The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board 1985 ~ , D-l the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 22-MARCH-1985 #1/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre, Murray Ross Parkway, North York, on Friday, 22 March, 1985, commencing at 1 30 P m PRESENT Chairman Edward A. Fulton Vice-Chairman William G. Mc Le an Members Elizabeth Gomes Bryn Lloyd Ronald A.P Moran Basil V Orsini Peter E Oyler Morton M Smith, QC Norah Stoner Dr Walter M Tovell Helen White Robert F M Yuill Authority Chairman William T Foster Authority Vice-Chairman Lois Hancey ABSENT Members Roger J Crowe James Davidson Lois E Griffin Monte Kwinter Rocco Maragna Frank J McKechnie The Chairman having been delayed due to the Official Opening of the Scarborough Light Transit System, Mr W G McLean, Vice-Chairman, opened the meeting and welcomed the members to the first meeting of the newly-constituted Board DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Mr Morton Smith declared a possible conflict of interest in connection with Item 6 herein, in connection with a former client, and did not participate in discussion of or vote on the matter DELEGATIONS The following delegations were heard (1) Jean Macdonald, President, Toronto Field Naturalists (In response to the Interim Users' Program for Aquatic Park - written submission, dated March 22, 1985, attached) (2 ) Victoria Carley, Friends of the Spit (In support of the Interim Users' Program, and opposed to the hydroplane race scheduled for June 15-16, 1985 - written submission forwarded March 28, 1985, and attached) - (3 ) Kevin Kavanagh, The Conservation Group, University of Toronto (In response to the Interim Users' Program for Aquatic Park - written submission, dated March 22, 1985, attached) (4 ) Roy Merrens, The Eeaches Marathon Runners' Association (In support of the Interim Users' Program, and opposed to the hydroplane race scheduled for June 15-16, 1985 - copy of written submission to be forwarded to Authority office) D-2 -2- l. BELLAMY ROAD RAVINE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT -Addendum No. 1 - March, 1985 Res #1 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Addendum No 1 (dated March, 1985) to the Bellamy Ravine Erosion Control Project, as appended as Schedule nAil of these Minutes, be adopted, AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken (a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth in the Project, (b) the Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 55% of the cost, (c) the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to approve the Project pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, (d) when approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any necessary documents, (e) subject to receipt of Provincial and Municipal approvals, the staff be directed to prepare development agreements with the agencies involved regarding the details of additional design studies, property acquisition, tendering, inspection supervision, financial, and other arrangements (f) no work proceed until the owners of all affected properties south of Kingston Road have agreed to provide ti tle to the lands where works will be constructed and easements to facilitate construction and maintenance of the proposed work, (g) the Minister of the Environment be requested to grant an early exemption for the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act CA RRIED 2 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECT 1984-1986 -South Marine Drive Res #2 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the second stage of erosion control work for the South Marine Drive Shoreline Management Project be carried out at a total estimated cost of $375,000 00 CARRIED 3 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECT 1984-1986 -Lakehurst Drive Erosion Control Res #3 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT shoreline protection work be carried out along the Lakehurst Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs at a total cost of $60 000 00 . CARRIED -3- D-3 4. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECT 1984-1986 -Fallingbrook Erosion Control Project Res. #4 Moved by: William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT shoreline protection work be carried out along the Fallingbrook sector of the Scarborough Bluffs at a total cost of $150,000.00. CARRIED 5. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO: 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work at the Rear of #180 Duncanmi11 Road, City of North York (Don River Watershed) Res. #5 Moved by William McLean Seconded by: Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control and slope stabilization work be carried out at the rear of #180 Duncan Mills Road, City of North York, at an estimated total cost of $140,000 00, AND FURTHER THAT the benefiting owner contribute a total of $20,100 00 towards the cost of the works, and provide a permanent easement over the lands where the work is carried out CARRIED 6. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO: 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work adjacent to #19 Fairg1en Crescent & Weston Road, City of North York (Humber River Watershed) Res #6 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control works be carried out adjacent to #19 Fairglen Crescent and Weston Road, City of North York, at an estimated cost of $130,000 00, AND FURTHER THAT the benefiting owners either contribute a total of $14,500 00 plus a permanent easement, or deed to the Authority title to the land where the works will be carried out CA RRIED 7. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO: 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work at the Rear of #100-104 Gwendolyn Crescent (Don River Watershed) Res #7 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control and slope stabilization work be completed at the rear of #100-104 Gwendolen Crescen~, City of North York, at an estimated cost of $25,000 00 CARRIED - 0-4 -4- 8. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK: 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work at the Rear of 120 Klein's Crescent (Humber River Watershed) Res. #8 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to retain a consultant to carry out an erosion control and slope stability study at the rear of #20 Klein's Crescent, Town of Vaughan, at an estimated cost of $12,000 00 CARRIED 9. SPECIA L PROJECT PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS ADJACENT TO THE LESLIE STREET PUMPING STATION, TOWN OF MA RKHA M (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK), DON RIVER WATERSHED Res #9 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control remedial works be carried out adjacent to the Leslie Street Pumping Station, at an estimated cost of $10,500.00, AND FURTHER THAT the staff continue to undertake erosion and sediment control measures for individuals and organizations on a construction cost recovery basis when Authority aims and objectives can be achieved, but where no Authority funding is available CARRIED 10. EROSION CONTROL MAJOR MAINTENANCE -Water Control Channel south of the Queen Elizabeth Way, Etobicoke Creek Res #10 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT major maintenance repairs be carried out to the water control channel south of the Queen Elizabeth Way, at an estimated cost of $30,000 00 CARRIED II. EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM -Erosion Control Update and Environmental Inventories Studies Res #11 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to carry out Erosion Control Update and Environmental Inventories' Studies, at an estimated cost of $40,000 00 CARRIED 12 PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION DYKES - DUFFIN CREEK, TOWNS OF PICKERING/AJAX, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM: JANUARY, 1983 -Completion of Ajax Flood Control Dyke Res #12 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT completion and restoration of the flood control dyke " along Church Street, Town of Ajax (Duffin Creek), be carried out at a cost of $15,000 00 CARRIED -5- D-5 13. PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION DYKES - DUFFIN CREEK, TOWNS OF PICKERING/AJAX, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM: JANUARY, 1983 -Pickering/Ajax Flood Control Works, Phase II Res. #13 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Final Engineering be carried out for the flood control dyke along the Duffin Creek, from Brock Road to Highway #2, at an estimated cost of $14,000.00, AND FURTHER THAT construction of the dyke and associated measures be undertaken as soon as possible, at an estimated cost of $211,000 00. CARRIED 14. PROJECT FOR UPDATING OF THE GOODNooD PUMPING STATION, COMMUNITY OF GOODWOOD, TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM): AUGUST, 1983 -Official Opening of the Goodwood Pumping Station Res #14 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff be directed to arrange an Official Opening ceremony to commemorate the Goodwood Pumping Station, AND FURTHER THAT it be scheduled to coincide with the June 7th Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting which would be held in the Goodwood Community Centre prior to the ceremony CARRIED 15. