Research Report on the Potential for Food Production on Institutionally Owned Lands in Toronto

April 2010

By Martin Danyluk M.Sc. Planning, University of Toronto martin.danyluk@utoronto.ca This served as background for the report Scaling up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure, a Solutions Paper funded and published by the Metcalf Foundation (2010).

Objectives
This research investigated the potential for food production on institutionally owned lands in the City of Toronto. Specifically, it addressed the following questions: 1. The City of Torontos Real Estate Division is supposedly looking at parcels that could be used for gardens. What is known about this? 2. The City of Toronto is supposedly doing an open space survey. What is known about this? 3. Have the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) done any broad surveys of school garden or community garden opportunities? What are the barriers from their perspective? 4. What about the Province? Does the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) have any lands? What would be the challenges to using this land for urban agriculture? Are there other Provincial landowners in the city (e.g., jails)? 5. Has Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) undertaken an urban land survey? What has TRCA done around the Rouge Park? 6. What other para-governmental agencies or utilities should be considered?

City of Toronto
Land holdings and management The Citys land holdings include properties used by the Toronto Public Library, Toronto Police Service, and Toronto Hydro Corporation. City-owned real estate is managed by the Facilities and Real Estate Division. Toronto Community Housing properties are managed separately (see below). Existing urban agriculture The City currently operates 52 community gardens and 12 allotment gardens (1,674 plots) in City parks, as well as an urban farm on land owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division provides support and training to proponents of community garden projects (City of Toronto 2009a, p. 5). Despite long waiting lists for plots in some parts of the city, no new allotment gardens have been established since 1998 (City of Toronto 2009b). As of spring 2009, the City had only one permanent staff member in the Community Gardens program (Danyluk 2009). Policy and decision history The following City policies and decisions support the intensification of urban agriculture: The Community Garden Action Plan, endorsed by Council in 1999, called for the City to establish at least one community garden in every ward of the city by 2003, and directed staff to create an inventory of existing gardens and assess the need for additional gardens (City of Toronto 2008a, p. 7). The Citys Environment Plan, endorsed in April 2000, calls for the expansion of community gardening and the creation of urban food production pilot projects (City of Toronto 2000). In July 2000, Council unanimously endorsed the principle that all people in Toronto should have an adequate supply of safe, nutritious, affordable, appropriate food (City of Toronto 2001a, p. 2). In March 2001, Council endorsed the Food and Hunger Action Plan, which directed staff to examine underused public lands to identify opportunities for food production. It also called for improved access to nutritious food and the development of a strategy for neighbourhoods underserved by grocery stores (City of Toronto 2001a). In June 2001, Council endorsed Torontos Food Charter, which requires that the City encourage community gardens, protect local agricultural lands, and support urban agriculture (City of Toronto 2001b). 2

