can happen at any time of year and be caused by various factors, there is a need within the Lake Simcoe watershed, as well as a mandate issued to conservation authorities by the Province of On tario, to protect people and property from flooding. Please click this link to view the presentation: Flood Management Programs Correspondence and Staff Reports: Correspondence The Board received the October 20, 2023 letter from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regarding the Minister’s exception under the Conservation Authorities Act related to Chair and Vice Chair appointments. Third Quarter 2023 Financial Report and Year -End Forecast The Board received Staff Report No. 55-23-BOD regarding the Conservation Authority’s third quarter 2023 financial report and year-end forecast. Chloride in the Lake Simcoe Watershed The Board received Staff Report No. 56-23-BOD regarding Chloride in the Lake Simcoe watershed. Flood Management Programs The Board received Staff Report No. 57-23-BOD regarding the Conservation Authority’s flood management programs. Page 4 of 105 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – November 24, 2023 Page 4 Development Service Fee Update The Board received Staff Report No. 58-23-BOD regarding the Conservation Authority’s Development Services Fees and approved a 2% increase to the current Fees for a cost-of-living increase, approved as part of the budget process and supported by the Watson & Associates report, effective January 1, 2024. Laser Elevation Data Services The Board received Staff Report No. 59-23-BOD regarding the purchase of laser elevation data for the Lake Simcoe Watershed and approved staff’s recommendation to award the contract to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as a collective purchase be approved for a purchase over $100K. Cyber Security Program Updates The Board received Staff Report No. No. 60-23-BOD regarding the Conservation Authority’s cyber security program updates. Confidential Land Matter The Board received Confidential Staff Report No. 61-23-BOD regarding a confidential land matter and approved the recommendations contained within the report . For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/board-meetings/ Page 5 of 105 Board Meeting Highlights December 15, 2023 Announcements: a)General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, Don Goodyear was pleased to advise that on November 30th, two staff members, Julia Marko and Emma Dias, hosted a well- received workshop for municipal planning staff on Bill 23 impacts to natural heritage review. The workshop was well attended with about 50 people representing 14 watershed municipalities. b)CAO Rob Baldwin thanked the Communications team for the successful migration and launch of the Conservation Authority’s new website, noting this unexpected change in website host necessitated the migration of all website material to a new host. c)CAO Rob Baldwin advised that he, Chair Emmerson and Chief of Staff, Trish Barnett, had a very productive virtual meeting with Minister Khanjin recently, where items such as salt and source protection were discussed. d)CAO Rob Baldwin advised that two letters were recently received from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry; namely, one granting an extension to March 31, 2024 for the cost apportioning agreements with participating municipalities; and the other n otifying of an extension of the Minister’s direction on the Planning, Development and Permitting fees freeze to the end of 2024. Deputations: Mr. Michael Jacobs regarding Georgina Island Fixed Link Project Mr. Michael Jacobs, Fixed Link Project Manager and Georgina Island Fixed Link Secretariat , made a deputation regarding the Georgina Island Fixed Link project. He shared the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Council Resolution of February 2021; namely, their intent to build a Fixed Link that will connect Georgina Island to the mainland; their desire to complete the Impact Assessment by December 31, 2024; and their intent to have the Fixed Link operational by December 31, 2026. He reviewed the project timelines, as well as the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada process and comments received. From comments received, the Georgina Island Fist Nation have invested in an improved project understanding. He reviewed some of these investments and learnings. He overviewed other work in progress, such as a seven generations financial assessment, nation to nation negotiations and additional research to support engagement requests. Based on their learnings, Georgina Island Fixed Link has better defined its development assumption, and he shared a map of the path to connect. He then outlined the upcoming Attachment 2 Page 6 of 105 LSRCA Board of Directors Meeting Highlights – December 15, 2023 Page 2 engagement plans. In closing Mr. Jacobs noted that Georgina Island First Nation have invested time and money to understand the project and its impacts on the community and the natural world. To view this presentation, please follow this link: Georgina Island Fixed Link Project Update Correspondence and Staff Reports: Correspondence The Board the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s letter dated November 17, 2023 to Minister Khanjin and Lake Simcoe Watershed MPPs regarding Winter Salt Management. Georgina Island Fixed Link Project Update The Board received Staff Report No. 62-23-BOD regarding an update on the Conservation Authority’s review of and involvement in the Georgina Island Fixed Link project. New Nature Centre at Scanlon Creek Conservation Area – Project and Funding Progress Report The Board received Staff Report No. 63-23-BOD regarding project and funding updates on the new Nature Centre at Scanlon Creek Conservation Area. New Nature Centre Project: Temporary Utilization of Offsetting Reserves if Required The Board received Staff Report No. 64-23-BOD regarding temporary funding utilizing Offsetting Reserves for the new Nature Centre and approved the use of the Offsetting Reserves if required to act as a funding backstop as outlined in this report. Framework to Limit Liability for Winter Maintenance Contractors Employing Best Practices The Board received Staff Report No. 65-23-BOD regarding a framework to limit liability for winter maintenance contractors employing best practices and directed staff to circulate this report and the attached template resolution to watershed municipalities. For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/board-meetings/ Page 7 of 105 Town of Aurora Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Thursday, January 18, 2024 7 p.m. Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Councillor Ron Weese (Chair) Irene Clement* Michelle Dakin (Vice Chair) Jessie Fraser* Shaheen Moledina* Corrina Tai* Members Absent: Adrian Martin Other Attendees: Michelle Johnson, Collections and Exhibitions Coordinator Phillip Rose, Manager of Cultural Services Lisa Warth, Manager, Recreation Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator *Attended electronically _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands, the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day, the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the Page 8 of 105 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 18, 2024 2 Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Michelle Dakin Seconded by Irene Clement That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 5. Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 21, 2023 Moved by Irene Clement Seconded by Shaheen Moledina 1. That the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 21, 2023, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations None. 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Collections and Exhibitions Coordinator; Re: Community Reflection Space Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and a visual review of the four proposed community reflection space locations for the Committee’s Page 9 of 105 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 18, 2024 3 consideration. It was noted that the Committee will have an opportunity to provide input on the design features of the space later in the year. The Committee and staff discussed the merits and limitations of the proposed locations, as well as the public consultation process and outreach, including risk assessment, emergency services input, and potential user groups and uses of the space. The Committee expressed support for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Park location. Moved by Jessie Fraser Seconded by Michelle Dakin 1. That the memorandum regarding Community Reflection Space be received; and 2. That the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee comments regarding Community Reflection Space be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 8. Informational Items 8.1 Memorandum from Manager, Recreation; Re: Recreation Needs Assessment for Persons with Disabilities - Follow-up Staff provided an overview of the memorandum noting the online survey is now available on the Town’s Engage Aurora platform until February 14, 2024, to provide input on the Recreation Needs Assessment for Persons with Disabilities, as well as opportunities to attend a virtual or in-person focus group; visit engageaurora.ca/RNA for more information. Committee members were encouraged to share this information with their contacts. Moved by Jessie Fraser Seconded by Shaheen Moledina 1. That the memorandum regarding Recreation Needs Assessment for Persons with Disabilities - Follow-up be received for information. Carried Page 10 of 105 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 18, 2024 4 9. New Business The Committee inquired about the Town’s parkland acquisition process and the Chair provided a response. The Chair advised that member David Gren has resigned from the Committee; therefore, the Town is now recruiting to fill this vacancy for the remainder of the term and applications will be received until February 11, 2024. 10. Adjournment Moved by Shaheen Moledina Seconded by Jessie Fraser That the meeting be adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Carried Page 11 of 105 Town of Aurora Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Friday, February 2, 2024 10 a.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Angela Covert (Chair) Michelle Black (arrived at 10:18 a.m.) Robert Gaby Abe Reiss (Vice Chair) Dan Winters Members Absent Shaheen Moledina Other Attendees: Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Jaclyn Grossi, Deputy Town Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Item 7.2 and item 7.3 were considered before item 7.1 2. Land Acknowledgement The Committee acknowledged that the meeting took place on Anishinaabe lands, the traditional and treaty territory of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, recognizing the many other Nations whose presence here continues to this day, the special relationship the Chippewas have with the lands and waters of this territory, and that Aurora has shared responsibility for the stewardship of these lands and waters. It was noted that Aurora is part of the treaty lands of the Mississaugas and Chippewas, recognized through Treaty #13 and the Williams Treaties of 1923. Page 12 of 105 Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, February 2, 2024 2 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Dan Winters Seconded by Robert Gaby That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof Dan Winters declared a pecuniary interest regarding item 7.1 Application from The Stratas Foundation; Re: Mental Health Research Funding as he assists the Charity. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item. 5. Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of November 30, 2023 Moved by Abe Reiss Seconded by Robert Gaby 1. That the Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of November 30, 2023, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations None 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Application from The Stratas Foundation; Re: Mental Health Research Funding Moved by Abe Reiss Seconded by Robert Gaby 1. That the Application from The Stratas Foundation; Re: Mental Health Research Funding be received; and Page 13 of 105 Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, February 2, 2024 3 2. That the Committee grant the funding request in the amount of $5,000.00 Carried 7.2 Application from Community Living Central York; Re: Program Support Moved by Dan Winters Seconded by Abe Reiss 1. That the Application from Application from Community Living Central York; Re: Program Support be received; and 2. That the Committee grant the funding request in the amount of $5,000.00 Carried 7.3 Application from the Women's Centre of York Region; Re: Financial Empowerment Program Moved by Dan Winters Seconded by Robert Gaby 1. That the Application from the Women's Centre of York Region; Re: Financial Empowerment Program be received; and 2. That the Committee grant the funding request in the amount of $5,000.00 Carried 8. Informational Items None. 9. New Business None. 10. Adjournment Page 14 of 105 Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, February 2, 2024 4 Moved by Abe Reiss Seconded by Dan Winters That the meeting be adjourned at 10:31 a.m. Carried Page 15 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS24 -0 01 Subject: Urban Forest Study Update Prepared by: Matthew Volpintesta, Manager of Parks & Fleet Department: Operational Services Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS24-001 be received; and 2. That the recommendations in the Urban Forest Study be endorsed in principle, allowing staff to implement recommendations subject to Council approval of budgetary implications where applicable. Executive Summary This report provides Council with an overview of the recently updated Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study servicing as an update to data collected in 2013:  Study updates a collaboration between the Town of Aurora, the Regional Municipality of York, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).  Key objectives focused on forest quantity, quality and benefits, climate change, invasive species, soil quality and how these factors impact the overall health of the urban forest.  Aurora’s canopy cover has increased to 34 per cent representing 6 per cent increase over the previous 2014 study, very close to meeting York Regions canopy cover target of 35 per cent. Page 16 of 105 February 6, 2024 2 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001  Invasives species identified in 46% of the study plots.  