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Ajax Waterfront Development: 1985 Development Program Res #15 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1985 Development Program for the Ajax Waterfront be approved, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with implementation of the program CARRIED 16. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Pre-development Property Management - 1985 Res #16 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to manage and provide the necessary maintenance of waterfront properties in the Frenchman Bay area, at a total cost of $25,000 00 CARRIED 17. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Bluffers Park Waterfront Area, Phase II Res #17 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be retained to maintain operation of the temporary floating navigation aids at Bluffers Park, at a cost not to exceed $15,000 00, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to carry out necessary bluff stabilization work at a total cost of $50,000 00 CARRIED 0-6 -6- 18. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Ashbridges Bay Waterfront Park Res #18 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be retained to maintain operation of the temporary floating navigation aids at the Ashbridges Bay development, at a cost not to exceed $15,000 00 CARRIED 19. CITY OF ETOBICOKE - 'MOTEL STRIP' Res #19 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to assist the City of Etobicoke in its Land Use Study for the Motel Strip Area, including a review of the possibility of incorporating a small craft harbour facility into the Humber Bay East Waterfront Area CARRIED 20. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Humber Bay West Waterfront Park Res #20 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be retained to maintain operation of the temporary floating navigation aids at the Humber Bay West development, at a cost not to exceed $15,000 00, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to complete the necessary grading and landscape improvements at Humber Bay West, at a total cost of $15,000 00 CARRIED 2l. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park: 1985 Development Program Res #21 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith That the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1985 Development Program for Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park be approved, AND FURTHER THAT the staff be directed to proceed with the work, at a total estimated net cost of $400,000 00 CARRIED 22. WATERFRONT PARK USERS' SURVEY Res #22 Moved by William Mclean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to under a 'Waterfront Park Users' Survey' in 1985 in accordance with the $15,000 00 budget, subject to sufficient , funding by the Ministry of Natural Resources CARRIED -7- 0-7 23. 1985 WATERFRONT MONITORING PROGRAM -Terms of Reference Res #23 Moved by William McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to carry out the 1985 Waterfront Monitoring Program, at an estimated cost of $40,000 00 CARRIED. 24. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 . -Bluffers Par~ Marina Res #24 Moved by William. McLean Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report having regard to the Bluffers Park Marina be received CARRIED. 25. AQUATIC PARK INTERIM USER PROGRAM Res. #25 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the report of March 8, 1985, on Aquatic Park Interim User Program, as amended and appended as Schedule "B" of these Minutes, be approved AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority staff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the interim user program, including the execution of any documents and agreements CARRIED 26. AQUATIC PARK - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Res #26 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the document entitled "Report of the Ring-billed Gull Control Project at the Aquatic Park Endikement, April I-July 31, 1984", be received, AND FURTHER THAT the 1985 Wildlife Management program be approved, at an estimated cost of $61,000 00 CARRIED 27. AQUATIC PARK BUS SERVICE: FARE POLICY Res #27 Moved by Robert Yuill Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff prepare a further report on the feasibility of charging a fare of SOC for adults, and 25C for senior citizens and children, for bus service at Aquatic Park, AND FURTHER THAT the staff contact Mr Bill Stockwell of the Canadian National Exhibition regarding possible use at Aquatic Park of the Exhibition's trackless trains, and report back to the May 3rd meeting of the Board. CARRIED 0-8 -8- 28. THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO & REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY _&_ THE TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS -Interim Management Agreement Res. #28 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Secretary-Treasurer be directed to arrange for preparation of a suitable agreement between The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to reflect the unique interim management requirements for Aquatic Park, AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the execution of any documents. CARRIED. 29. AQUATIC PARK: AMENDMENT TO WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT M.T.R.C.A. -&- THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO Res #29 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Secretary-Treasurer be directed to arrange for preparation of a suitable amendment to the agreement, dated October 11, 1972, between The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, to reflect the unique management arrangement required for the interim management of Aquatic Park, THAT the amendment to the agreement be in a form substantially similar to the attached draft agreement prepared by the Authority's solicitor, AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the execution of any documents CARRIED 30. AQUATIC PARK SAILING CLUB -Request for use of Authority-owned lands Res #30 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Aquatic Park Sailing Club be allowed the use of certain Authority-owned lands in the Aquatic Park area situated in the City of Toronto (in The Municipality of !letropolitan Toronto) for boating purposes during 1985, subject to the following terms and conditions (a) The land to be used by the Aquatic Park Sailing Club is to comprise a parcel consisting of 29 2 acres, more or less, designated on mapping provided by the Authority, together with suitable access thereto, (b) The land is to be maintained to the standards identified by the Authority's Water Resource staff (c) The rental rate is to be the sum of $3,000 00, together with the payment of all realty taxes, local improvement charges, and costs of any other nature, arising _ either directly or indirectly - from the use of this land by the Club, (d) The rental arrangement may be renewed annually, if agreeable to both parties, , with the rental rate to be reviewed each year, -9- 0-9 (e) All development plans for use of the lands are to be approved by the Authority prior to implementation, (f) Aquatic Park Sailing Club is to provide the Authority with proof of Public Liability insurance in an amount of $2,000,000 00, (g) Aquatic Park Sailing Club is to indemnify and save harmless The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and the Minister of Natural Resources from all liabilities incurred by use of the property, (h) The arrangement may be terminated by either party, by the giving of 30 days' notice, at any time, in writing, by registered mail, (i) Any additional conditions deemed necessary by the Authority's solicitor to protect the Authority's interest in this matter. AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the execution of any documents. CARRIED 3l. AQUATIC PARK MASTER PLAN Res #31 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the staff status report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to undertake the necessary actions to ensure the preparation of the Aquatic Park Master Plan, THAT staff be directed to report back to the Board upon preparation of concept development plans and master plan, THAT staff prepare a report on possible impact of the hydroplane races scheduled to be held June 15-16, 1985, for presentation to the full Authority on March 29, 1985, AND FURTHER THAT delegations on this matter be he~rd by the full Authority CARRIED 32. 