 The 2007 Climate Change Plan established programs and working groups to increase local food production and increase the number of community gardens (City of Toronto 2007). In October 2008, Council endorsed a local food procurement policy with a target of buying 50 percent locally grown food. The policy affects a number of City services serving food, including day cares, nursing homes, and shelters. In June 2008, the Board of Health directed Toronto Public Health to develop a Toronto Food Strategy, which will result in an action plan to improve the health, social, economic, and environmental aspects of the Citys food system and which includes urban agriculture in its considerations. The plan will emphasize a collaborative approach across City divisions and with community partners (City of Toronto 2009). Current and forthcoming actions The Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division will be expanding the number of community and allotment garden spaces in 2009, where opportunities and demand warrant. The Division is also developing policy to increase opportunities for urban agriculture in parks and other open spaces (City of Toronto 2009, pp. 56). More information needed. The Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division is exploring a proposed agricultural strategy for City-owned parks. More information needed. The Toronto Environment Office has been charged with looking at the feasibility of using other publicly owned lands for urban food production. It is currently investigating lands owned by the City, Province, school boards, hydro corridors, hospitals, and other institutions (City of Toronto 2009, p. 6). This work includes compiling an inventory of vacant lands in the City. Research has begun on identifying these lands, but no conclusions or public materials are available at this point. Many of the answers will hinge on forthcoming staff discussions between the Environment Office and the Facilities and Real Estate Division, the first of which are slated for late September. These meetings will shed more light on the opportunities and barriers to urban agriculture on institutional lands in the City. One example of an action the City might take as a result of this research is to develop guidelines requiring that urban agriculture be considered a potential use of surplus lands before they are released for sale to other institutions and the public. However, there are many other City interests that would likely take higher priority, such as affordable housing.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation Legally, Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) properties are owned by the City. TCHC has a real estate division that manages its real estate portfolio. This portfolio comprises over 2,800 buildings and houses (Toronto Community Housing Corporation 2009). In 2007, TCHC created a Community Gardening Manual to support the 100-plus community garden projects led by TCHC tenants (Toronto Community Housing Corporation 2007). TCHC has a Social Investment Fund that funds tenant-led projects. Monies from this fund have been used to expand community gardens (Toronto Community Housing Corporation 2009).

Province of Ontario
Land holdings and management The provincial government owns over 40,000 hectares of land (Ontario Realty Corporation 2009). Its real estate portfolio is managed by the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC). ORC maintains a current and complete inventory of all Provincial land holdings. To my understanding, ORCs management portfolio covers all Provincial agencies and Crown corporations, including Metrolinx (the owner of GO Transit), provincial prisons, and provincial courthouses. ORCs inventory classifies land holdings according to their general characteristics (e.g., surplus, transitional, vacant, presence of buildings) and includes data on parcel size and building coverage. ORC has also recently added a green-space assessment process to its work (see below). There has been no survey of the potential use of Provincial lands for urban agriculture, and the classification system described above does not necessarily provide any information about a sites potential for urban agriculture uses. Unless there has been a site-specific reason to do so, Provincial lands have not been assessed for their potential for urban agriculture. Some ORC staff have identified this gap and pushed for greater consideration of urban agriculture. However, until there is a broader Provincial policy on urban agriculture as a use of Provincial lands, ORC has no direction from the Province to assess lands for this purpose and no resources with which to perform such an assessment. Such a land survey cannot and will not happen without this direction. No policy will be created unless there is an explicit province-wide objective to make Provincial lands available for urban agriculture. ORC reports to the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and such a direction would come from that ministry, even if to fulfil a policy developed by another ministry. 4

Green space protection: A possible model for a Provincial land survey The Province recently enacted a policy to identify environmentally sensitive green space and charged ORC with assessing lands for this purpose. Thus, some Provincial lands have now been assessed as green space, meaning they have some environmental significance and will not be developed. This does not necessarily coincide with their potential use for urban agriculture; some lands suitable for urban agriculture are not necessarily worthy of environmental protection. This assessment might serve as a model for the way an assessment of Provincial lands suitable for urban agriculture might occur. The survey gave rise to the protection of over 2,428 hectares of green space lands, creating new conservation areas and improving the sustainability of existing ecological features. As part of this process, ORC reviewed Provincially owned properties to identify candidate sites for green space protection. This process is now a standard part of ORCs land management program, as Provincial policies have increasingly called for the assessment of Provincial lands for ecological as well as economic value. ORC continues to review the Provincial real estate portfolio to identify potential green space sites (Woods and Rossi 2008). This assessment review process entails an initial screening by ORC of survey title information, aerial photography, Ontario Base Mapping, and GIS data. Staff identify property boundaries and physical barriers and conduct site visits to understand the site characteristics and context. ORC then reviews applicable provincial, municipal, and conservational authority plans, policies, regulations, and guidelines. This includes consultation with these agencies as necessary. Staff then prepare cost/value estimates based on an initial assessment of the characteristics of the property. If the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (now the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) approves the green space protection, ORC becomes responsible for implementation, which may include a detailed environmental assessment, survey work and title research, appraisal, and the negotiation of property transfer (Woods and Rossi 2008).