Aurora’s forest annually sequesters 2,988 tonnes of carbon or 7,665 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalents with annual value of $3.1 million and plays an important role in climate mitigation.  Protection and health of mature trees is important as they provide the largest canopy cover benefit. Background Study updates a collaboration between the Town of Aurora, the Regional Municipality of York, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). This is the second iteration of the Urban Forest Study and serves as an update to data collected in 2013, published in the Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study: Technical Report (TRCA, 2014). The 2014 study now forms a baseline against the 2023 Urban Forest Study and is also an opportunity to analyze issues that were emerging in 2014 and have become more crucial to assess in the intervening years. Specifically, this study will include more detailed information on invasive plant species, pest and disease presence, soil quality, and climate vulnerability for Aurora’s forest. To track progress, study partners committed to conducting sample-based field surveys every ten years, and a GIS-based canopy cover assessment every five years. A canopy cover assessment was completed in 2020 and the field data for this study was collected in 2022. Analysis Key objectives focused on forest quantity, quality and benefits, climate change, invasive species, soil quality and how these factors impact the overall health of the urban forest. The objectives of the 2023 Urban Forest Study included:  Assess canopy cover distribution and track progress towards Aurora’s canopy cover goals.  Quantify the current species composition, size, and condition of Aurora’s forest.  Quantify ecosystem services and benefits provided by the forest.  Assess the change in distribution and structure since the 2014 Urban Forest Study.  Analyze key factors relating to forest health, specifically soil health, invasive plant cover, and presence of invasive plants and pests. Page 17 of 105 February 6, 2024 3 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001  Conduct an i-Tree Forecast assessment to estimate tree planting needed to maintain existing canopy cover and to meet the recommended canopy cover goals.  Assess climate change risks and forest vulnerability. Aurora’s canopy cover has increased to 34 per cent representing 6 per cent increase over the previous 2014 study, very close to meeting York Regions canopy cover target of 35 per cent. In 2023, Aurora has 34 per cent canopy cover which is an estimated 865,000 trees, 49 per cent of the tree population occurs on public lands (such as municipal parks, rights- of-ways (ROWs), and protected areas, including conservation authority lands), and 51 per cent of trees are privately owned. The majority of trees are in good condition with approximately 82 per cent of trees in Aurora estimated to be in either excellent, good or fair condition. While the canopy in Aurora has increased by 6 per cent since the 2014 update, the overall number of trees has decreased. The cause for the decline in number of tree stock is largely due to loss of ash trees caused by emerald ash borer (EAB), climate change impacts on species health, and development causing removal of trees. Overall tree cover is projected to increase steadily over a 30-year outlook. It should be noted that most of the addition to the canopy cover is from maturing and mature existing trees, not only the planting of new trees. The forecasted canopy growth predicted a positive trajectory for canopy cover, exceeding the recommended canopy target of 35 per cent by 2053. All scenarios included expected canopy growth and the continued impact of EAB, spongy moth, and beech bark disease. Aurora’s current planting programs predict that canopy cover would reach 41.1 per cent by 2053. If planting efforts were doubled, canopy cover was forecast to reach 41.5 per cent by 2053. And, under a no planting scenario, canopy cover was expected to reach 40.6 per cent by 2053. In theory, 51 per cent (2,532 ha) of the Town’s land area could support additional canopy and when excluding agricultural areas, 42 per cent (2,068 ha) is available. Cedars and sugar maples contribute most significantly to natural regeneration. Looking at species dominance, the top three most abundant tree species made up 41.5 per cent of the total population in 2023 and 43 per cent in 2014. Dominance of the top three most common species in Aurora has remained essentially the same despite some shifts in leaf area since 2014. Sugar maple, eastern white cedar, and Norway maple are the top three most prevalent species in terms of the contribution to the per cent of leaf area. Sugar maple still represents the largest proportion of leaf area in Aurora. Page 18 of 105 February 6, 2024 4 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 Invasives species identified in 46 per cent of the study plots. Invasive species, pests and diseases continue to be a detriment to the forest in Aurora. While mitigation efforts have proved beneficial in the past, continued work is necessary to preserve and enhance Aurora’s forest. As shown, out of the plots surveyed, 46 per cent had at least one invasive plant species present. Invasive plant species were most prevalent in the residential areas (62 per cent of plots), followed by Open Space Natural Cover (55 per cent). The most commonly found invasive species were European buckthorn (27 per cent), Manitoba maple (20 per cent), garlic mustard (14 per cent), Norway maple (13 per cent), and non-native honeysuckle. Looking at pests and diseases, the presence and/or symptoms of spongy moth were observed at 15 per cent of plots surveyed in Aurora, while EAB was observed at 8 per cent of plots. To mitigate invasives and defend against pests and disease, continued fiscal resources will be required to enhance efforts. This includes funding for prevention and reactionary measures. Some of the recommendations as it relates to invasive and pest prevention include:  Exploration of the development and implementation of a municipal-led invasive plant, pest, and disease education and volunteer program to enhance awareness of invasive plants, pests, and pathogens and proper removal practices.  Revision of the Tree Planting and Approved Plant List.  Promoting the implementation of natural buffers along the edges of urban woodlots to protect against the encroachment of invasive species.  Targeted removal of high priority invasive plant species at high priority sites. Aurora’s forest annually sequesters 2,988 tonnes of carbon or 7,665 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalents with annual value of $3.1 million and plays an important role in climate mitigation. As a tree grows, it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This process is referred to as gross carbon sequestration, which is expressed as an annual rate of removal. Carbon is then stored in the woody biomass of the tree, and this can be expressed as total carbon storage. When a tree dies, much of the stored carbon is released back to the atmosphere through decomposition. Trees in Aurora sequester approximately 2,988 tonnes of carbon per year, with an associated annual value of $3.1 million and store 97,266 tonnes of carbon, valued at $101.4 million. The annual carbon sequestration and total carbon storage have decreased from the 2014 rate of 4,050 Page 19 of 105 February 6, 2024 5 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 tonnes of carbon per year and 103,000 tonnes stored. Although this appears to be a large decline, this does not reflect a true change due to changes in the sampling protocol. For this study, trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) below five centimetres in forest plots were excluded, while they were measured in the previous assessment. Just over 46 per cent of the trees measured in 2014 were below five centimetres in DBH in contrast to eight per cent in 2023. Despite this omission, total carbon stored has remained similar and the decrease in annual sequestration is expected. Aurora’s tree canopy continues to provide financial savings in energy expenditures during heating and cooling seasons as well as providing significant hydrological benefits in combatting effects related to climate change. Trees reduce local air temperature due to shading effects, wind speed reductions, and the release of water vapor through evapotranspiration. In Aurora, the forest reduces the annual energy consumption of residential homes and low-rise apartments with an associated annual financial savings of approximately $451,000. Regarding hydrological impacts, Aurora’s forest helps to prevent rainwater from entering the stormwater system known as avoided runoff, by capturing rainwater, evapotranspiration, and facilitating the infiltration of water into the soil. Using 2019 rainfall data from Pearson International Airport, it was determined that 247,017 cubic metres of precipitation were prevented from entering the stormwater system in 2019 with an associated value of $574,068 per year. To mitigate negative hydrological impacts and effects of climate change, it is recommended the Town of Aurora should engage in strategic planting in high-emission zones to help prevent heat-island effect and, develop mechanisms to support private landowners to protect and enhance canopy. Fourteen of the 20 most abundant tree species in Aurora are highly or extremely vulnerable to climate change under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, including three of the top five species (eastern white cedar, European buckthorn, and Norway maple). These 14 species make up nearly 60 per cent of the total population of trees across the Aurora forest. Only one of the top 20 species were assigned a low vulnerability score, being Manitoba maple, which is not recommended due to their invasive properties. As such, it is essential to increase the diversity of resilient (i.e. low to moderate vulnerability species) native and non-native, non-invasive plant species carry out best management practices to support the urban forest in a changing climate. Page 20 of 105 February 6, 2024 6 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 Protection and health of mature trees is important as they provide the largest canopy cover benefit. As urban trees increase in size, their environmental, social, and economic benefits increase as well. Large trees provide much greater energy savings, air, and water quality improvements, runoff reduction, visual impact, increase in property values, and carbon sequestration. Large trees also provide greater infrastructure repair savings, for example shaded areas often require lesser or more infrequent maintenance than areas with most sun exposure. It is recommended that Aurora continue to promote the proportion of large, mature trees across the Town’s urban forest by the regulation of tree injury or removal through the application and enforcement of the Private Tree Protection By-law (By-law No. 5850-16) and public sector by the Town of Aurora Tree Removal/Pruning Compensation Policy. In this regard, staff intend to return to Council later in 2024 with recommendations on compensation improvements and a fulsome review of tree removal permit policies and associated fees. This would include an assessment and update to the Landscape Design Standards focusing on guidelines for sustainable streetscape, species diversity, subdivision tree standards including soil volume. It is also recommended that the Town develops a post-tree Planting Management Plan and Monitoring Strategy to improve survivorship, including pest mitigation such as EAB, and a core focus be to continue to plant, prune, and replace trees on municipal roads, parks, and other municipal property with routine evaluation of planting and maintenance budgets as the Town grows and assumes responsibility for new roads, parks and facilities. Attached as Attachment 1, a full list of prioritized recommendations of the report can be found for reference. Advisory Committee Review Presentation to Environmental Advisory Committee – December 11, 2023. The Committee had a very healthy discussion and inquired on tree compensation recommendations and relationship to development, forest management plan and future projections. There were other questions related to availability and use of GIS mapping to capture and monitor canopy data. The Town currently maps and updates GIS data to monitor municipal owned tree inventory which has been instrumental in dealing with EAB and Spongy Moth, however the Urban Forest Study provides a more comprehensive collection of data for the entire urban canopy (private property, woodlots, blvds, parks etc). Climate change mitigation and adaptation was also of interest. Staff clarified recommendations within the study aim to address biodiversity and invasive species Page 21 of 105 February 6, 2024 7 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 concerns and that staff are already working on some initiatives and will be working to build on the suggested associated recommendations in the coming years. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications Future budget considerations for plantings and enhancements can be expected, as well as pest, invasive and disease prevention and future mitigation, including managing Aurora’s canopy growth. It can be expected that the Operational Services Department will require additional financial assistance from Council in future budget considerations, as routine maintenance costs are expected to increase with a larger canopy, and more resources required to address the recommendations of this study if endorsed by Council. Communications Considerations To inform the public, this report will be posted on the Town’s website. Communications will continue to work with Parks to inform the public about Aurora’s ongoing tree conservation efforts when appropriate. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report will result in the mitigation of long-term effects to Aurora’s urban canopy, an important carbon sink. The result of protecting the tree canopy on community greenhouse gas emissions are not precisely measurable due to the complex nature of carbon sequestration. In addition, the recommendations from this report will increase the Town’s ability to adapt to a changing climate by decreasing additional stressors to support tree health. With rising temperature trends, windstorms and storm intensity, it’s more important than ever for the Town to protect and restore the Town’s natural heritage, as these changes could cause increased stress on trees. Trees play an important role in mitigating the impacts of a changing climate, from air quality, stormwater management to counteracting the effects of the heat island. The report supports the goals within Aurora urban forest policies and bylaws by protecting the Town’s natural heritage and will only assist in strengthening urban forest policies and cultural practices for the future. This includes supporting the Blue Dot Movement, Page 22 of 105 February 6, 2024 8 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 Corporate Environmental Action Plan, Climate Change Adaption Plan, and Community Energy Plan. Link to Strategic Plan The second iteration of the Urban Forest Study supports the Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All, by encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle. Develop a long-term needs assessment for recreation programs, services and operations to match the evolving needs of the growing and changing population. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council to provide alternative recommendation. Conclusions Since the 2014 Urban Forest Study, there have been noticeable changes to Aurora’s canopy. With a six per cent increase in overall canopy cover, there are optimistic signs that our forests are maturing and remaining resilient to the effects of climate change. That said, climate change, invasive species and disease continue to pose risks and have an impact on the overall health and total tree stock in Aurora. In order to preserve and improve the health of Aurora’s forest, the recommendations within the 2023 Urban Forest Study should be strategically implemented, with appropriate resources over the next 5-10 years secured to ensure staff are equipped to support our forest through various recommendations and measures. Attachments Attachment #1 – List of Recommendations Attachment #2 – Progress Table (2014 recommendations) Attachment #3 – TRCA Presentation Previous Reports PR14-035 Urban Forest Study (UFORE) – July 29, 2014 PR15-026 Urban Forest Management Plan & Policies – November 17, 2015 Page 23 of 105 February 6, 2024 9 of 9 Report No. OPS24-001 OPS2-013 Review of Urban Forest Study & Associated Forestry Policies – September 8, 2020 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 18, 2024 Approvals Approved by Sara Tienkamp, Director, Operational Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 24 of 105 TOWN OF AURORA URBAN FOREST STUDY: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations have been assessed by priority (first, second, and third) based on necessity and feasibility of implementing. Priority: •First Priority (1P) – essential to integrate into the Town’s planning and management of the Urban Forest to maintain or increase forest health •Second Priority (2P) – feasible to integrate into the Town’s planning and management of the Urban Forest •Third Priority (3P) – potentially feasible to integrate into the Town’s planning and management of the Urban Forest Recommendation 1 – 1P: As part of an update to the Town’s Urban Forest Management Plan, the Town will review and update its urban forest policies, including the landscape design standards and tree compensation policies and should address: local canopy targets; species diversity; forest health, maintenance, and monitoring; invasive species management; soil conservation strategies; and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Recommendation 2 – 1P: The next Town of Aurora Official Plan update should include a commitment to at least 35 percent canopy cover target to align with the York Region Forest Management Plan. However, it is recommended to aim for a more ambitious target of 40 percent. Additionally, the development of a woodland cover target should be further explored as a component of an overall canopy target by assessing the feasible restoration potential across the Town. Recommendation 3 – 2P: Develop canopy cover targets for all land use types within the Official Plan. Recommendation 4 – 2P: Work with York Region to customize and utilize the Region’s tree planting prioritization tool for Aurora to improve equitable canopy cover distribution, the maximization of ecological benefits and ecosystem services, and target areas impacted by invasive pests. Recommendation 5 – 3P: Develop mechanisms to encourage and support private landowners (particularly commercial and industrial landowners, and property developers) to protect and enhance canopy and educate those landowners about maintenance best practices. Recommendation 6 – 1P: Continue to plant, prune, and replace trees on municipal roads, parks, and other municipal properties. Evaluate planting and maintenance budgets regularly as the Town grows and assumes responsibility for new roads, parks, and facilities. Recommendation 7 – 2P: Consider the development of a naturalization and restoration plan to bolster planting inputs in appropriate areas of the natural heritage system and in other naturalized areas. Attachment 1 Page 25 of 105 Recommendation 8 – 1P: In line with current practices, continue to establish a diverse tree population in intensively managed urban areas. Set a long-term goal in which no species to represents more than 5 percent of the tree population, no genus represents more than 10 percent of the tree population, and no family represents more than 20 percent of the intensively managed tree population both municipal - wide and at the neighbourhood level. Recommendation 9 – 3P: Investigate the utility and potential application of pest vulnerability tools, such as a Pest Vulnerability Matric (PVM) during species selection for municipal tree and shrub planting. Recommendation 10 – 3P: Consider the development of a campaign focused on educating private landowners and the public about the ecosystem benefits across the Town’s forest and the importance of species diversity for a resilient forest, particularly in the context of climate change. Recommendation 11 – 1P: Utilize native and appropriate non-native, non-invasive planting stock in both intensively and extensively managed areas. Increase genetic diversity of tree populations by using the guidance provided by the Ontario Tree Seed Transfer Policy. Consider integrating seed zone contract requirements to ensure planting stock are selected from appropriate seed zones tolerant of the Town's soil characteristics. Recommendation 12 – 1P: Continue to promote the proportion of large, mature trees across Aurora’s urban forest by the regulation of tree injury or removal through the application and enforcement of the Private Tree Protection By-law (By-law 5850-16) and public sector by the Town of Aurora Tree Removal/Pruning Compensation Policy . Recommendation 13 – 2P: Review and enhance tree preservation requirements in municipal guidelines and regulations for sustainable streetscape and subdivision design standards (and particularly soil volume) to support tree establishment and eliminate conflict between natural and grey infrastructure. Recommendation 14 – 3P: Where appropriate, select and plant long lived, low maintenance, and low volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting tree species. Recommendation 15 – 2P: Bolster evergreen tree population across the municipality to improve year- round pollution removal services. Recommendation 16 – 3P: Engage in strategic tree planting in high emissions zones. Recommendation 17 – 3P: Consider application of subsurface (Silva) cells on a project-by-project basis and other enhanced rooting environment techniques for street trees, particularly in constrained spaces such as intensification areas. Recommendation 18 – 2P: Utilize the Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program Treatment Train Tool to evaluate and quantify the stormwater benefits of planting trees at the site level. Recommendation 19 – 3P: In addition to the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan recommendation to encourage tree planting to reduce the urban heat island effect (Section 9.1 of the Plan), consider including the potential of trees to provide energy savings when developing planting guidelines or standards. Page 26 of 105 Recommendation 20 – 3P: Investigate ranking alignment between various tree planting prioritization tools and develop a decision-making framework focused on identifying similarities and differences between ranking systems. Recommendation 21 – 2P: Ensure best practices for healthy soils are implemented in Aurora’s public and private urban areas in the planning of corporate or public planting programs, from site selection and assessment to species selection. Reference tools and programs such as the Corporate Environmental Action Plan. Recommendation 22 – 3P: Manage compaction, salinity, and pH on public property through amendments and remedial measures like mulching and planting of herbaceous cover and shrubs. Recommendation 23 – 3P: Educate private homeowners and industrial and commercial landowners about soil best practices. Recommendation 24 – 3P: Promote the implementation of natural buffers along the edges of urban woodlots to protect against the encroachment of invasive species. Recommendation 25 – 1P: Consider targeted removal of high priority invasive plant species at high priority sites following best practices. Recommendation 26 – 3P: Explore the development and implementation of a municipal-led invasive plant, pest, and disease education and volunteer program to enhance awareness of invasive plants, pests, and pathogens and proper removal practices. Recommendation 27 – 1P: Consider revising the Tree Planting and Approved Plant List to remove both Japanese tree lilac and callery pear from the ornamental tree list due to the invasive potential of these species. Recommendation 28 – 1P: Develop a monitoring and action strategy for invasive species, including pests and diseases, and continue taking proactive approaches to address new and emerging invasive species, such as hemlock woolly adelgid and oak wilt. Recommendation 29 – 2P: Reassess tree care and maintenance practices for trees in urbanized areas. Indicators associated with street tree mortality should be considered, including plant hardiness and tolerances to harsher urban conditions, tree pit enhancements, direct tree care/stewardship, and assessing local traffic and building conditions. Recommendation 30 – 1P: Continue assessing forest structure, function, and distribution every 10 years through the Urban Forest Studies. Recommendation 31 – 1P: Develop a post-tree planting management and monitoring strategy to complement the tree maintenance program to ensure tree survivorship and mitigate common stressors in the urban environment. Recommendation 32 – 3P: Increase proactive, long-term monitoring of species identified as highly and extremely vulnerable to climate change to assess and evaluate the condition of the at-risk species as incremental climate change impacts advance. Page 27 of 105 Recommendation 33 – 1P: Assess the Town’s current recommended planting list based on the climate vulnerability of each species. Shift recommendations to native and appropriate non-native, non-invasive species that have a higher tolerance and lower vulnerability to climate change impacts. Recommendation 34 – 2P: Incentivise private landowners to plant a greater diversity of native, resilient species as part of the Aurora’s tree planting programs to increase the functional diversity of species planted in Aurora. Encourage private landowners to plant alternatives to eastern white cedar, given its high vulnerability to climate change. Recommendation 35 – 3P: Assisted range expansion and assisted migration should be further investigated. The Town should undertake systematic testing of species from warmer ecodistricts that could be suitable to replace the fourteen highly vulnerable and extremely vulnerable species that are at the greatest risk as a result of climate change. Recommendation 36 – 1P: Begin to integrate green infrastructure into asset management planning, particularly for street trees and other municipal natural assets like woodlands and wetlands. Page 28 of 105 Number Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study (2014) Recommendations 2014-2023 Progress State of the Urban Forest: Existing and Possible Urban Forest Distribution 1 Refine the results of the urban tree canopy (UTC) analysis to develop an urban forest cover target. •A recommended canopy cover range of 29 to 35 percent for the Town was set in the York Region Forest Management Plan. •Currently, Aurora is well within this range with a canopy cover of 34 percent, therefore, Aurora, may wish to set a more ambitious target. The York Region recommended range, or a Town-developed target should be included within Aurora’s Official Plan. 2 Build on the results of the urban tree canopy analysis (UTC) and the priority planting index to prioritize tree planting and establishment efforts to improve the distribution of ecosystem services, including urban heat island mitigation and stormwater management. •York Region has developed a Tree Planting Prioritization Tool which incorporates all these components that can be adapted for the Town of Aurora in partnership with the Region. It is recommended that Aurora use the Region’s prioritization until the Town develops its own naturalization or restoration plan or natural heritage strategy. This has been included as a recommendation in the 2023 study. 3 Increase leaf area in canopied areas by planting suitable tree and shrub species under existing tree cover. Planting efforts should continue to be focused in areas of the municipality that currently support a high proportion of ash species. • State of the Urban Forest: Tree Species Effects 4 Utilize the Pest Vulnerability Matrix during species selection for municipal tree and shrub planting. •This recommendation was adapted and included in this 2023 report. 5 Establish a diverse tree population in which no species represents more than five per cent of the tree population, no genus represents more than 10 per cent of the tree population, and no family represents more than 20 per cent of the •Aurora is working towards a more diverse tree population: The Town’s Tree Planting and Approved Plant List Policy has removed historically planted species like Norway maple and Attachment 2 Page 29 of 105 Number Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study (2014) Recommendations 2014-2023 Progress intensively managed tree population both municipal-wide and at the neighbourhood level. increased the diversity of species included (over 50 species) with many cultivars and varieties. • This recommendation was carried forward in this 2023 report to underscore the importance of a diverse urban forest and to guide diversification efforts. 