1985/86 TORONTO & AREA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STUDY (TAWMS) Res #32 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Authority staff continue to participate in th~ Toronto and Area Watershed Management Study program through the technical committees, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit a proposal regarding intensive studies on the upper Humber River, to be funded through a Ministry of Environment research grant CARRIED 33. STATUS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MANAGEMENT WORKS Res #33 Moved by Peter Oyler Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report on the status of the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Works be received CARRIED D-10 -10- 34. CONSERVATION LAND MANAGEMENT WORK PROGRAM Res. #34 Moved by Peter Oyler Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1985 Conservation Land Management Work Program be approved CARRIED 35. SOUTH THACKERAY SANITARY LANDFILL SITE -Monitoring Report: Summary Res #35 Moved by Peter Oyler Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be authorized to provide technical advice and assistance with respect to the re-vegetation of sanitary landfill sites, THA T the "Report on the Landfill Gas Monitoring Program at the South Thackeray Sanitary Landfill Site (1980-1984)" be received and forwarded to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained in the report be utilized by the Authority when dealing with any future sanitary landfill site development on Authority-owned lands CARRIED 36. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN RURAL AREAS -Role of Conservation Authorities in Ontario Res #36 Moved by Peter Oyler Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Author~ty staff initiate discussions with the Ministries of Natural Resources, Agriculture & Food, and Environment regarding co- operative programming for erosion and sediment control in rural areas CARRIED 37 PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Res #37 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to undertake, in conjunction with staff of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and of the Province of Ontario, an analysis of the remaining valley and waterfront lands within Metropolitan Toronto to identify those key properties which must be acquired now in order to preserve or return them to their natural open space characteristics and function, AND FURTHER THAT upon completion of the analysis, staff be directed to prepare a Land Acquisition project to be considered by the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board at its next meeting , CA RR IED -11- 0-11 38. "TOMMY THOMPSON PARK" Res. #38 Moved by Robert Yuill Seconded by Peter Oyler THAT the Authority recognize the Metropolitan Toronto Council resolution to name Aquatic Park, upon assumption of the management and operations' responsibilities, as "Tommy Thompson Park", AND FURTHER THAT, commencing March 30, 1985, the Authority deem it appropriate to formally recognize the Authority lands at Aquatic Park as "Tommy Thompson Park" CARRIED. TERMINATION On motion, the meeting was terminated at 3 40 P m , March 22. E.A. Fulton B E Denney Chairman Acting Secretary-Treasurer KC )-12 DELEGA TION 1# TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS . March 22, 1985 SINCE 1923 . Chair~an and Memoers Water & Related Land Management Advisory ~oard The Metropolitan Toronto and Regio~ Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N ls4 I Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to confirm the remarks I added as a postscript to my presentation to the Board this afternoon. I spoke in respect of tracks of trail bikes beine seen in the Aquatic P~rk area of the Spit. The riders apparently g~ined ~ccess by going arou~~ the fence and this action suggests the need for better supervision qy the police forces responsible for the area~ In answer to a question by one of the Board members I would like to clarify a state~ent in AP?endix 1, which was not read to the Board. This is under "Rature Information - at site" and reads: "Notice at the gull 'fly\...ay' to explain the band. of droppings on the road". There are t~o things here. First the droppings on the road. About h&lfway down the road within the Aquatic Park area there is a band 15-20 metres wide heavily covered with gull droppings. 1 understood that this was caused because CUlls chose this spot to fl~ across the Spit and of course heavy traffic resulted in a greFter than usual concentr~tion of droppings. However this is not a "flyway" for the gulls which insteF..d use it for resting and "loafingll (standing around.). This is especially true of immature gulls. As a matter of fact so~e gulls have been killed in this area when they did not get out of the way of tru~kF. q)).ickly enoUE;h. I hope this explains what I now realize was a rather ~bibUOUS statement. aur. truly, ~ /t~~Q- (/ (lHss) Jean :.1a.cdonald President 88 Parklea Drive Toronto, Ontario IwL4G 2JZ . D-1: TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS H~rch 22, 1985 SINCE 1923 . Chairtlan and l<ler.bers I Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We appreciate this opportunity to respond to the Interim Users Program for Aquatic Park. It is very encouraging to us that last year over 22,000 visitors used the area for simple enjoyment. They were not seeking a man-made playground, they preferred natural surroundings - the sun and wind, the birds, the quietness and the freedom from the constraints of urbanization. Each year the Park become s more popular. Offering recreation of this kind can be done with n minimum of expense: no major construction, no large staff is needed. We hope that the designation Aquatic Park will soon give way to the name designated by Metro Council: Tommy Thompson Park. Mr. Thompson 1 s wish for this area was that it be left alone to develop naturally. We urge you to respect his wishes. It is very important that walkers and cyclists be separated. "'alkers tend to wander about - their children dart off and this is a real difficulty for cyclists. On the other hand, bicycles suddenly materializing beside a group, or cyclists racing past at 30 km/h are a sourCe of anxiety for the walker and a real hazard for small children. We hardly need mention that we are totally opposed to private cars in the Park at any time. Our position on the development of a marina halfway out on the Spit has not changed. We op,pooe this location. We are very pleased that the hours of opening have been extended and we ap}~eciate the respOnse of MTRCA to users' requests for a longer season. In order that maximuc use of this area be possible we would ask consideration of year-round access for meobers of the Toronto Field Naturalists and to otLers who regularly enjoy recreation in the out-oi-doors. Our outings program is conducted rain, shine or snow, and individuals would often like a walk on the spit in even unlikely weather. We would like to be able to telephone to gain entry through the gates and request that this simple procedure be established. . 1-14 2 'lie underst.t;nd there are Bome concerns relating to PJ.bl1c safety on tile heGd- l~nd ~hich is an unfiniebed construction site. There ure few plactc where r.ossible hazards are not clearly vidble - for example, the vcrJ' rOUGh rubl,le of SOIDe. of the al'rJourinc. People can see that thcJr mieht fall cliDJbinf; over tbis IDtiteri8.1. I woulci like to relr..tcapen:one,l experience. I ".~ s walking along cliffs in the island of Orkncy. These cliffs, like those in Rewfound- land are grass-covered to the edge and then there is a sheer drop two or tr~ee hundred feet to the rocks ano the sea below. The comtro..nity hnd pla.ced a notice to the effect that it h,.".d not the mHnpower or resources to reccue people who fell over the edge. It seems to me thnt having the courage to ask users to be responsible for themDelves and their o~~ safety is very wholesome. We would applaud e similar stand with respect to the P~rk. Put a sign at the gate reminding people that it is a const~ction site, that they should watch for hazar~s, end expect them to take care of themselves. Of course, hazards which cannot readily be ~ should be posted The Agreement between the Authority and Metro provides for a sign system. We have a nucber of suggestions which are detailed in Appendix 1, attached. We feel such signs would enhance the enjoyment and understanding of vicitors and hope that ma~r of these ideas can be developed and implemented. We feel it would be very useful to have site visits with planners from ~~RCA meeting with representatives from the Toronto Field Naturalists. The reality of the Spit is more exciting anQ interesting than maps or statistical reports. In 1984 the TFN hed eight member outings with an average of 30 participants at each. We would be very haPpy to lead outings for the general public once a month during the season, perhaps on a regularly establiched day such a6 the first Sunday of each month. It could be advertised at the gate on one of the displays. ~nank you, ladies and gentlemen. ~~,~~ (l.Use) Jean Hacdonald President 88 Parklen Drive Toronto, OntariQ M4G 2J8 . D-l~ APFEIIDIX 1 S1Gl~S . . J..T GATE -- LARGE SIGH - giving times when the Park is open Could also include: Basic rules, e.g. about dOgB, c~'cliEits, moler.ting ~lildl ife, e tc. Location of toilets, telePhone :Bus schedule I1,FOP..l.lATIOH SHEETS - Some Parks and conservation arEas have boor~ets or mimeographed cheets with interesting things about the area. explained. A covered box is provided for them. DISPLAY PANEL - Giving nature information (perhaps photos of the different gulls and terns, plant succession, mammals.) NOTICE BOAP.D - For users. Would contain notices re user activities. Park activities - leaders, special days Perhaps lost and found notices AT OTHER LOCATIONS . WARNINGS - Signs ~o indicate hazards - e.g. toxic materials in containment ponds, quicksand (7), unstable fill. Any thine not readily visible. NATURE INFORMATION - at site. Notice at the gull ttnY'tlayll to exPlain the band of drop"Oings on the road. Nesting areas posted \ , n h:t d a.." or c::. 