Hydro corridors

Hydro corridors in the City of Toronto (Danyluk 2009)

Within the City of Toronto there are an estimated 12 km2 of transmission corridor lands, an area seven times the size of High Park (Danyluk 2009, p. 1). Hydro transmission corridors are owned by the Province and managed by ORC as its land agent. New secondary uses of corridor lands, including agricultural uses, are subject to planning review by ORC and the Province, technical review by Hydro One, and municipal land-use regulations (Danyluk 2009, p. 8). In 2002, the Province established the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program, a framework for prioritizing certain secondary uses of hydro corridors over others. Where there are competing interests for the same hydro corridor site, public uses, uses that harness the linear nature of the corridors, and uses of a provincial or inter-regional nature take priority over local, non-linear uses like urban agriculture. ORC reviews applications for secondary uses to ensure they do not obstruct uses of a higher priority (Danyluk 2009).

 Community and allotment gardens managed by the City of Toronto are considered recreational licences by the Province and are charged rent and property taxes accordingly. The municipality must have adequate programs in place to maintain the gardens and cover liability requirements. For these reasons, ORC does not currently grant licences to individuals or community groups for gardens in hydro corridors. Community groups wanting to establish gardens must request the support of the City. Elimination of this requirement would streamline access to the corridors by community farming organizations and decrease the burden on municipal resources (Danyluk 2009). The City is charged a nominal annual rent of $1, plus 50 percent of property taxes, by the Province for garden projects. The 50 percent property tax pass-through was enacted in 2003 and means significant financial losses for the City, estimated to reach $371,920 annually by the time all existing licence agreements come up for renewal. This tax policy is a barrier to increasing the number of gardens in hydro corridors (Danyluk 2009). If agricultural uses of the corridors were opened directly to community groups, the current fee structures (in which the Province charges market rents and property tax rates to private users) would discourage the use of these lands by non-commercial or non-profit farming operations (Danyluk 2009). Most new garden projects located in hydro corridors in the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, and York must undergo a rezoning process, since the zoning by-laws of these former municipalities, still in effect, do not typically permit agricultural uses (Danyluk 2009, p. 13). Agricultural uses of hydro corridor lands are subject to technical conditions imposed by Hydro One. The community group must submit a site plan for approval and assumes responsibility for site upkeep. Typically, gardeners cannot erect fencing, block access to the corridor for maintenance crews, plant tall trees, construct any permanent structures (buildings with foundations), or install water features like ponds or wells. These restrictions can make certain types of farm activities (e.g., greenhouses, aquaculture, food packing, tool storage) difficult or impossible (Danyluk 2009). Nine of the twelve allotment gardens in Toronto are located in hydro corridors. The City also sponsors four community gardens in hydro corridors (Danyluk 2009, p. 16).

 Interviews with urban agriculture proponents found that concern and confusion about the potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF) are crucial issues for local growers (Danyluk 2009). As of 2008, the EMF produced by extremely-low frequency power lines remains classified a possible carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization 2008, p. 33). The City of Toronto has a policy of prudent avoidance on EMF, which recommends taking practical or no-cost actions to reduce the exposure of young children to EMF. The City deems the health benefits of gardening and other recreational activities to outweigh the potential risks of EMF (City of Toronto 2008b).

Toronto Catholic District School Board

Land holdings and management The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) has a total of 201 schools (Toronto Catholic District School Board 2009). Property management, including the disposal of surplus properties, is handled internally by the real estate department in the Planning and Facilities Division.