6 Utilize native planting stock grown from locally adapted seed sources in both intensively and extensively managed areas. • State of the Urban Forest: Tree Size Effects 7 Evaluate and develop the strategic steps required to increase the proportion of large, mature trees in the urban forest. This can be achieved using a range of tools including Official Plan planning policy, by-law enforcement and public education. Where tree preservation cannot be achieved, Official Plan policy can be considered that will require compensation for the loss of mature trees and associated ecosystem services. • Aurora had its Private Tree By-law revised in 2016. • Enforcing by-laws that protect large and/or historically significant trees. • Town of Aurora: Tree Removal/Pruning and Compensation Policy • Through the development process large trees are protected where feasible by altering grading and changing/modifying the design. 8 Develop municipal guidelines and regulations for sustainable streetscape and subdivision design that ensure adequate soil quality and quantity for tree establishment and eliminate conflict between natural and grey infrastructure. • Town of Aurora: Tree Removal/Pruning and Compensation Policy • Town of Aurora Green Development Standards Handbook includes guidelines for soil. • Updated 2014 recommendation in this 2023 study to include the need for review and enhancement of tree preservation requirements. • Town of Aurora Landscape Design Guidelines (developed in 2015 and slated for an update in 2024) 9 Explore the application of subsurface cells and other enhanced rooting environment techniques for street trees. Utilizing these technologies at selected test-sites in the short-term may • Page 30 of 105 Number Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study (2014) Recommendations 2014-2023 Progress provide a cost-effective means of integrating these systems into the municipal budget. Urban Forest Function: Climate Change Mitigation 10 Reduce energy consumption and associated carbon emissions by providing direction, assistance and incentives to residents and businesses for strategic tree planting and establishment around buildings. • The Town developed a Corporate Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) to guide the community in how to reduce emissions and promote ecosystem services via tree planting. • Through the Town’s partnership with LEAF, homeowners are given guidance on how to do this through the selection and placement of trees. Creating a Sustainable Urban Forest: Stewardship and Education 11 Research and pursue new partnerships and opportunities to enhance urban forest stewardship in Aurora. • 12 Pursue the development of an urban forest communication plan that guides the dissemination of key messages to target audiences. • Fact sheets developed as part of this 2023 forest study can serve as a basis for the development of an urban forest communication plan 13 Explore the development and implementation of a municipal staff training program to enhance awareness of tree health and maintenance requirements generally, and of proper tree protection practices to be used during construction activities more specifically. • The Town is developing an urban forest management plan which should consider an action in line with this recommendation. 15 Establish an interagency Urban Forest Working Group to liaise with existing stakeholders and build new partnerships that support shared urban forestry and community sustainability objectives. • Aurora staff participate in the York Region urban forestry and invasive species working groups. Creating a Sustainable Urban Forest: Urban Landscape Ecology 16 Explore and develop targets that achieve a comprehensive distribution of ecosystem services and improve overall landscape function. • The York Region Forest Management Plan has set a woodland cover recommended range for Aurora of 19 to 20 percent. Achieving this goal would improve landscape function. Page 31 of 105 Number Town of Aurora Urban Forest Study (2014) Recommendations 2014-2023 Progress Creating a Sustainable Urban Forest: Adaptive Urban Forest Management 17 Monitor the distribution, structure and function of the urban forest using the methods employed in this baseline study. A potential monitoring scenario may consist of a cover mapping assessment (UTC) at a five-year interval and a field-based assessment (i-Tree Eco) at a ten-year interval. • The York Region Forest management Plan provides a commitment to conduct canopy cover assessments every five years and field-based assessments (i-Tree Eco forest studies) every 10 years. The 2023 Aurora Forest Study is a fulfillment of this recommendation. 18 Support research partnerships that pursue the study of climate change and its impacts on the urban forest and that evaluate the potential for planting more hardy and southern species in select locations • The Aurora Forest Study works towards this recommendation by including a climate vulnerability assessment and related recommendations. Urban Forest Management Plan 19 Develop and implement an urban forest management plan for Aurora. • Aurora is actively working on developing an urban forest management plan to be delivered in 2024. Page 32 of 105 Attachment 3 Aurora Urban Forest Study Presented by: Michelle Sawka, Senior Research Scientist, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority February 06, 2024 Page 33 of 105 Outline 1. What is the Aurora Urban Forest Study? 2. Study background and objectives 3. Research results 4. Recommendations Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2 Page 34 of 105 Aurora’s Urban Forest Urban forests provide a host of benefits to the public: Provide environmental services Improve livability Improve mental and physical health Provide habitat and resources for wildlife Reduced urban heat island effect 3 Page 35 of 105 Threats to the Urban Forest A number of threats to the health of our urban forests have emerged over recent years: Climate change impacts Urbanization Invasive species Extreme weather events 4 Page 36 of 105 What is the Aurora Urban Forest Study? Tells us what Tells us about the Assessments through remote sensing, GIS Aurora has and factors that may Communication tools, and plot-based where it is, and impact the urban tool field surveys quantifies services forest 5 Page 37 of 105 Aurora Urban Forest Study Objectives • Quantify and characterize existing distribution, structure and function of the forest, including change since the last study • Quantify and characterize key factors relating to forest health • Soil profile • Invasive species • Assess vulnerability of tree species to climate change • Update and develop management recommendations 6 Page 38 of 105 Research Results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 7 Page 39 of 105 Canopy Cover (%) 2021 Canopy Cover by Municipality • Previous and current assessment method – land cover mapping 40% 34% 35% 30% 28% 28% 30% 25% 24% 25% 22% 21% 18% 20% 17% 15% 10% 5% 0% Aurora Markham Newmarket Richmond Hill Vaughan (2012; 2021) (2010; 2021) (2012/2013; 2021) (2010; 2021) (2011; 2021) Municipality Previous Assessment 2021 Canopy Cover (%) 8 Page 40 of 105 Aurora Tree Population and Distribution Public Private 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Number of Trees 51% of trees in Aurora fall on private lands and 49% fall on public land Land Use Stratum 9 Page 41 of 105 Possible Planting Opportunities Existing Canopy Possible Vegetated • Excluding agricultural areas, Possible Impervious Unsuitable 42 % of Aurora’s land area – 2,068 ha – is potentially available for tree planting. 34 40 11 14 • Low density residential areas 0 20 40 60 80 100 offer the greatest potential planting area with 559 ha Percentage of Land Area (%) 10 Page 42 of 105 White ash 6%Manitoba maple 5% Leaf Area Species Composition: Top Five Species by Leaf Area Sugar maple Eastern white cedar Norway maple Silver maple Norway spruce 20 10 9 8 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of Total Leaf Area (%) 11 Page 43 of 105 Aurora’s Tree Health • 65% of trees are in good or excellent health Excellent Good Fair Poor Critical Dying Dead 31 34 18 6 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Tree Population (%) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 12 Page 44 of 105 Invasive Plant Presence European buckthorn Manitoba maple Garlic mustard Norway maple Non-native honeysuckle European buckthorn 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percentage of Plots Invaded (%) Page 45 of 105 Invasive Pests and Diseases • Impacts of emerald ash borer beetle were observed at 8 % of plots • Spongy moth was observed at 15 % of plots • Oak wilt and hemlock woolly adelgid are incoming pests/diseases and are an active concern for the Town Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 14 Page 46 of 105 Aurora’s Urban Forest provides many Services and Benefits Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 15 49 tonnes/year of air pollution removed 247,000 m3/year of avoided runoff 97,270 tonnes of carbon stored 2,988 tonnes/year of carbon sequestered $451,000 saved from reduced heating & cooling Shade reduces UV index by 27% 5,574 tonnes of oxygen/year Page 47 of 105 Climate Vulnerability of Aurora’s Common Trees Common Name Percent of Stems (%) Vulnerability Score Tolerances Sensitivities Notes Eastern white cedar 23.4 High x High resistance to ice damage x At the southern end of their current range Sugar maple 11.2 Moderate x Sensitive to drought European buckthorn 6.5 High Invasive Manitoba maple 4.6 Low x Low resistance to ice damage Invasive Norway maple 3.8 High Invasive Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 16 Page 48 of 105 Recommendations Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 17 Page 49 of 105 Select Recommendations Expansion of Canopy Cover Recommendation 2: Include a commitment to at least 35 percent canopy cover target in the next Official Plan update. Recommended to aim for a more ambitious target of 40 percent. Additionally, consider the development of a woodland cover target. Promoting Mature Trees Recommendation 12: Continue to promote large, mature trees across Aurora’s urban forest by the regulation of tree injury or removal through the application and enforcement of the Private Tree Protection By-law and public sector by the Town of Aurora Tree Removal/Pruning Compensation Policy. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 18 Page 50 of 105 Select Recommendations Invasive Species Recommendation 26: Consider targeted removal of high priority invasive plant species at high priority sites following best practices. Climate Change Recommendation 35: Assess the Town’s current recommended tree planting list based on the climate vulnerability of each species. Shift recommendations to appropriate species that have a higher tolerance and lower vulnerability to climate change impacts. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 19 Page 51 of 105 Forest Benefits Factsheet Page 52 of 105 Thank You! Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 21 Page 53 of 105 www.trca.ca Page 54 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS24 -0 02 Subject: Parkland Naming Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Director of Operations Department: Operational Services Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS24-002 be received; and 2. That Council approve the selection of names for four Town of Aurora parks as presented. Executive Summary This report is to provide Council with information and recommendations associated with the naming of parkland:  Public Facilities Naming Policy 1997 provides guidelines to naming of parkland.  Historical and geographic connections to parkland blocks with no formal name designation. Background Four different park blocks in the Town are unnamed, of which, two have been developed and two are anticipated to have construction completed in 2024. In accordance with the corporate policy on naming of facilities and parks, staff has compiled a list of suggested names to possibly be used in the naming of the parks with no formal designation. All the names presented have been researched by Cultural Services staff for their historical significance or who had a prominent connection to the lands. Page 55 of 105 February 6, 2024 2 of 5 Report No. OPS24-002 Analysis Public Facilities Naming Policy 1997 provides guidelines to naming of parkland. The Public Facilities Naming Policy 1997 ensures consistency in the recommendations being submitted for consideration. One of the goals outlined in the policy is to remember/retain the memories of past residents, facilities or events which depict our heritage. Specifically, staff are to consider the following guidelines when recommending naming parks, green spaces, and trails:  Geographic or historical significance of the specific location.  Historical/prominent individuals/families/groups.  Significant donation which was instrumental in making the parkland a reality.  Program/Community related name which denotes an appropriate link to its function. The eligibility criteria when utilizing the geographic significance guideline, pertains to landowners that owned or lived on properties within the present or historic Aurora boundaries. The specific criteria to consider when recommending historical/prominent individuals or families is whether they have a historical connection to the Town’s heritage or in some way made a significant contribution to the Aurora community. Historical and geographic connections to parkland blocks with no formal name designation. Provided are name suggestions for the parks and connections to those lands: New Park Names Location 1 – Highland Gate Golf Course Lands (Golf Links Drive) Suggested Name Connection to Lands Park Status Highland Park In the early 1930s, Alvin and Frances Morton purchased the land and establish a nine-hole golf course named the Aurora Golf and Country Club. In the late 1940s the course was expanded to 18-holes under new ownership - Colin S. "Pop" Nisbet, who changed the name to Highland Golf and Country Club. Mr. Nisbet was recently Phase 1 completed in 2023 Page 56 of 105 February 6, 2024 3 of 5 Report No. OPS24-002 inducted in the Aurora Sports Hall of Fame for his contributions to the community. Location 2 – Non- Programmed Park (Hartwell Way) Suggested Name Connection to Aurora Park Status John Abel Park Tribute to former Councillor John Abel who had a strong passion for arts/culture/nature and the indigenous community. Completion in 2024 Location 3 – Brookfield Parkette (Radial Drive) Suggested Name Connection to Lands Park Status Forsyth Parkette The Graham family and Forsyth family both owned the lands at different times between the years 1798 -1939. The town currently has a park named Graham Parkette. Completed 2017 Location 4 – Shining Hill Development Parkland (North of St. Johns Sd Rd.) Suggested Name Connection to Aurora Park Status Thelma Fielding Park First female Councillor for Aurora in 1951. Completion in 2024 Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Page 57 of 105 February 6, 2024 4 of 5 Report No. OPS24-002 Legal Considerations The suggested names have been selected in accordance with the corporate policy on the naming of parks. Financial Implications Sufficient capital budget authority is available for the construction of the required signage for these parks under Capital Project No. AMO178 – Parks/Trail Signage Strategy and Implementation. Communications Considerations The Town will use “inform” as the level of engagement for this initiative. Once finalized, the names will be placed on signage and shared through the Town’s website and social media. Climate Change Considerations None. Link to Strategic Plan The naming of parks supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Encouraging the stewardship of Aurora’s natural resources: Assess the merits of measuring the Town’s natural capital assets. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide further direction. Conclusions That Council approve the suggested names proposed for the unnamed blocks of parkland. Page 58 of 105 February 6, 2024 5 of 5 Report No. OPS24-002 Attachments Attachment 1 – Parkland Name Locations Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 17, 2024. Approvals Approved by Sara Tienkamp, Director, Operational Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 59 of 105 Page 60 of 105 Page 61 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 2 4 -0 04 Subject: Facility Allocation Policy - Update Prepared by: John Firman, Manager, Business Support Department: Community Services Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS24-004 be received; and 2. That the Facility Allocation Policy be approved. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide updated information following presentation of report CMS23-049 Facility Allocation Policies Review on November 7, 2023.  Following presentation of report CMS23-049 Facility Allocation Policies Review, Council requested additional information.  Existing privacy legislation limits the type of information that user groups are legally allowed to share with the Town, resulting in an additional change to the Facility Allocation Policy.  Regional/Representative groups demonstrate various percentages of Aurora residency and continue to offer an important path for Aurora athletes to achieve participation in sport.  Staff have been asked to gather information from user groups regarding the status of their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies. Page 62 of 105 February 6, 2024 2 of 5 Report No. CMS24-004 Background Following presentation of report CMS23-049 Facility Allocation Policies Review, Council requested additional information. When the updated Facility Allocation Policy was presented on November 7, 2023, and in subsequent meetings with some members of Council, staff were asked to gather additional information and/or consider additional options to be included in the policy. 1. That consideration be given to acquiring proof of residency for all participants of each user group claiming Aurora-Based or Regional/Representative group status. 2. That staff obtain specific percentages of Aurora residents from groups currently considered as “Regional/Representative”. 3. That staff confirm whether user groups utilizing Town facilities have a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy in place. Analysis Existing privacy legislation limits the type of information that user groups are legally allowed to share with the Town, resulting in an additional change to the Facility Allocation Policy. Through consultation with Legal and Legislative Services, it has been identified that we are not legally allowed to require proof of residency information from individuals who are registered for third-party programs. User groups that collect residency data from individuals for the purpose of registration in their programs are prohibited by law from sharing that information with third parties, including the Town. As a result, staff have amended the updated Facility Allocation Policy to indicate that user groups must provide the Town with the following data on an annual basis:  Total number of registered participants  Total number of registered participants by municipality of residence Individual names may not be associated with this residency information. This information will enable staff to determine whether a user group has the minimum number of Aurora residents to qualify as an Aurora-Based group and can provide general information as to where individual participants not from Aurora, are coming from. Page 63 of 105 February 6, 2024 3 of 5 Report No. CMS24-004 Regional/Representative groups demonstrate various percentages of Aurora residency and continue to offer an important path for Aurora athletes to achieve participation in sport. Staff have reached out to all existing user groups that are identified as Regional/Representative. As many of these groups are volunteer run with limited resources, we have not been able to collect this data for 100 per cent of the organizations but have collected it for most of them. In summary, the percentage of Aurora residents registered with our Regional/Representative groups varies from as low as 18 per cent to as high as 77 per cent, with the average being 34 per cent.  Three of the groups responding have greater than 50 per cent Aurora residents.  Nine of the groups responding have less than 50 per cent Aurora residents. o Of those, three of the groups have less than 25 per cent Aurora residents.  Six groups have not responded. Staff continue to recommend that the proposed allocation priority list provide Youth Regional/Representative groups higher priority than Adult Aurora-Based groups, as these groups are typically the only group offering a specific program to Aurora residents, and in accordance with industry best practices, youth are prioritized over adults for access to sports and recreation programming. However, Council could decide to give Aurora-Based Adult groups higher priority. The recommendation in this report would need to be amended to include this revision to the proposed policy. A suggested recommendation is noted under the Alternative Recommendations section in this report. Should Council decide to give Aurora-based adult groups higher priority this would make it more difficult for the Representative/Regional groups to gain additional time for program growth, which is a concern they’re already experiencing. Staff have been asked to gather information from user groups regarding the status of their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies. During the annual seasonal permitting process, staff will ask each user group to identify whether they have a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy in place. This information can be provided to the Sport and Community Development Specialist for consideration related to the Sport Plan. Those with a DEI Policy will be asked to provide a copy to the Town. Page 64 of 105 February 6, 2024 4 of 5 Report No. CMS24-004 Advisory Committee Review None Legal Considerations Municipalities and organizations are required to safeguard against the personal information of others in accordance with various legislation. Residency would be considered personal information. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report. Communications Considerations Staff will notify all existing permit holders of the new policy/procedures and indicate when they will be effective. Staff will also provide links to the policy/procedures on the Town’s website. Climate Change Considerations The recommendations from this report do not impact greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change adaptation. Link to Strategic Plan Ensuring appropriate facility allocation policies and procedures are in place supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That the allocation priority be amended to move Aurora-Based Non-Profit Adult groups before Representative/Regional Non-Profit Youth. 2. Council can provide further direction. Page 65 of 105 February 6, 2024 5 of 5 Report No. CMS24-004 Conclusions That the Facility Allocation Policy be approved replacing the former Ice Allocation Policy (2017), Room-Hall Permitting Policy (2018), and Sports Field and Park Use Policy (2020). Attachments 1. Facility Allocation Policy Previous Reports CMS23-049 Facility Allocation Policies Review, November 7, 2023 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 17, 2024 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 66 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Facility Allocation Policy Community Services Contact: Manager, Business Support Approval Authority: Council Effective: November 29, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose To provide transparency and structure for user groups and individuals pertaining to the fair allocation and use of Town owned and/or operated facilities. To ensure consistency in the programming and ongoing use of the Town’s facility inventory; both municipally owned and/or managed facilities. To provide a framework and consistent approach to the ongoing and occasional use of the Town’s community spaces in a fair and equitable manner. To ensure that the Town’s investment in community spaces is managed in the best interest of all users and the citizens of Aurora. To establish clear guidelines and communication between the Business Support Division, the Facility Management Division, Parks Division, and other internal stakeholders and/or the user group contacts. To accommodate the needs of a growing municipality and the increased demands on the Town’s community spaces. To clearly define the rules of use and procedures in maintaining compliance. Scope This policy is an amalgamation of the following policies, and replaces said policies: •Ice Allocation Policy (2017) •Room/Hall Permitting Policy (2018) •Sports Field and Park Use Policy (2020) This policy applies to all facility permit holders and all individual and/or user groups requesting use of Town owned and/or operated community spaces, including Town Attachment 1 Page 67 of 105 2 staff requesting use of these facilities and Town staff responsible for the operation of these facilities. This policy applies to all Town owned/operated indoor and outdoor facilities, with the following exclusions: • Facilities whose use is governed by lease or other agreement. • Tannery Room and departmental meeting rooms at Town Hall and the Joint Operations Centre. Definitions Adult Organization A group that does not meet the requirements to be classified as a “Youth” organization. Aurora-Based A group that demonstrates that it meets the minimum requirements for its age category as follows: • For an Adult Organization, a minimum of 50% participation from Aurora residents or ratepayers from the Town of Aurora. • For a Youth Organization, a minimum of 70% participation from Aurora residents or ratepayers from the Town of Aurora. Director The Director of Community Services or his/her designate or successor. Facility Any Town owned and/or operated permittable space, not including the spaces identified as exclusions in the Scope. Junior Hockey Team An Aurora-based or regional representative Junior level hockey team. At the time of writing of this policy, the teams included are the Aurora Tigers Jr. A Hockey Club and the Central York Girls Hockey Association Panthers U22AA. Non-Profit Organization Any incorporated not-for-profit organization or registered charitable organization. Proof of status may be required at the discretion of the Director. Any group operating in the spirit of a non-profit organization may also qualify, provided that the group is willing to keep detailed financial records showing only incidental surplus revenue on an annual basis. Records for the previous year must be disclosed to the Town on an annual basis during the seasonal permitting period. Page 68 of 105 3 Normal Operating Hours The hours in which the facility is usually staffed and available for permitting. This may not coincide with normal business hours for Town operations within the facility. Permit Holder The organization, group or individual to which a facility rental permit has been issued, including any and all participants, volunteers, guests and invitees of the permit holder and their participants, volunteers, guests and invitees. Representative/Regional Organization An organization that does not meet the minimum participation required to be deemed Aurora-based but offers a particular program to Aurora residents that is not offered by an Aurora-based group. School Group A school group that is located in Aurora, including public, catholic, and private primary and secondary schools. Seasonal Permit Holder Refers to the organization, group or individual to which a seasonal facility rental permit has been issued, including any and all participants, volunteers, guests and invitees of the permit holder and their participants, volunteers, guests and invitees. A seasonal permit includes regular, repeating dates that spans the length of a season, or majority thereof. Town Refers to The Corporation of the Town of Aurora. Youth Organization An organization that demonstrates that it has a minimum of 80% participation of youth aged 17 or younger. Policy Allocation Procedures Submission of external requests All requests for use of facilities by individuals, businesses, community groups and all other requests other than from Town staff, shall be submitted to the Facility Bookings Administrator in accordance with annual or seasonal submission deadlines, and in no event later than two weeks prior to the permit date. Regardless of facility availability, requests submitted with less than two weeks’ notice may not be able to be accommodated. Page 69 of 105 4 Submission of annual and seasonal requests All seasonal facility requests shall be submitted in the format prescribed by the Facility Bookings Administrator, no later than the published deadline each year. Permit revisions received after the published deadline may not qualify for legacy rights. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion The Town encourages all community groups to develop and maintain a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy for their organization. When submitting annual permit requests, community groups will be required to identify whether they have a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy, and to provide the Town with a copy of the policy. Designated permit holder contacts Prior to the issuance of a permit, individuals and user groups must provide to the Facility Bookings Administrator, the name, address, telephone number and email contact information of the individual to be named on the permit. This individual is responsible for all obligations of the Permit Holder in accordance with this policy, and other applicable Town policies, procedures, and by-laws. Changes or deletions and additions to any permit must be sent by the person to whom the contract was issued, unless written authorization has been received by the Facility Bookings Administrator including a list of persons authorized to do so. All user groups shall submit a list of executives, if any, including contact information, on an annual basis, within seven days following the election/appointment of the executives at the organization’s Annual General Meeting, or upon request of the Director. Any permit change requests as a result of a board changeover will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis to determine feasibility, if made outside the regular permit request schedule. Legacy Rights Legacy rights apply to the Town of Aurora or Aurora-based and Representative/Regional groups seasonal permit holders and annual special events/tournaments only. Due to the rotating ice maintenance schedule, legacy rights do not apply to spring/summer arena permits. Legacy rights do not apply to rooms and halls. All Aurora-based and Representative/Regional group seasonal permit holders will maintain their existing permit times on an annual basis, until such time as the permit holder surrenders that time, subject to availability. Times are approximate and do not guarantee a specific location. All reasonable efforts will be made to maintain time and location; however, the Town has the right to make adjustments to meet overall needs. Exceptions may be made at the mutual agreement of an existing permit holder and the Director for the release of permitted time on a one-time basis to accommodate the Page 70 of 105 5 needs of another organization or for facilities re-allocated at the discretion of the Director. Allocation Priority The following allocation procedures apply only to new requests, time surrendered by an existing permit holder, or in the event that new facilities are made available. The following allocation priority will be utilized for all seasonal requests submitted in accordance with seasonal permitting request procedures. In all other cases, permits will be issued on a first come first serve basis with the established priority ranking applied when deemed necessary by the Director. Facilities will be allocated in the following priority order: o Town of Aurora o Junior Hockey: Aurora Tigers Jr. A and Central York Panthers U22AA Elite (applies to ice rentals only) o 3rd Party Summer Camps booked in another facility at the same site (applies only to gymnasiums in the months of July and August) o Aurora-based non-profit youth o Representative/regional non-profit youth o Aurora-based non-profit adult o Representative/regional non-profit adult o Aurora School Groups o Aurora-based for-profit youth o Aurora-based for-profit adults o Representative/regional for-profit o Other groups and private individuals Any organization claiming either “Youth”, “Aurora-based”, or “Representative/Regional” status shall be required to submit membership data for the organization along with the request, and that data shall include: • Total number of players/participants. • Number of players/participants that resided in Aurora. • Number of players/participants aged 17 or under (if requesting “Youth” status) The membership data shall be in the form of a letter or email signed by the president of the sports organization and submitted to the attention of the Facilities Booking Administrator and shall be representative of the prior season. Organizations may also be required to provide additional information on request from time to time. Providing false information may result in the loss of current and/or future permits. Allocation Procedures Page 71 of 105 6 Facility allocation shall be in accordance with the attached Allocation Procedures, as established under authority of the Director, at their discretion. Rental Periods Permits will only be issued for rental periods, as follows: • Minimum period of one hour, unless approved by Community Services; and • Minimum increments of 30 minutes, unless approved by Community Services. Special Circumstances Community Services staff reserves the right to alter facility permits to accommodate special events, play-off requirements, tournaments, and for other special circumstances as may be required. Any such alterations will be done on a one-time basis and impacted permit holders will resume their legacy rights in the following season. In the event that the re-allocation of facility time is necessary, Community Services staff will work with the affected permit holder to re-allocate facility time in as fair a manner as possible and in an effort to minimize any impact. Fees and Charges 1. User fees shall be applied in accordance with the current Town of Aurora Fees and Charges By-Law applicable at the time of booking. 2. User fees reflect the hourly rates charged and include the costs associated with facility lighting, ongoing facility maintenance and repair, including various supplies required to operate the facility. User fees do not include additional services required by user groups. Additional set-up fees may be applied for extensive set-up requests. 3. Additional fees may be applied where required in accordance with this policy. 4. A deposit may be required at the time of booking to reserve the requested time. 5. Additional fees and/or security deposits will be applicable for special events, tournaments, and other special circumstances as determined by the Director. The amount of these fees shall be based on the actual cost incurred by the Town, and in accordance with the Fees and Charges By-law existing at the time of the special event/activity. Security deposits will be required for any booking that may incur additional costs due to damage, setup/cleanup etc. and are mandatory in some facility locations. 6. All fees and charges levied by third parties related to additional licences, permits, insurance or other requirements, are the sole responsibility of the permit holder and are not subject to refund or reimbursement by the Town under any circumstances. 7. All organizations will be issued a permit for the full amount of time that has been booked for the entire season of play. Selected permit holders may be issued monthly statements on the 1st of each month to each group and payments are Page 72 of 105 7 due within 30 days of the issuance of each statement. Failure to remit payments on time may result in the cancellation of facility permits and/or reallocation of facilities to other user groups at the discretion of the Director. 8. Permits for a calendar year that are booked in the previous calendar year will be subject to any fee increases in accordance with the Town’s Fees and Charges By- law as may be approved by Council from time to time. Annual fee increases, if applicable, are typically, but not always, approved in the Fall to become effective January 1st of the next calendar year. Facility Use Regulations 1. All classes of facilities will be scheduled for organized use by the Town of Aurora’s Facility Bookings Administrators based on the Town’s facility allocation criteria and upon receipt of the user group’s written facility permit request. 2. All permit requests beyond the normal opening or closing time of a specific facility are subject to the approval of the Director. 3. Permit holders must disclose any and all planned usage of the facilities when requesting a permit. The Town reserves the right to deny permits for any usage deemed by the Director to be potentially detrimental to the good and safe maintenance and condition of the facility, or to be inappropriate to be held within the facility. 4. All permits must be signed and returned to the Facility Bookings Administrator a minimum of 2 weeks prior to any facility usage. Failure to submit signed permit(s) will result in the group not being permitted to use the facility. In the event that a facility is booked less than 2 weeks in advance, the permit must be signed and returned prior to any facility usage. 5. All permit holders must abide by the terms and conditions outlined in the facility permit. 6. All permit holders must abide by the Town’s Municipal Alcohol Policy and all other applicable policies, procedures, regulations and legislation including, but not limited to those listed in the References section. 7. Permit holders are required to follow the direction of Town of Aurora staff regarding the use of Town facilities and the conduct of all participants, staff, volunteers, guests and invitees of the permit holder at all times. 8. All permit holders shall remove from their permitted facility all garbage, refuse or debris. This includes but is not limited to rooms, hallways, sidelines, dugouts, player areas and spectator areas. Failure to do so may result in the permit holder being invoiced for the Towns costs to clean up the affected area. No further permits will be issued to the offending permit holder until payment has been received by the Town. 9. Damages to a playing surface and/or other area of the facility and restoration expenses incurred by the Town resulting from unauthorized use of the facility at Page 73 of 105 8 any time will be assessed to the associated permit holder or to the affiliated organization of the permit holder. The amount of damages will be based on the time and materials required to repair the damages and any lost facility rental revenue resulting from the closing of the facility for repairs. All payments in relation to the above shall be paid in full prior to the permit holder’s further use of the facility or the re-issuance of facility use permits. 10. The Town of Aurora reserves the right to require police supervision or security staff at any event at the expense of the permit holder. The Town of Aurora reserves the right to require a Security Deposit for any event. The eligibility and the amount of the refund for a Security Deposit will be considered the week following the event. 11. Sub-leasing or booking of facilities by the permit holder to a third party will not be permitted under any circumstances. Any and all agreements to permanently or temporarily release permitted time to another user group shall be administered by the Facility Bookings Administrator, subject to the approval of the Director. No user group shall be permitted to use any facility without a permit being issued in that user group’s name. 12. Should it be determined that there is unauthorized use of facilities by a permit holder, or being permitted by a Permit Holder, the Town reserves the right to suspend or refuse renewal of the Permit Holder’s permits indefinitely. Upon confirmation of unauthorized use of a facility the associated Permit Holder or user group may be fined a financial penalty based on 10 times the normal hourly rental rate of the facility. The penalty shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of any further facility use permits or any resumption of use by the affected user group. Cancellations 1. The Facility Bookings Administrator must be notified in writing at least 14 days in advance of any facility use cancellations to be entitled to a refund of the permit fees. Cancellations of any ice facilities are subject to a 20% cancellation fee if 14 days, or more, written notice is provided. No refunds shall be issued for any cancellations with less than 14 days’ written notice. Seasonal permits do not allow for individual date cancellations. 2. All internal Town of Aurora bookings for programs, special events or other initiatives will be cancelled a minimum of two weeks prior to the booking date for purposes of operational scheduling and re-permitting the facility. 3. Any group or individual that commits two (2) “no-shows” may be subject to cancellation or denial of future permits, at the discretion of the Director. 4. Weather related cancellations or facility closures will not constitute cause for a refund of user fees for lost time experienced by the permit holder. The Town will accept requests from the permit holder that have been impacted by a facility Page 74 of 105 9 weather event closure to reschedule lost playing time at no additional cost to the affected group(s), provided the request is sent within 48 hours of the weather event. For individual bookings that cannot be reasonably rescheduled due to the nature of the activity or availability of suitable facilities, refunds may be provided at the discretion of the Director. References • Arena Allocation Procedure • Baseball Diamond Allocation Procedure • Court (Pickleball and Tennis) Allocation Procedure • Field Allocation Procedure • Park Allocation Procedure • Room/Hall Allocation Procedure Other regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to facility permits, include but are not limited to: • Fees and Charges By-law • Municipal Alcohol Policy • Third Party Events in Outdoor Town Facilities Policy • Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 • Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19 • Liquor Control Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.18 • Gaming Control Act, S.O. 1992, c. 24 • Council Chambers and Holland Room Use Policy • Smoke-Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994, c. 10 • Parks Bylaw • Noise By-law Page 75 of 105 10 Review Timeline This policy will be reviewed 2 years after the initial approval date. Page 76 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS24 -0 02 Subject: Aurora Heights Drive Pedestrian Crossover Prepared by: Michael Ha, Transportation and Traffic Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS24-002 be received; and 2. That a mid-block-controlled Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed on Aurora Heights Drive near the southern terminus of the Machell Park trail and the northern terminus of Fleury Park Trail; and 3. That Parking By-law No. 4574-04.T be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on both sides of Aurora Heights Drive approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed pedestrian crossover location. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the results of the pedestrian crossover warrant analysis at the requested location on Aurora Heights Drive near the southern terminus of the Machell Park trail and the northern terminus of Fleury Park trail.  