0_ u..;he. r e: S l~ (Is · SIt or res t- It is possible that SOIDe of the user groups would be willing to provide individuals on a volunteer basis to assist in preparing and posting some of this information. We feel a dialogue between MTRCA and the groups on this topic would be useful and could result in a cooperative program of mutual bcmefi t . . D-16 DELEGA TION #2 ,- Friend~ of the Spit ffi{~@~~W~~ 6 Scarth Road, # 3 ArR 1 i9~::, Toronto, Ontario M4\V 256 f\1. T. R. C. A. March 28, 1985 Mr. B Denney The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3H 1S4 . Dear Brian, Enclosed is the Friends of the Spit's presentation to the Water & Related Land Management Adv1sory Board meet1ng held on March 22, 1985. Yours sincerely, .. . l- )lwv1/ ~n Robert Carley Co-Chairman JRC'dg enclosure .r~!:~6 -17 Good afternoon. My name is Vlctorl3 Carley and I am a representatlve of Friends of the Spit. I am happy to be here at this first opportunity to address the newly created Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. You will each have received a letter from us introducing you to our position - the Leslie St. Spit should be conserved as a natural wilderness. Your board will be making important decisions about Toronto's waterfront and should you wish to talk with us in detail about the Outer Harbour Headland, Leslie St. Sp it, we are at your service. Friends of the Spit is very pleased with the direction the MTRCA appears to be taking with regards to the Leslie St Spit The longer season of use is especially welcome. Of course, we still have concerns and Wish to draw your attention to 'certain items. Parking. Although it is quite clear that car access during public hours IS not 4 1 4:6 allowed the phraSing concerning parking is ambiguous I am sure you intended the interpretation to be no parking on the Spit during public hours. The ambiguity arises from the possibility of pre-season and overnight parking. This parking is deSignated to take place in a yet to be created parking area which is a departure from former policy af not encroaching on the vegetated areas of the Spit to accommodate cars. That cars are not to be left on the Spit during daytime hours after the initial spring boat preparation period must be made clear and enforced. . con t ' d. . . - D-18 Bus Service: We are plcas0d that tIle MTRCA 1S continuing the bus serVlce and 4:3 financing it. We continue to ask that you negotiate tIle use of a smaller bus I realize that this is not possible in 1985 but now is the time to plan for 1986. . Proposed Dredging Channel' When is the Spit to be cut? How wide will this cut 3:3 be? How long will it take to construct the bridge? will there be temporary bridging? These are important questions. We trust there will be temporary bridging each weekend to reduce disruption of regular weekend use. One item which is not on the agenda and which should be addressed 1S the proposed high speed hydro foil race which is planned for the outer harbour for the week- end of June 15 and 16. This race will use THC land for its pit, seating, parking, etc and has yet to receive THC approval. The THC will not approve the race if any of their neighbours object. You are their biggest, closest neighbour and you should object. The potential for damage to the shoreline, natural vegetation, and breed1ng colonies is enormous with an event of th1s kind. The organizers may be able to control the racers but a crowd of 25 to 30 thousand people (most of whom w1ll come by car) 1n a temporary facility is extremely hard to control. It requires only 1 to 2 per cent of this throng to misbehave to do incredible damage to the Conservation Authority's property Also, this event would remove 2 days from the few summer days ava1lable for enjoying the Spit - the crowds will make access almost impossible and the n01se will make enjoyment impossible. I hope you will address this issue and will inform the THC that you do not support their granting permission for cllis high speed motorized race. cont'd. . -19 - 3 - Fnends of the Spit w1sh to see the Leslie St. Spit continue as it 1S - a public wilderness. The interim use progr~mme indicates that you also think that this is the best use of the land. I trust you will make sure that it remaIns so by not develop1ng and div1ding and over-designing the Spit, and that your flOal master plan for the Spit ensures that the whole Spit stays a car-free urban wilderness park. . . . b ~-L.V f. DELEGA TION #3 ~ I b~l,.r-;'r"v : { '~.Jij.~J..::' li F~/ ='~lIC:~:~~-'- .a.;l~- _~n--:""'~~--"""":'-' ...~-- - --tE2AI UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF BOT ANY TORONTO. ONT M5S 1A 1 March. 22, 1985 Mr. E. A. Fulton Chairman, Water and Related Land Hanagement Advisory Board The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York Ontario, M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. Fulton: Re : Interim Program for the Leslie Street Spit 1985. Our group, which is composed of interested faculty and students of the deparments of Botany, Zoology, Forestry and Environmental Sciences, is pleased with the main aspects of the proposed interim program. The extended season is most welcome, as is the addition of a van for transport in the spring and fall season. This service will make the Spit much more accessible to the less hearty at times which we consider to be the most pleasant periods of the year on the Spit. The presence of an interpreter throughout the season is an added benifit and, if we can be of any help in familarizing this person with any aspects of the vegetation or related aspects of natural history, please do not hesitate to call on us. We note from the Wildlife Management report that a limited effort will be made to c0ntinue experimental manipulation of the vegetation in an effort to control the gull population. If any larger scale planting is anticipated, we would again suggest that the choice of plants be discussed with those members of our group who are familiar with natural revegetation schemes. We would be prepared to volunteer our services in the same cost-free manner as in our recent proposal submitted to MTRCA. This proposal to revegetate a small area which was damaged in the autumn of 1984 when machinery was moved in to construct a "tern island" has just been submitted and, if approved, the work will be done this spring. It appears that short term approaches to the gull control problem are being given priority over long term schemes, at least for 1985. In our opinion, vegetation management would appear to be the most feasible solution to controlling both the gull and the Canada goose populations. The sooner that a large scale and long term vegetation strategy is developed the sooner the problem will be solved. The present use of falcons must not be viewed as an answer in the long term. -21 Our only serious concern on the proposed user's program is with the location of parking for the sailing club. Previously, we have expressed our concern with the expansion of the parking area next to the shoreline facilities. The vegetation in this area has been retreating as more and more cars were parked in this area in the past few seasons. This disturbance not only prevents natural succession but, if the denuded area continues to expand, it will become subject to erosion. \ve request that the designated parking area remain up by the sheds near the road and that the other area be limited to the emergency vehicle with the "drop-off" area for other vehicles being clearly delimited to the area already disturbed. In closing, we would like to commend the MTRCA staff for the effort that they have put into developing what is obviously an improved program for 1985. Yours sincerely~ -4- C ~v-- Kevin Kavanagh for The Conservation Group . . D-22 SCHEDULE nAn THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BELLAMY BOAD RAVIHE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT ADDENDUM NO. 1 - 1985 . MARCH, 1985 . D-23 BELLAMY ROAD RAVINE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT ADDENDUM NO 1 - 1985 INTRODUCTION The Addendum provides updated information on the Bellamy Ravine erosion problem and presents a