Toronto District School Board

Land holdings and management The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) operates 595 schools on 562 sites (Toronto District School Board 2009b). Properties deemed surplus by the TDSB (i.e., closed or non-operating school sites) are referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of TDSB created in 2007 to manage its properties, a function which includes the redevelopment or sale of surplus properties. Toronto Lands Corporation is responsible for 97 non-operating TDSB school sites (Toronto Lands Corporation 2009). Urban farm pilot project In December 2007, the TDSB directed staff to explore possibilities and potential partners to support establishment of urban agriculture ventures on school sites in order to provide financial and programming opportunities. Lauren Baker of Sustain Ontario assisted with this study. Baker and TDSB staff completed a feasibility study for a demonstration urban farm on a secondary school property (Danyluk 2009, p. 31).

 The outcome of the urban farm feasibility study is a staff report that is going first to Committee in early October, then to the Board of Trustees in late October. The report explains how TDSB would implement an urban farm if it were to decide to do so, and is intended to inform the Board if such a project would be onerous for the TDSB, sustainable financially, etc. The report addresses the following considerations of a model urban farm: human resources, roles and responsibilities of partners, farm infrastructure and equipment, production methods and crops, potential markets, composting and soil fertility management, land preparation and rotation management, and budget (Toronto District School Board 2009a). The farm is envisioned as a two-acre (0.8-hectare), intensive organic market garden located at a secondary school. The TDSB would prepare the site for agriculture and develop curriculum related to the farms activities. A community partner would manage growing and a youth employment training program (Toronto District School Board 2009a). The farm would provide opportunities for outdoor-classroom learning in the areas of agriculture, culinary arts, business, horticulture, and landscape design, as well as provide jobs and training to youth (Toronto District School Board 2009a). The staff report notes TDSBs position as a public institution with significant land holdings, and presents the urban farm project as an opportunity to lead the way on urban agriculture (Toronto District School Board 2009a). The report proposes that the community partner will be responsible for developing the youth employment program and its training curriculum. The TDSBs EcoSchools group will work with teachers in the host school to develop curriculum, ensuring that the farm provides opportunities to enhance teaching and learning in the host school. One possible means of doing this is by creating a Specialist High Skills Major in Agriculture at the secondary school site. Students in grades 11 and 12 will be involved in farm activities and take courses on farm design and planning, agriculture and food science, and agribusiness and marketing (Toronto District School Board 2009a). It is proposed that the farm be phased in over three years, with half of the site under intensive vegetable production, a quarter in fallow, and a quarter for farm infrastructure, demonstration gardens, and learning space. Site design components include an existing school greenhouse, teaching area, storage shed and washing facility, food storage facilities, classroom facilities, the market garden, demonstration gardens, and orchard areas (Toronto District School Board 2009a).

 The staff report recommends the following roles and responsibilities of partners: (1) TDSB provides overall project management, reviews expressions of interest, provides soil testing, provides site planning and design expertise, installs infrastructure and prepares land, covers water and hydro costs, provides organic inputs, and develops curriculum; (2) the City of Toronto provides infrastructure, production, and marketing support; (3) the community partner, an experienced community organization, oversees farm planning, design, and food production, conduct fundraising, and works actively with the host school (Toronto District School Board 2009a). A rezoning will likely be necessary to legally sell produce grown on the farm and obtain a farm business registration number for tax purposes. Two possibilities for changing the zoning designation of the site are (1) to obtain a temporary use bylaw, which zones land for specific uses for a maximum of three years, with extensions possible, although this is a comprehensive process that can take up to a year to complete; or (2) to obtain a minor variance application, which is brought forward to the Committee of Adjustment, can take up to three months, and costs at least $500 (Toronto District School Board 2009a). Any school site will likely need to improve its water provision for irrigation purposes. All other capital costs and resources would need to be provided by the community partner. If the staff report is approved by the Committee and the Board of Trustees, this will give staff direction to conduct a pilot project, starting with identifying a school site and a community partner. This last step could pose more difficulty, as any community partner would need to advance most of the capital costs of the farm project. The primary barrier, then, is financial rather than regulatory or technical. Regulatory and logistical issues have been addressed in the feasibility study. TDSB is also closing and consolidating school sites, a process that will include renewal and reinvestment of remaining sites. An urban farm pilot project could be included in the capital costs allocated for renewal of an existing school site. Broader policy TDSB has not done any large-scale land survey to address the urban agriculture question. To my knowledge, the work done so far in this area has been limited to the urban farm study, not broader possibilities for agriculture on TDSB lands. During the urban farm study there was little discussion of a broad land policy on urban agriculture. The TDSB staff member interviewed was not aware of any other internal discussions about urban agriculture on TDSB properties. To my knowledge, the urban farm study represents the extent of TDSB work on urban agriculture to date.