A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. Page 77 of 105 February 6, 2024 2 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002  Staff recommends implementing a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at the subject location of Aurora Heights Drive based on the warrant analysis and selection matrix outlined in the OTM Book 15. Background In order to provide better connectivity along the north-south oriented trail system along Machell Park and Fleury Park; Town staff have reviewed the need for a mid-block controlled pedestrian crossover on Aurora Heights Drive near the southern terminus of the Machell Park trail and the northern terminus of Fleury Park trail (Attachment 1). A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in OTM Book 15, to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. Analysis A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. The existing road conditions on Aurora Heights Drive are consistent with the Town’s design standards for collector roads. Aurora Heights Drive is a two-lane collector road that accommodates two-way traffic operating within an urban cross-section consisting of a 7 metre pavement width and curbs and sidewalks provided on both sides of the road. The posted speed limit is 40 km/hr within the study area. In the requested location of the crosswalk, Aurora Heights Drive is characterized by a curved horizontal geometry with many parking lot access driveways including those to Aurora Community Centre and Machell Park. Based on the characteristics of the location being considered, a preferred location assessment of the future pedestrian crossover was completed prior to undertaking the warrant analysis. It is recommended that the pedestrian crossover be located between the terminus points of the two trails, just west of the Fleury Park parking lot driveway based on the following considerations:  Location connects Machell Park and Fleury Park trails for pedestrian connectivity Page 78 of 105 February 6, 2024 3 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002  Provides adequate sight distances for pedestrians as well as vehicles approaching the subject location  Minimizes number of vehicular driveways that need to be crossed by pedestrians  Minimizes impact to existing infrastructure Staff recommends implementing a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at the subject location of Aurora Heights Drive based on the warrant analysis and selection matrix outlined in the OTM Book 15. In accordance with OTM Book 15, there is a two-step evaluation process for pedestrian crossover assessment:  Step 1: Undertake a warrant analysis which is based on both vehicular and pedestrian volumes to determine if a pedestrian crossover is warranted (Table 1)  Step 2: If the warrant is met under Step 1, select the appropriate type of pedestrian crossover using the selection matrix which is determined by vehicular volumes only (Table 2) The pedestrian crossover warrant (Step 1) is based on the following criteria:  8-hour pedestrian volumes to be greater than 100 or 4-hour pedestrian volumes to be greater than 65  8-hour vehicular volumes to be more than 750 or 4-hour vehicular volumes to be greater than 395  Distance to other traffic control to be greater than or equal to 200 metres or location is on pedestrian desire lines for system connectivity The above noted warrant analysis was undertaken using pedestrian crossing data and vehicular traffic data collected at the subject location. Based on the requirements outlined in OTM Book 15, the subject location is a candidate for a pedestrian crossover (Table 1). Page 79 of 105 February 6, 2024 4 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002 Table 1: Pedestrian Crossover Warrant Analysis Summary (Step 1) OTM Book 15 Criteria Subject Location Requirement Met Pedestrian Volumes: 8-hour volumes greater than 100 or 4-hour volumes greater than 65  8-hour volume: 99  4-hour volume: 84 Yes Vehicular Volumes: 8-hour volumes greater than 750 or 4-hour volumes greater than 395  8-hour volume: 2,952  4-hour volume: 1,715 Yes Distance to other traffic control infrastructure greater than or equal to 200m  Tecumseh Dr: 260m  Yonge Street: 220m Yes Location is on pedestrian desire lines for system connectivity  Location connects Machell Park and Fleury Park trails Yes Using the data collected and the selection matrix for pedestrian crossover treatments in OTM Book 15, a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover is recommended for Aurora Heights Drive (Attachment 2). This location connects Machell Park and Fleury Park trails for pedestrian connectivity, minimizes the number of vehicular driveways that need to be crossed by pedestrians and minimizes impact to existing infrastructure. OTM Book 15 outlines four types of pedestrian crossings. The selection of an appropriate pedestrian crossing treatment (i.e. Level 1 Type A, Level 2 Type B, Level 2 Type C, and Level 2 Type D) is based on the road cross-section (i.e., number of lanes) and vehicular traffic volumes over an eight-hour peak period. Level 1 Type A pedestrian crossings are suggested only for road cross-sections with four or more lanes. For areas characterized by higher volumes of pedestrians experiencing significant levels of delay to cross, a pedestrian signal can be considered as a pedestrian crossing treatment option. OTM Book 12 – Traffic Signals provides guidance for checking the warrants for traffic signals such as a mid-block pedestrian signal (MPS) as a pedestrian crossing treatment. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the pedestrian crossings, their relevance in the study area based on collected data and the anticipated cost (Attachment 3). Page 80 of 105 February 6, 2024 5 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002 Table 2: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment System Selection for Two-lane Roads (Step 2) Pedestrian Crossing Type Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Characteristics Pedestrian / Vehicular Volume Criteria Estimated Cost (excluding tax and fees for detailed design) Mid-block Pedestrian Signal  Overhead-mounted traffic signal heads  Side-mounted and regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings Greater than 300 pedestrians and 7,500 vehicles $200,000 Level 1Type A  Side-mounted and regulatory signs  Warning signs  Internally illuminated signs mounted overhead on span wire  Two flashing circular amber LED beacons  “X” pavement markings  Currently installed at Orchard Heights Boulevard 6,000 – 7,500 vehicles $80,000 Level 2 Type B  Side-mounted and overhead- mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings  Rectangular rapid flashing beacons 6,000 - 7,500 vehicles $50,000 Level 2 Type C  Side-mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs pavement markings  rectangular rapid flashing beacons 4,500 - 6,000 vehicles $30,000 Level 2 Type D  Side-mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings 750 - 4,500 vehicles $7,000 Page 81 of 105 February 6, 2024 6 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002 Advisory Committee Review Report No. PDS23-148 was presented at the Active Transportation and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting on December 20, 2023. The Committee is in support of implementing a pedestrian crossover facility but has requested that a higher order pedestrian facility similar to that provided on Orchard Heights Boulevard west of Yonge Street (Level 1 Type A) or John West Way at Hollandview Trail / Civic Square Gate (pedestrian signal) be implemented. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The total approved capital budget authority for Project GN0045 (formally 34518) – Pedestrian Crossings per the 2019 DC Study is $144,000. Of this amount, $46,600 is presently unspent or uncommitted. This project is funded from the roads and related development charges, and the growth and new reserves. Staff recommend the installation of a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at an estimated cost of approximately $7,000. Should Council approve the installation of staff’s recommended crossover, its cost could be accommodated within this noted project’s existing approved CBA. Should Council decide to proceed with a higher pedestrian crossing system than what is recommended, insufficient DCs would be available at this time to fund this proposed work; consequently, an interim funding source would need to be considered. Further, other planned capital work is likely to be impacted to accommodate the resultant unplanned growth and new reserve requirements from this decision. This option would also result in an on-going incremental operating cost to the Town. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will inform the public about the information contained in this report by posting this report to the Town’s website. The Communications team will also inform the public about any potential traffic disruptions during the installation of the pedestrian crossover through the Town’s regular communications channels. Page 82 of 105 February 6, 2024 7 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002 Climate Change Considerations None. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identifying potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions This report presents to Council the results of the pedestrian crossover warrant analysis at the requested location on Aurora Heights Drive near the southern terminus of the Machell Park trail and the northern terminus of Fleury Park trail. A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in OTM Book 15 to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. Based on pedestrian volumes analysed at this location, it is recommended that a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed at a cost of approximately $7,000. There are funds available to undertake this project through Capital Project No. 34518 – Pedestrian Crossings per the 2019 DC Study. It is also recommended that stopping prohibition at any time be implemented on both sides of Aurora Heights Drive approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed crossover location. Should Council decide to proceed with a higher pedestrian crossing system than what is recommended, insufficient DCs would be available at this time to fund this proposed work; consequently, an interim funding source would need to be considered. Page 83 of 105 February 6, 2024 8 of 8 Report No. PDS24-002 Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Level 2 Type D Pedestrian Crossover Attachment 3 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Previous Reports Memorandum - Aurora Heights Drive Pedestrian Crossover, Active Transportation and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, December 20, 2023 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 17, 2024 Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 84 of 105 Machell Park Fleury Park Machell Park TrailFleury Park TrailYonge StreetValhalla CourtCabotCourtLaurentide AvenueAurora Heig h t s Dr i v e Mark Street HuronCou rt Parkland CourtMaple StreetWater WellLaneIllingworth Court Tecum sehDrive220 m260 m J:\_Departments_space\Works\IES Maps - Engineering\For Michael Ha\Aurora Heights Drive Crossing\MAP\Aurora_Heights_Drive_Crossing.aprx Map created for the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, 2023-11-28. Base data provided by the Town of Aurora and the Regional Municipality of York. Air photos taken Spring2023,© First Base Solutions Inc., 2023 Orthophotography. k 02550 Metres Proposed Crossing Location ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map - Proposed Crossing Proposed Crossing Location Community Centre LaneHENDERSON DR IVEBAYVIEWAVENUELESLIESTREETBATHURST STREETBLOOMINGTON ROADYONGESTREETSTJOHN'S S I DEROAD WELLINGTON STREET EAST HIGHWAY404HIGHWAY 404Page 85 of 105 Staff Report No. PDS24-002 Attachment 2: Level 2 Type D Pedestrian Crossover Page 86 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-002 Attachment 3 Type of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities (Signal and PXOs) Estimated Cost (excluding HST and Detailed Designs) Mid-block Pedestrian Signal Image source: Google Maps (Queen’s Park Crescent East, City of Toronto) Approx. $200,000 Level 1 Type A PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $80,000 Page 87 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-002 Attachment 3 Level 2 Type B PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $50,000 Level 2 Type C PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $30,000 Page 88 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-002 Attachment 3 Level 2 Type D PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $7,000 Page 89 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS24 -0 03 Subject: Hollandview Trail Pedestrian Crossover Prepared by: Michael Ha, Transportation and Traffic Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: February 6, 2024 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS24-003 be received; and 2. That a mid-block-controlled Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed on Hollandview Trail south of St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School to the walkway located between Hollandview Trail and Bowler Street; and 3. That Parking By-law No. 4574-04.T be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on both sides of Hollandview Trail approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed pedestrian crossover location. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the results of the pedestrian crossover warrant analysis at the identified location on Hollandview Trail south of St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School to the walkway located between Hollandview Trail and Bowler Street.  A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location.  