revision to the original construction program in an effort to respond to the serious erosion hazards that exist while attempting to produce a substantial savings in the cost of the remedial measures BACKGROUND The Bellamy Road Ravine Erosion Control Project was adopted by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on May 6, 1983 The Project was prepared in an effort to define a course of action and to secure funding for the construction of remedial measures, that would substantially reduce the serious erosion of Bellamy Ravine and lead to the eventual restoration of this large ravine on the Scarborough lakefront The Project set out two phases of construction that would be required to eliminate the hazards to homes and properties Phase I was to involve the construction of an underground sewer system to convey stormwater around the ravine and discharge it directly to the lake This phase of the work al so proposed channel protection along the streambed in the upper one-third of the ravine as well as similar protection for a tributary ravine that has been eroded into the east bank of the main ravine within Sylvan Park Phase II was to include longer term remedial measures within the Rav ine, to stabilize the invert of the ravine and the side slopes, so that seriously oversteepened banks would not lead to eventual loss of homes even after the implementation of the works proposed in Phase I The details of the remedial measures required in Phase II could not be determined at the time of preparation of the Project although the works were seen to include substantial filling in the base of the ravine to restore stability to the side slopes The cost of the works proposed in Phase I was estimated to be $5,020,000 in 1983 dollars The cost of the works proposed in Phase II, al though an integral part of the complete solution, could not be accurately estimated and therefore the Project identified tha t fur the r funding would be required after the additional geotechnical stud ies had been completed The Project set out the proposed cost sharing formula and suggested timing of construction and was subsequently adopted by the Authority and forwarded to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry . of Natural Resources fo r approval 0-24 - 2 - Results of Project Approval Process The Project was adopted by the Authority on May 6, 1983 by Res 1151 which reads as follows ( a) the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth in the proj ec t; (b) the Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 551'of the cost; (c) the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to approve the Project pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Au t ho r it i e s Ac t , (d) when approved, the appropriate Authority officials be author ized to take whatever ac t io n is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any necessary documents; (e) subject to the receipt of Provincial and Municipal approvals, the staff be directed to prepare development agreements with the agencies involved regard ing the details of additional design stud ies, property acquisition, tendering, inspection supervision, financial and other arrangements; (f) no work proceed until the owners of property south of the tunnel intake shaft have agreed to deed the land below the top of slope to the Authority; (g) the Borough of Scarborough be requested to enact ravine protection legislation Following adoption by the Authority, the Project was forwarded to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto whereby it was approved by Metropolitan Toronto Council on June 21, 1983 by the adoption of Clause No 21 contained in Report No 16 of the Metropolitan Executive Committee, the recommendations of which read as follows (1) the Bellamy Road Ravine Erosion Control Project Phase I be approved, provided that the Province of Ontario, in considering its approval of the item, agrees that the . work shall be undertaken without prejudice to existing programs of the Authority and the funding previously approved and existing within the Metropolitan Toronto Capital Works Programme for The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority purposes; D-25 - 3 - (2) Metropolitan Toronto agree to the designation of "benefiting municipality" for the Project and hence its share of the cost of the undertaking in the amount of $2,259,000 00 on condition that the Borough of Scarborough agrees to provide $2,079,000 00 to the Corporation for that portion of the work deemed to be of local interest; (3 ) as and when the above provisions are met funding be provided in the 1984-1988 Capital Works Programme as the Metropolitan share of Authority Projects and following Council approval of the 1984-1988 Capital Works Programme, a further report be submitted with respect to debenture financing; and (4) the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto The Metropolitan Toronto Council resolution was forwarded to the City of Scarborough whereby the matter was considered by Scarborough Council on June 27, 1983 and the following recommendations as contained in Report No 20 of the Works and Transportation Committee were adopted (1) That Council concur in the action of the Metropolitan Toronto Council on the Bellamy Road Ravine Erosion Control Project, Phase I (2 ) That Scarborough support the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Metropolitan Toronto in obtaining Provincial approval for the project ( 3) That the appropriate Scarborough officials assist the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in expediting property acquisition, the design and ultimate construction of this work The Project was submitted by MTRCA to the Minister of Natural Resources on July 7, 1983 Although the Project ~as not approved, MNR did suppl y funding for additional geotechnical studies in 1984 in order that reliable cost benefit data could be developed to assist in ranking this project against other provincial priorities The Ministry was clear that no new sources of Provincial funds were available and that funding for the Bellamy Ravine Project must come from within the allocations to the 39 Conservation Authorities in the normal manner. 0-26 - 4 - Results of Additional Engineering Studies In accordance with the instructions from the Ministry of Natural Resources, additional engineering studies commenced in 1984 Unfortunately, delays in receipt of OMS approval of the municipal share of the funding for the studies resulted in a late start on the work and the studies will not be complete until approximately April 1 , 1985, however their major findings can be summarized as follows (1) One home at the upstream end of the ravine requires immediate protection (2 ) 7 homes will become endangered even if the underground sewer is constructed and further erosion at the base of the ravine is stopped within 2 years Therefore ravine stabilization should commence immediately (3) Substantial, controlled filling will be required in the ravine to protect the 7 most endangered homes and prevent long term losses of large areas of topland adjacent to other affected properties even if the underground sewer works are installed ( 4 ) Men and equipment can work safely in the base of the ravine at the present time provided that appropriate instrumentation to warn of impending movement is installed and monitored regularly .and further that no excavation of natural in-situ soils or other construction activity that would further weaken the over steepened slopes is undertaken (5 ) A carefully engineered fill program to stabilize the side slopes can be combined with the construction of a well armoured open channel, of suitable capacity and gradient to transport local drainage flows and storm flows, through the ravine to the lake, thereby avo id ing the cost of the underground sewer system (6 ) The incremental cost of constructing an open channel system capable of handling the entire storm water flow that reaches the ravine, versus a channel system that would handle only the local runoff from within the ravine, is in the order of $300,000 An open channel system capable of handling at least the local runoff is required as part of the ravine stabilization works in any event , 0-27 - 5 - (7 ) If over time, the maintenance costs or structural stability of the open channel and associated velocity control structures (drop structures) preclude the continued use of the open channel system to convey storm flows, then the underground sewer system could still be implemented with relatively minor loss of in itial investment In simple terms, the $300,000 cost of upgrading the open channel is weighed against a strong possibility that the $5,000,000 cost of the underground sewer system will never be incurred (8 ) The estimated cost of the ravine stabilization measures, including a channel to convey the entire storm water flow is in the order of $2,500,000 depending upon the rate at which fill material is available Recommended Solution The additional engineering studies