10

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the largest landowner in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), with 15,000 hectares of land in total. Of this, 1,396 hectares are currently rented for agricultural use (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2009c). In September 2008, TRCA adopted a Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2009a). The aim of this policy is to conserve agricultural land in the region and encourage progressive environmental stewardship through the use of new crops and innovative production methods, including appropriate technology, environmental goods and services, best management practices, community-shared agriculture, and community gardens. As a result of the policy, 409 hectares of TRCA-owned farmland have been conserved (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2008c). The policy governs agricultural proposals, general terms and conditions for leases, certification, permitted and prohibited uses, infrastructure and land use, existing tenancy, and monitoring and maintenance. It calls for the current inventory of agricultural lands to be conserved, permits existing tenancies, permits multi-year leases (up to five years), promotes innovative and sustainable agricultural production methods, requires mandatory environmental farm plans and beneficial management practices, and requires that farming operations do not compromise other TRCA objectives (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2008a). According to TRCA, the policy:
promotes social equity and food security in communities by providing opportunities for increased accessibility to fresh, healthy and local food; provides opportunities for community economic development by helping to reduce the number of imports and by creating jobs and meaningful work for the local produce; reduces our ecological footprint by providing locally grown, raised and sold food, reducing food miles and greenhouse gas emissions related to food transportation and helps to reduce the impacts of climate change; provides a space for celebrating the cultural diversity of communities by growing a diverse range of crops; provides a positive influence on adjacent natural heritage; and complements Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritys (TRCA) vision for The Living City by participating in growing local foods that contribute to sustainable communities. (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2009b)

11

Rouge River Watershed Plan The Rouge River watershed spans 336 km2 (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007, p. 1). Over 12 percent of the watershed is protected in Rouge Park. Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is in a zone called the Rural Area. The primary uses of the Rural Area are agricultural, including crop production, market gardening, nurseries, and some livestock operations (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2007). Most agricultural lands in the watershed are used for cash crops (soy, corn, grains and hay), market gardens, nurseries and livestock. Urban community gardens are emerging in developed areas, like Phyllis Rawlinson Park in Richmond Hill (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007, p. 50). The part of the watershed called the Urbanizing Area has a long history of agricultural use. Much of the new urban development within this zone is occurring on former agricultural lands, diminishing the availability of large land parcels for large-scale crop production and the viability of remaining agricultural operations in these areas (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2007, pp. 1320). The Rouge River State of the Watershed Report recommends that TRCA support Provincial and municipal policies endorsing redevelopment and intensification and thereby reducing pressure on agricultural lands, as well as policies permitting a shift to more specialty crops, greenhouse operations, and local farmers markets (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2007). Much agricultural land in the watershed has been expropriated by the Provincial and federal governments, some designated for long-term Agricultural Heritage uses in Rouge Park. These agricultural lands are leased by tenant farmers. The length of lease terms is in part affected by the legislation governing the government agency that owns the property in question. For example, TRCA can approve lease terms of up to five years without Provincial approval. However, in the past it has typically approved one-year leases, despite its stated commitment to long-term agricultural uses on these lands. These short lease terms are a barrier to agricultural viability, as they inhibit investment and longer term agricultural initiatives by farmers (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007, pp. 5051). The key issues facing agricultural uses in the watershed are poor economic viability of agriculture, the prevalence of short-term farm leases, and conflicts between farming and adjacent land uses (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007, p. 52).