Staff recommends implementing a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at the subject location of Hollandview Trail based on the warrant analysis and selection matrix outlined in OTM Book 15. Page 90 of 105 February 6, 2024 2 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 Background In order to provide better pedestrian connectivity, Town staff have reviewed the need for a mid-block controlled pedestrian crossover on Hollandview Trail south of St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School to the walkway located between Hollandview Trail and Bowler Street (Attachment 1). A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in OTM Book 15, to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. Analysis A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. The existing road conditions on Hollandview Trail are consistent with the Town’s design standards for collector roads. Hollandview Trail is a collector road that accommodates two-way traffic operating within an urban cross-section consisting of a 9-metre pavement width. There is a sidewalk on the north side of the road along the St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School frontage. The posted speed limit is 40km/hr within the study area. Staff recommends implementing a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at the subject location of Hollandview Trail based on the warrant analysis and selection matrix outlined in OTM Book 15. In accordance with OTM Book 15, there is a two-step evaluation process for pedestrian crossover assessment:  Step 1: Undertake a warrant analysis which is based on both vehicular and pedestrian volumes to determine if a pedestrian crossover is warranted (Table 1)  Step 2: If the warrant is met under Step 1, select the appropriate type of pedestrian crossover using the selection matrix which is determined by vehicular volumes only (Table 2) The pedestrian crossover warrant (Step 1) is based on the following criteria: Page 91 of 105 February 6, 2024 3 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003  8-hour pedestrian volumes to be greater than 100 or 4-hour pedestrian volumes to be greater than 65  8-hour vehicular volumes to be more than 750 or 4-hour vehicular volumes to be greater than 395  Distance to other traffic control to be greater than or equal to 200 metre or location is on pedestrian desire lines for system connectivity The above noted warrant analysis was undertaken using pedestrian crossing data and vehicular traffic data collected at the subject location. Based on the requirements outlined in OTM Book 15, the subject location is a candidate for a pedestrian crossover (Table 1). Table 1: Pedestrian Crossover Warrant Analysis Summary OTM Book 15 Criteria Subject Location Requirement Met Pedestrian Volumes: 8-hour volumes greater than 100 or 4-hour volumes greater than 65  8-hour volume: 170  4-hour volume: 162 Yes Vehicular Volumes: 8-hour volumes greater than 750 or 4-hour volumes greater than 395  8-hour volume: 889  4-hour volume: 605 Yes Distance to other traffic control infrastructure greater than or equal to 200m  Bayview Avenue: 250m Yes Location is on pedestrian desire lines for system connectivity Location connects sidewalk located on north side of Hollandview Trail and the pedestrian walkway on the south side of Hollandview Trail Yes Using the data collected and the selection matrix for pedestrian crossover treatments in OTM Book 15, a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover is recommended for Hollandview Trail (Attachment 2). The OTM Book 15 outlines four types of pedestrian crossings. The selection of an appropriate pedestrian crossing treatment (i.e. Level 1 Type A, Level 2 Type B, Level 2 Type C, and Level 2 Type D) is based on the road cross-section (i.e., number of lanes) Page 92 of 105 February 6, 2024 4 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 and vehicular traffic volumes over an eight-hour peak period. Level 1 Type A pedestrian crossings are suggested only for road cross-sections with four or more lanes. For areas characterized by higher volumes of pedestrians experiencing significant levels of delay to cross, a pedestrian signal can be considered as a pedestrian crossing treatment option. The OTM Book 12 – Traffic Signals (OTM Book 12) provides guidance for checking the warrants for traffic signals such as a mid-block pedestrian signal (or MPS) as a pedestrian crossing treatment. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the pedestrian crossings, their relevance in the study area based on collected data and the anticipated cost (Attachment 3). Advisory Committee Review A memorandum (Report No. PDS24-158) was presented at the Active Transportation and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting on December 20, 2023. The Committee is in support of implementing a pedestrian crossover facility but has requested that a higher order pedestrian facility similar to that provided on Orchard Heights Boulevard west of Yonge Street (Level 1 Type A) or John West Way at Hollandview Trail / Civic Square Gate (pedestrian signal) be implemented. Legal Considerations None. Page 93 of 105 February 6, 2024 5 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 Table 2: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment System Selection for Two-lane Roads (Step 2) Pedestrian Crossing Type Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Characteristics Pedestrian / Vehicular Volume Criteria Estimated Cost (excluding tax and fees for detailed design) Mid-block Pedestrian Signal  Overhead-mounted traffic signal heads  Side-mounted and regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings Greater than 300 pedestrians and 7,500 vehicles $200,000 Level 1Type A  Side-mounted and regulatory signs  Warning signs  Internally illuminated signs mounted overhead on span wire  Two flashing circular amber LED beacons  “X” pavement markings  Currently installed at Orchard Heights Boulevard 6,000 – 7,500 vehicles $80,000 Level 2 Type B  Side-mounted and overhead- mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings  Rectangular rapid flashing beacons 6,000 - 7,500 vehicles $50,000 Level 2 Type C  Side-mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs pavement markings  rectangular rapid flashing beacons 4,500 - 6,000 vehicles $30,000 Level 2 Type D  Side-mounted regulatory signs  Warning signs  Pavement markings 750 - 4,500 vehicles $7,000 Page 94 of 105 February 6, 2024 6 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 Financial Implications The total approved capital budget authority for Project GN0045 (formally 34518) – Pedestrian Crossings per the 2019 DC Study is $144,000. Of this amount, $46,600 is presently unspent or uncommitted. This project is funded from the roads and related development charges, and the growth and new reserves. Staff recommend the installation of a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover at an estimated cost of approximately $7,000. Should Council approve the installation of staff’s recommended crossover, its cost could be accommodated within this noted project’s existing approved CBA. Should Council decide to proceed with a higher pedestrian crossing system than what is recommended, insufficient DCs would be available at this time to fund this proposed work; consequently, an interim funding source would need to be considered. Further, other planned capital work is likely to be impacted to accommodate the resultant unplanned growth and new reserve requirements from this decision. This option would also result in an on-going incremental operating cost to the Town. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will inform the public about the information contained in this report by posting this report to the Town’s website. The Communications team will also inform the public about any potential traffic disruptions during the installation of the pedestrian crossover through the Town’s regular communications channels. Climate Change Considerations None. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identifying potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Page 95 of 105 February 6, 2024 7 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 Conclusions This report presents to Council the results of the pedestrian crossover warrant analysis at the identified location on Hollandview Trail south of St. Jerome Catholic Elementary School to the walkway located between Hollandview Trail and Bowler Street. A pedestrian crossover warrant analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodologies outlined in OTM Book 15 to determine the need of a controlled crossing and the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatment for this location. Based on pedestrian volumes analysed at this location, it is recommended that a Level 2 Type D pedestrian crossover be installed at a cost of approximately $7,000. There are funds available to undertake this project through Capital Project No. 34518 – Pedestrian Crossings per the 2019 DC Study. It is also recommended that stopping prohibition at any time be implemented on both sides of Hollandview Trail approximately 15 metres east and west of the proposed crossover location. Should Council decide to proceed with a higher pedestrian crossing system than what is recommended, insufficient DCs would be available at this time to fund this proposed work; Consequently, an interim funding source would need to be considered. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Level 2 Type D Pedestrian Crossover Attachment 3 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Previous Reports Memorandum - Hollandview Trail Pedestrian Crossover, Active Transportation and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, December 20, 2023 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 17, 2024 Page 96 of 105 February 6, 2024 8 of 8 Report No. PDS24-003 Approvals Approved by Marco Ramunno, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 97 of 105 J:\_Departments_space\Works\IES Maps - Engineering\For Michael Ha\Location Map for Hollandview Trail\MAPS\Location Map for Hollandview Trail.aprxMap created for the Town of Aurora Planning & Development Services Department, 2023-12-14. Base data provided by the Town of Aurora and the Regional Municipality of York.Air photos taken Spring2023,© First Base Solutions Inc., 2023 Orthophotography.k03060MetresProposed Crossing LocationATTACHMENT 1Location Map -Proposed CrossingBaywell CrescentBridgenorth DriveSnedden AvenueLuxtonAvenueMcMaster AvenueHollandview TrailEarlStewartDriveDovercourt LaneBowler StreetWatkins Glen CrescentBaywell CrescentOstick StreetSteckley StreetHollandview TrailBaywell CrescentBBayaywyweweell CCrecreesscnceentnteAdnAvenueeen AvAveveenueueMcMcMccMSt.Jerome CatholicElementary School250 MetresSidewalks0105MetersPage 98 of 105 Staff Report No. PDS24-002 Attachment 2: Level 2 Type D Pedestrian Crossover Page 99 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-003 Attachment 3 Type of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities (Signal and PXOs) Estimated Cost (excluding HST and Detailed Designs) Mid-block Pedestrian Signal Image source: Google Maps (Queen’s Park Crescent East, City of Toronto) Approx. $200,000 Level 1 Type A PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $80,000 Page 100 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-003 Attachment 3 Level 2 Type B PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $50,000 Level 2 Type C PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $30,000 Page 101 of 105 StaƯ Report No. PDS24-003 Attachment 3 Level 2 Type D PXO Image source: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Approx. $7,000 Page 102 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Member Motion Councillor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Council/Committee Meeting Structure Under Strong Mayor Powers To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Rachel Gilliland Date: February 6, 2024 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Province expanded Strong Mayor Powers to municipalities over 50,000 in population, who committed to a housing pledge in the fall of 2023 to help address the housing crisis, but was not mandatory to accept with a housing pledge; and Whereas the Town of Aurora head of council has the discretion whether to use the strong mayor powers, except for those dealing with the budget; and Whereas strong mayor powers permit the head of council the ability to create new committees of council made under the Municipal Act, 2001, where all members are council members, and assign their functions. The head of council is also able to appoint the chairs and vice-chairs of such committees of council; 1. Now Therefore Be it Hereby Resolved That Council requests that the Mayor reconsider using strong mayor powers to alter the current structure of Council and/or committee meetings, but rather remains the same as officials were originally elected to do; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That a copy of this Motion be sent to the Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Michael Parsa, MPP Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Dawn Gallagher Murphy, MPP Newmarket—Aurora, and all Ontario municipalities. Page 103 of 105 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Member Motion Mayor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Supporting Affordable Housing and Gentle Density To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas Date: February 6, 2024 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Town of Aurora is forecasted to grow to a population of over 85,000 people by 2051, which represents an increase of over 30% from today; and Whereas on September 26, 2023, the Council of the Town of Aurora approved a commitment to the Government of Ontario’s Housing Pledge to build 8,000 new residential units by 2031; and Whereas on February 21, 2023, the Council of the Town of Aurora approved a motion to develop an Affordable Housing Action Plan aimed at promoting attainable and diverse housing options for residents as the Town grows; and Whereas the Town of Aurora has developed a new Official Plan that provides the policy context to encourage gentle density and a mix of housing options through compatible and appropriate-scale intensification in line with Provincial and Regional objectives; and Whereas as-of-right permissions from the Province already permit three (3) residential units per lot, with additional residential units recognized as necessary to address the ongoing housing and rental crisis; and Whereas the Federal Government has made funds available through the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) to provide funding to local governments for initiatives aimed at increasing affordable housing supply and supporting the development of complete, low- carbon and climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse; 1. Now Therefore Be it Hereby Resolved That as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, staff be directed to implement as-of-right permissions to allow up to four (4) residential units on properties zoned for single detached, semi- detached, or townhouse dwellings, provided the lots are of sufficient size and the necessary servicing and parking requirements are met; and Page 104 of 105 Supporting Affordable Housing and Gentle Density February 6, 2024 Page 2 of 2 2. Be It Further Resolved That Staff report back to Council on the review and implementation of this update as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review process. Page 105 of 105