have confirmed that major slope stabilization measures are required in the ravine as soon as possible and that these measures will still be required even if the underground sewer works are installed as originally proposed The studies have also shown, that with careful design and construction, appropriate measures to convey the entire storm water flow through the ravine to the lake can be constructed as part of the slope stabilization process The recommended solution therefore consists of a rescheduling of the construction staging which was foreseen in the or ig in al Project The ravine stabilization measures can be undertaken first and the underground sewer works will be delayed indefinitely on the basis that the proposed open channel should be capable of handling the expected flows The basic components of the recommended solution can be summarized as fo llows (1) Streambed stabil ization in that portion of the ravine between Kingston Road and the existing drop structure should be implemented as soon as possible in 1985 ( 2) Filling, bank stabilization and channel construction should be undertaken downstream from the existing drop structure as soon as possible in 1985 The work should proceed as far as available fill volumes and funding will allow in 1985 and proceed continuously in 1986 and 1987 or until completion 0-28 - 6 - (3) Slope stability indicators should be installed and other components of a complete program of safe construction procedures should be developed and implemented (q) Emergency drainage measures or other short term slope stabilization techniques should be employed wherever necessary in order to minimize further erosion prior to implementation of the proposed remedial measures (5) Initial stabilization of the tributary ravine from Syl van Park be implemented in 1985 Property Requirements As noted in the Background Section of this brief, the Authority approval of the Project was conditional upon transfer of title to the Authority for all private lands below the top of slope contained within properties south of the proposed tunnel intake shaft In light of the substantial reduction in expenditures which is expected to be achieved through implementation of the solution outlined above and in order to min imize further delays in the implementation of this important work, it is recommended that the property requirements be altered to include ownership of all lands where works are constructed and for the purposes of maintenance and publiC pedestrian access In addition, some larger areas of the ravine walls may need to be included within temporary easements for construction access purposes Environmental Assessment Requirements The original estimated construction cost of $5,020,000 for Phase I made this Project subject to a full environmental assessment under the Act The potential however to request an exemption from the Act was also an option open to the Authority Although the costs of the revised project are estimated conservatively to reach $2,500,000 the project would still be subj ec t to the provisions of the E A Act Therefore, in light of the urgency with which remedial measures must be impl emen ted, and the ex pec ted significant improvements to the natural environment which will be provided by the proposed works, it is recommended that an exemption under the E A Act for this Project be requested immed iately 0-29 - 7 - Funding Requirements The estimated total potential cost of the proposed work program, including the recommended ravine stabilization measures and the possible future underground sewer construction, is summarized as follows Phase I ( a) $2,200,000 - ravine stabilization measures (b) $ 300,000 - open channel works Phase II $5,000,000 - underground sewer if needed in the long term Total $7,500,000 ---------- ---------- The fund ing for Phase I of the work which is expected to be initiated in 1985 is proposed to be raised as follows Total Province Metro Phase I Year 1 $1,350,000 $ 742,500 $ 607,500 Year 2 $1,150,000 $ 632,500 $ 517,500 Total $2,500,000 $1,375,000 $1,125,000 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- As in the or ig in al Project, it is ex pec ted that Metro Toronto will request the City of Scarborough for a portion of the municipal share At the time of preparing the original Project the total Project cost was unknown since the cost for the bank stabilization works were not known The Project proposed therefore an estimate of $400,000 for some initial erosion control work and ad d it io n al studies which would detail and estimate what needed to be done to control the bank erosion The Project identified this work as Phase II and that Phase II would be an addendum to the original Project With the additional engineering done to date, the cost of the erosion works is now known This cost is estimated to be $2,200,000 , D-30 - 8 - Therefore the cost breakdown between the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Scarborough would have been as follows ~ Province Metro Scarborough Ravine Stabilization $2,200,000 1,210,000 990,000 Tunnel, Dropshaft Outfall $5,000,000 2,750,000 - 2,250,000 Total $7,200,000 3,960,000 990,000 2,250,000 ---------- --------- ------- --------- ---------- --------- ------- --------- On this basis Metro Toronto's share would be 14~ of the total cost, Scarborough's share would be 31~ and the Province of Ontario's share would be 55~ It is therefore suggested that the cost breakdown on the basis of the revised approach as proposed in this addendum, would be the same as the percentages calculated above The funding for the Addendum would be as follows ~ Province Metro Scarborough Phase I ( a) Ravine Stabilization 2,200,000 1,210,000 308,000 682,000 (b) Open Channel 300,000 165,000 42,000 93,000 Total Phase I 2,500,000 1,375,000 350,000 775,000 Phase II Tunnel, Dropshaft Outfall 5,000,000 2,750,000 700,000 1,550,000 Total Phase I & Phase II 7,500,000 4,125,000 1,050,000 2,325,000 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Since it is expected that only Phase I would be required, the cost to Metro Toronto would be in accordance with the original approved Project The City of Scarborough share would be substantially less than the original Project however should Phase II be required their share would again be in accordance with the approved Project D-: SCHEDULE "I AQUATIC PARK - INTERIM USERS PROGRAM - MARCH 8, 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -32 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 . Location 1 2. Purpose of Site 1 1 3. Approvals Overview 3.1 MNR Approval of 1973 1 3.2 MNR Approval of 1977 2 3.3 Land Ownerships 2 3.4 MTRCA Executive Approval of 1984 5 4. Interim User Program 5 4.1 Background 5 4.2 Present Status 8 4.3 Proposed 9 4.3.1 Public 8 4.3.2 Leasee's 10 5. Costs 10 6. Recommendations 10 D-33 1. Location Aquatic park, also referred to as the Outer Harbour Headland, is located in the City of Toronto. It is a man-made spit of land, extending some 5 km in a southwesterly direction into Lake Ontario from the intersection of Unwin Avenue and Leslie Street. 2. Purpose of Site Construction of this site was initiated in 1959 by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, for purposes of providing an outer breakwater for expanded port facilities. However, by 1972, it was determined that much of thts land was no longer required for port expansion, and alternatively a large portion of it could be made available to the public. In 1973, two processes were initiated concurrently: l. the Province of Ontario appointed the MTRCA as its agent for development of this site: and 2. the initiation of an interim use program by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. 3. Approvals Overview 3.1 Ministry of Natural Resources Approval of 1973 By letter dated August 2, 1973, the Honourable Leo Bernier, then Minister of Natural Resources advised the MTRCA that Cabinet had given the Authority: ( i ) the mandate to coordinate recreation planning in the Central Waterfront Area; ( i i ) responsibility of being the Province's agent with regard to the proposed Aquatic Park: (iii) direction to establish effective liaison between the Authority, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the several civic jurisdictions which are involved. After the MTRCA review of this mandate through the standard approvals process, a number of issues were raised. The major issues which precluded any development of the site were ownership, stabilization of exterior shorelines and securing of a public roadway to the site from the City of Toronto. "'> -34 - 2 - 3.2 Ministry of. Natural Resources Approval of 1977 By letter dated November 29, 1977, the Honourable Fr an k Miller, then Minister of Natural Resources, advised the MTRCA that Cabinet had approved of designating the Authority as the agency responsible for planning, interim managem~nt and development of Aquatic Park. This approval was subject to two key conditions which are as follows: ( i) that the armouring of the outer shore line, estimated at S3.5 million, must be funded by the Federal Government or one of its agencies, and (ii) that title of Aquatic Park land must be transferred to the Authority for a nominal sum prior to any development occurring. The first condition regarding armouring was resolved with the creation of the new endikement extending in a southerly direction from the neck of the headland. The second condition was resolved May 17, 1984, when an area was transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 3.3 Land Ownership Figure 1 provides a summary of the water lot transactions between the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The transactions included the following: An area under lease from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for completion of the landfill and dredgeate disposal program (lease in effect as of May, 1983) . An area transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Effective date May 17, 1984). An area known as the Outer Harbour transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (May, 1984). The transfer of a small parcel of land to the City of Toronto from the THC/MTRCA to allow for the expansion of Leslie St. south of Unwin Avenue to MTRCA property boundary as a public road allowance. - 3 - D-35 -.. -- i: -.