12

 The objective of the Rouge Watershed Task Force for agriculture in the watershed is to protect agricultural lands for food and crop production and as a vital component of the watershed landscape, by sustaining a viable agricultural industry (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007, p. 107). The Task Force recommends the following strategies for improving agricultural vitality in the watershed: (1) providing GTA-wide services for local farm businesses (developing new products for local niche markets, promoting best management practices and awareness of resources, assisting farmers in nutrient management and environmental stewardship plans, promoting agriculture through events and activities); (2) supporting local food and increasing awareness of sustainable agriculture (developing and featuring local food programs, promoting the value of local farming, focusing on links between local food and health); (3) implementing supportive land-use policies (compact urban development, firm urbanrural boundaries, improved transit); and (4) supporting agriculture on publicly owned agricultural lands (long-term leases, demonstration farms, community gardens, farmers markets) (Rouge Watershed Task Force 2007). To achieve these objectives for agriculture in the watershed, the Implementation Guide for the Rouge River Watershed Plan recommends that: municipalities make provisions for near-urban agriculture and community gardens in new suburban development; Rouge Park and TRCA continue the existing policy of supporting longer farm leases, find opportunities to promote the cultural and environmental benefits of agriculture and community gardens; Transport Canada, ORC, and municipal landowners recognize and support agriculture as a long-term use by shifting to longer-term leases when leases come due; Rouge Park and TRCA seek tenant farmers who are willing to test new crops and grow food for local markets; and TRCA coordinate farmland initiatives among public landowners in the GTA (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2008b).

Other Institutional Landowners

Government of Canada properties are managed by the Canada Lands Company (CLC). The CLC manages lands of all federal agencies and Crown corporations, including the Toronto Port Authority, federal prisons, and federal courthouses. Post-secondary institutions (University of Toronto, York University, Ryerson University, colleges) Hospital corporations (over 25 hospitals) Private utility companies (Bell Canada, COGECO Inc., Enbridge, Rogers, TELUS) Private transportation corporations (CN, Greater Toronto Airports Authority)

13

 Other large private landowners (golf courses, cemeteries)

Conclusions
With the exception of City-managed community and allotment gardens (currently limited by staffing constraints), land studies currently being undertaken by City staff, and the Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy recently adopted by TRCA, the large institutional landowners surveyed here have given little consideration to enhancing urban agriculture more broadly across their land holdings. There does seem to be increasing awareness and a willingness to support single projects where this is economically feasible (e.g., TDSBs urban farm, TCHC funding of community garden projects, the Province condoning municipal gardens in hydro corridors), but in each of these cases, the institutional landowner has avoided most responsibilities around the management, operation, or funding of the garden or farm venture. It is up to community groups to self-manage these projects; the institution simply makes surplus land, and possibly other provisions like utilities or shelter, available to the project proponents. One the one hand, we can see this approach as desirable since it eliminates some red tape and provides a high level of autonomy to community groups. On the other hand, larger-scale change might be possible if the landowners were willing to consider urban agriculture broadly rather than on a site-specific basis. This might take the form of a comprehensive land survey, such as the one the City is undertaking, or an urban agriculture program in which the landowner takes a more active role in establishing gardens or farms across its property holdings. This kind of comprehensive approach, also, would provide opportunities for thematic linkages, allowing landowners to use food production to enhance their other activities (like the TDSB proposal to integrate an urban farm with school curriculum, or the development of a TRCA model farm to demonstrate its environmental stewardship practices). In the case of hydro corridors, there are also identifiable policy and regulatory barriers: community groups must request the sponsorship of the City, creating additional work for both parties; the City loses property tax revenue when it establishes new garden projects; and there is confusion and discomfort around health risks. There are also issues around leases, with some public landowners renting agricultural land to tenant farmers on a yearly basis. These short lease terms inhibit investment and long-term agricultural activities by farmers.