-w---i -.... ----I~-----.. i --- - i I ..- Ii II I' 'I A'\"'''r1 I ! :' -: ~ '!. i I ;, .. '" i -~.t I.-----tl---. ----1--- - .J... !!~- > \ ~~ I I ' · . .. ,,-:-=--' A" I II ;>.J:';x \'" I .,,/" I t ~t \ ":,\ \.~, I I I ~i" ~.: \, ~''" I .v -,~.\\' <,j'-' ..,... f' '.~ "f' ___--:_~______----1_ /'; r' "~-1'-'.-'~ \. i I -"':i-'\;-..:::;~,;.... ,\. I I J "YO;., ,:'" I~ "'. ;f\- I I A .~. ~ I i 1 !,i?,' I " --=.,,' I _1____ -- --- co)' . - '._..:.... r ~I ~ ......~I : t;'J.......::\ . . <..:. ~~-'~;.( ,;" I'\,'_~"''''' ~, I -r;;, ~ /' '(,< :'" ___ : ..r"7;.~'-I~...,~4 . : fi I ---.--.~1"~"A..'--::':-- .___! b: J ' , -.. ',- "r \.. -,--- --..--- ~ # ~ ;---;, ,~i1J'~/ -~G i ! ~;s , ,~,.v\, .' I -y - I , I -' i l~~/ ~. "0 j/ '-.-r ; I ~, l~ all;:/'' I..::,.'.~ ~ 0 I '" : (.'~ " . o;.v ~,. . ; ,~ ' n --"f/'''<<'-'-'L ,,,. 10 ' I - --;. ,:~' A' _"' -,.--_, '- ~ ~ __---'_.::1:__--.:._ ~ ~ Y' ?""J- /- ~..... l~. I l' -...- 'A;~' ('- :.:I' I' - c .,...... " =' r /" /. l'~_-"'::: I ~ 0 · \~ I "--~.... 'lor'" pO r I ' ~.,.J"~'-,./" I III I I ; ^'./ ;/J (,) .s:; ./ .; --~y~'f -;/--- -- ,<?__O ____ __ r.....:.., '\ C& ; ~, . -g M I 1~..I~'-~: - ~ - --. ,~..!/I J:1lI _ __v ,~~ ~ . flu, ,,- < I:~"'-- I , '0 ~" I 1-1- N ....<?{J// '" I '- -.. I 'r.-;:'<-"iI/ I (,,' ~I I ~ I + I ~. '~ 'I _~.. ',I ~, ,''''- il. . ________~- _! _ ~',.c'.-----. ~ .!( I III III i ~-:-'O~".--I-,.l 1- i .s:;.s:; ) I #Z;o N!f I I i5 g I ' __ '/0 (,) "':;- 4' , I or II') I 1'('''' "C N H&1 'i I I I ~ _ fV" C " , I ~~T-_J~lt;:-:,_/-------- -~ '- ~ ~ T\ . -YA ' - I 0 III .'1 I ~ ,'f "C ,~ :: 'i, .~, I . t ./,/ _ ~ ex: *0 J g g I! '\.~~-,I (/.1'(' ' l') Z.s:; I I III '" _-=.' --I _~\~~ ~ \/;,'~: _' (,) ~ ~ II') I -g -g 'I: \~ ~ ./.' . CIl c:g I -:- - 0 0 'I ;-:' .~ p; ~ J: '0 E '" " ~.. I I - I . , CON '" ., '/\' '_, ~ I- .!!!.:: N' 0 ell J \ {:iY- ,~. ,I ", f '. I 1 -g-g ".~ ~ r- . t -- ~ (, ..! / i / .......... :.\.. " U U --, I ,:_,\..::t - ~.: --/-- -- "'-... - ~,N--Tl - - .E .5 "'l' / -- , , \' "'>- I / I '" * + I I ' , '.I' ....j, , I I '~' / . I , , I i, / I I : :1' I. /" I ! ' I ~.: --*-- - .." --.-- '; ,I '-- //; ---- ----- . ___.___.1.__ -I~ I,lL..... Ii ! il I 1;1 , , ' ' ' I ~ the metropolitan tOfOnto and region AQUATIC PARK I" conservation authonty FI G V LAND OWNERSHIP )- 36 - 4 - The key conditions set out in the lease with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (Water Lot Lease Number 3620) are as follows: Use of the premises will only be for the purpose of ( a ) constructing, operating and maintaining an endikement area for disposal of dredgeate, and (b) completion and maintenance of the shoreline alignment and armouring protection. THC will construct improvements or alterations in accordance with THC report entitled "Completion of the East Headland and Endikement" - December 1982 and drawing Number C-17519 (November 3 , 1982) . Submission of an annual operating plan to MNR for review and approval. Term of Lease - 10 years with a fur ther 10 year renewal option. THC will permit MNR, its servants, agent employees, contractors or workers access to or across the premises and in consideration for such permission MNR holds THC harmless against injury, death or property damage arising from such permitted access. The lease shall not be assigned, transferred or changed without the consent in writing of MNR. THC shall comply with any conditions arising out of the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment. The other agreement of note is between the THC and MTRCA to exchange certain rights and interests in properties owned by respective parties. This agreement has now been executed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. Clause 7 of this agreement has a significant bearing on any Interim Use Program. This clause basically provides the following: Legal right of the THC and MTRCA to have access over each others right-of-way (existing roadways), with no obligation on the MTRCA for contribution on maintaining the right-of-way. Right of access over MTRCA's property (Part 3 - plan 66R-13866) by THC is for the purpose of the transport of fill for the land filling operation and other THC purposes. D-37 - 5 - 3.4 MTRCA Executive Approval of 1984 At the Executive Meeting #7/84, the issue of interim management was considered with the following resolution adopted: Res. #123 THAT the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority assume the responsibility for the interim use program currently under Toronto Harbour Commissioner's management when title to Aquatic Park is received: THAT the Authority request the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to act as managers of the 1984 Interim Use Program and as our agents with respect to all agreements: THAT the Authority approve an expedinture of $5,000.00 to cover predevelopment management costs associated with the Authority receiving title to Aquatic Park lands: AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff be directed to enter into negotiations with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto with respect to management of the Interim Users program from January 1, 1985 and subsequent ye ar s . The purpose of this report is to document the existing situation at Aquatic Park and make recommendations on all interim use issues in accordance with the Authority's mandate as delegated by Cabinet for implementation in 1985. 4. Interim Use Program 4.1 Background In 1973, after the Toronto Harbour Commissioners had determined that much of the area was not required for port expansion, they initiated an informal program to allow the general public access on a weeke?d basis. However, in 1977 this program was formalized by the Commissioners with policies for the operation of a summer program. -38 - 6 - The basic policies for the summer program were: -the length of the season for public access was determined by the bus service -the funding for the bus service was negotiated annually between the City of Toronto and the T.T.C. -with the exception of emergency vehicles, no automobile access or parking on the headland was permitted during public hours -outside public hours, lock and key privileges for auto access was granted to groups such as Environment Canada, Canada Wildlife Service, MTRCA, university researchers and the Aquatic Park Sailing Club (Embayment C). Table 1 provides a summary of the attendance figures supplied by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for Aquatic Park between 1973 and 1984 for the official interim use program period (June to Labour Day) . The interim use program for 1984 which was agreed to at an Interim Users Meeting on Monday, December 5, 1983 was administered by T.H.C. as follows: -The regular Headland season opened on saturday, June 2, 1984 and continued through Labour Day, September 3, 1984. In this period, there was no private car access during the public hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. During this period, boaters parked in the designated area at the foot of Leslie Street and all users were provided bus service. -Boaters were allowed car access after public hours with parking in the designated area at the base of Peninsula D. -Access and parking for one emergency vehicle at the Aquatic Park Sailing Club was permitted. -T.T.C. bus service operated from June 2, 1984 to Labour Day only on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The service ran on a 60-minute schedule with the first tr ip of the day originating at Queen Street and Berkshire Avenue at 9:30 a.m. The last bus left the site at 5:00 p.m. D-3 - 7 - TABLE 1 VISITORS TO AQUATIC PARK 1973-1984 INTERIM USE PROGRAM YEAR TOTAL (includes visitors by bus, cycling, hiking) 1973 2,300 1974 5,162 1975 4,269 1976 3,230 1977 9,471 1978 16,750 1979 17,555 1980 16,846 1981 16,387 1982 13,080 1983 18,377 1984 22,366 Source: The Toronto Harbour Commissioners NOTE: Interim Use Program totals do not reflect visitors to site during weekends in April, May, September, Octobers and November. -40 - 8 - -The use of a portion of Embayment C by the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for a total of 100 berths through agreement with the ontario Sailing Association. Beyond the official Interim Use Program, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners extended the public season weather permitting, by opening the turnstile to pedestrian access April 2, 1984 to November 11, 1984. 