References
City of Toronto. 2000, February. Clean, Green and Healthy: A Plan for an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto. Environmental Task Force Final Report. 14

City of Toronto. 2001a. The Growing Season: Food and Hunger Action Committee Phase II Report. Toronto: City of Toronto Food and Hunger Action Committee. City of Toronto. 2001b. Torontos Food Charter. http://www.toronto.ca/food_hunger/pdf/food_ charter.pdf. City of Toronto. 2007, June. Change Is in the Air: Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan. Environmental Task Force Final Report. City of Toronto. 2008a. Community Gardens Program Toolkit. Parks, Forestry, and Recreation Division. City of Toronto. 2008b, June 18. Reducing Electromagnetic Field Exposure from Hydro Corridors. Staff report to Board of Health. City of Toronto. 2009a, May 28. Identifying Urban Agricultural Opportunities in the City of Toronto. Staff Report to Parks and Environment Committee. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/ mmis/2009/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-21648.pdf. City of Toronto. 2009b, February 5. Toronto Community Gardens, Allotment Gardens and Urban Farm. Presentation to Toronto Parks and Environment Committee. Danyluk, Martin. 2009, April 1. Cultivating Potential: Planning for Urban Agriculture in Torontos Hydro Corridors. Current Issues Paper, Program in Planning, University of Toronto. Ontario Realty Corporation. 2009. Ontario Realty Corporation. http://www.ontariorealty.ca. Rouge Watershed Task Force. 2007. Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future. Toronto: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://trca.on.ca/ dotAsset/37800.pdf. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2007. Rouge River State of the Watershed Report. Toronto: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://www.trca.on.ca/protect/ watersheds/rouge-river/resources.dot. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008a, November 21. Changing the Conversation: New Partners, New Crops and New Ways of Doing Business. Presentation by Sonia Dhir at A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium, Guelph, ON. http://www.latornell.ca/pdf/ 2008sessions/2008_F1D_Sonia_Dhir.pdf. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008b, March. Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future Implementation Guide. Toronto: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37815.pdf. 15

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2008c. Greening the Economy: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Annual Report. Toronto: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2009a. Humber River Watershed Projects & Plans. In Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://trca.on.ca/protect/watersheds/humberriver/projects--plans.dot. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2009b. Near Urban Agriculture. In Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://trca.on.ca/learn/near-urban-agriculture/. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2009c. TRCAs Initiatives. In Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. http://trca.on.ca/learn/climate-change/trca-initiatives.dot. Toronto Catholic District School Board. 2009. Toronto Catholic District School Board. http://www.tcdsb.org. Toronto Community Housing Corporation. 2007. Building Great Neighbourhoods: Annual Review 2007. Toronto Community Housing Corporation. 2009. Toronto Community Housing. http://www.torontohousing.ca. Toronto District School Board. 2009a, September. The TDSB Farm: Final Report. Staff report to Board of Trustees. Toronto District School Board. 2009b. Toronto District School Board. http://www.tdsb.on.ca. Toronto Lands Corporation. 2009. Toronto Lands Corporation. http://www.torontolandscorp.ca. Woods, R. Geoff, and Melissa Rossi. 2008, JanuaryFebruary. Progressive Real Estate Management: Helping to Expand Ontarios Greenspace. Ontario Planning Journal 23(1). World Health Organization. 2008. Assessment Conclusions and Suggestions of WHOs International EMF Project. World Health Organization.

Interviews
Lauren Baker, Director, Sustain Ontario Jodi Callan, Toronto Environment Office, City of Toronto Richard Christie, Program Co-ordinator, Ecological Literacy and Sustainable Development, Toronto District School Board 16

Jordan Erasmus, Planner, Professional Services, Ontario Realty Corporation

17