4.2 Present Status As of the date of the land transfer May 17, 1984, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners have acted as our agent for the management of the 1984 Interim Users program. From the closing of the site November 11 , 1984 to the present, the area has been considered hazardous to human safety and therefore closed. Given: ( i ) that the province has designated the Authority as the agency responsible for planning, interim management and development of Aquatic park, ( i i ) that the land transfer of May 17, 1984, identifying MTRCA as the owner of a large portion of Aquatic Park, (iii) that an interim use program has been in effect since 1973, and ( i v) that the Executive Committee Meeting #7/84, agreed it is now necessary to identify a 1985 Interim Users program. In this endeavour staff of the Authority held an Interim Users Meeting November 29, 1984. The purpose of this meeting was to provide all interim users the opportunity to discuss the 1984 activities, and present recommendations and proposals for the 1985 program. 4.3 Proposed Staff of the Authority having reviewed all interim user recommendations and entered into discussions with the City of Toronto, Metro Parks and Toronto Harbour Comissioners, have prepared the following 1985 Interim Users Program. D-4J - 9 - Under normal situations when MTRCA obtains ownership of waterfront lands, these lands are turned over to Metro Parks. However, usually these lands are already developed and are then more of an operations responsibility for Metro Parks. In this particular s i tua t ion., however, with the Master Plan yet to be completed and considering the long-term construction of the site: it seems appropriate to have MTRCA responsible for interim management for a period of up to five years, with the option for review at that time. Given the proposed five year term of the Interim Users progr am, staff feel it is necessary to extend the open season, improve public transportation, discourage the use of private vehicles during public hours, and improve signage. 4.3.1 Public -Aquatic Park be opened on weekends and holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. commencing Saturday, March 30, 1985. During all other periods Aquatic Park is a construction site and considered closed to the public. -The length of the season to be determined by the MTRCA, based on site and weather conditions. -Public transportation will be provided commencing March 30, 1985. From March 30 to May 26, 1985, transportation will be provided by an MTRCA van departing from the ma in parking lot at the foot of Leslie Street on an hourly basis. From June 1 to September 2, 1985, regular T.T.C. service will resume, departing on an hourly basis from Queen Street and Leslie Street. From September 7 to November 10, 1985, transportation will be provided by an MTRCA van departing on an hourly basis from the Leslie Street parking lot. -The same level of sit~ maintenance will be provided as in the past, by THC functioning as MTRCA's agent. This includes washrooms, garbage bins, road clean-up, road maintenance for the bus turnabout, and gate attendant shelter. -A gate attendant will be provided for the duration of the public transportation season: March 30 to November 10, 1985. -A patrolled swimming area will not be provided in 1985. -42 - 10 - -The same level of security will be provided as in the past, by THC port security functioning as MTRCA's agent. -An interpreter will be on hand, usually in the van or bus to answer any questions, for the duration of the open season. Amendments to Aquatic Park Interim User Program resulting from Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board - March 22, 1985 4.3.2 Lessee's -Aquatic Park Sailing Club members will be permitted parking on their leased lands, during public hours only from March 30 to May 12, 1985, for necessary preparatory work prior to the sailing season. Parking during this period will be provided in a designated area to be determined by the M.T.R.C.A. in the vicinity of the Club's trailer, for security purposes. - Access to the A.S.P.C. site by vehicles, on weekends throughout the March 30 to May 12, 1985 period, will be prohibited during public hours, with the exception that on three ( 3 ) weekends, which will be selected by negotiation with the Club, Club members will be allowed vehicular access during public hours to facilitate delivery of equipment and materials, etc. to prepare fro the sailing season. -Commencing May 18, 1985, during public hours, A.P.S.C. members will be required to park in the Leslie Street parking lot and access by public transportation. One emergency vehicle showing M.T.R.C.A. emergency vehicle identification, will be permitted access and parking in the designated area during public hours. -During non-public hours from March 30 to November 14, 1985, access to only A.P.S.C. leased lands will be granted upon proof of membership and key privileges. -Security and adherence to M.T.R.C.A. and T.H.C. site regulations will be the responsibility of the A.P.S.C. D-4 - 11 - 5. Costs Costs associated with the program have been estimated at $35,000.00. These costs include public transportation, site maintenance, gate attendant, security, and interpreter. Funds for this program will be available in the Lake Ontario waterfront Budget pending Ministry of Natural Resources budget approval. 6. Recommendations 1. MTRCA maintain full responsibility for interim management for a period of up to five years, with the option for review at that time. 2. MTRCA proceed to negotiate a license agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club. 3. MTRCA to negotiate with the City of Toronto and its agent the Toronto Transit Commission, for provision of bus service at Aquatic Park for 1985. 4. MTRCA proceed to negotiate a formal agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners regarding access, security, maintenance, liability and other such items deemed necessary. 5. MTRCA implement the 1985 Interim Users Program as identified in this report. ~ V 0-44 the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 3-MAY-1985 #2/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre Murray Ross Parkway, North York, on Friday, 3 May, 1985, commenc~ng at 10 00 a m PRESENT Acting Chairman William G McLean Members James W Davidson Lois E Griffin Monte Kwinter Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna Ronald A P Moran Basil V Orsini Morton M Smith, QC Norah Stoner Dr Walter M Tovell Helen White Authority Chairman William T Foster Authority Vice-Chairman Lois Hancey ABSENT Cha~rman Edward A Ful ton Members Roger J Crowe Elizabeth Gomes Frank J McKechnie Peter E Oyler Robert F M Yuill DIRECTOR'S REMARKS Craig Hather, Director of the Water Resource Division, presented an outline of the responsibilities of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board and of the \vater Resource Division Slides were shown depicting the Organizational Charts of rhe Authority and the Division, with a further breakdown of the Division into its Sectional Functions and Responsibilit~es Copies of these charts are appended as Schedule "A" of these Minutes MINUTES Res #:39 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/85 be approved CARRISD BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Hydroplane Races June 15-16, 1985 The Director informed the Board that meetings had been held with the City of Toronto which municipality recommended that the hydroplane races not take place Since the Toronto Harbour Commissioners have signified approval it is assumed the races will be held as scheduled D-45 -2- DELEGA TIONS The following delegations were heard (1) Mr Frank Kershaw Director of Planning & Research Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department (Re Item 1 - METROPOLITAN TORONTO PARKS & PROPERTY DEPARTMENT -1985 Park Development Program) (2) Mr Hans Sustronk Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates (Re Item 2 - METRO TORONTO WATERFRONT -Boating Study Up-date) With the agreement of the Board, the order of the agenda was varied to consider Items 1 and 2 at this time 1. METROPOLITAN TORONTO PARKS & PROPERTY DEPARTMENT -1985 Park Development Program Mr Frank Kershaw, Director of Planning & Research, Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department, presented his department's 1985 Park Development Program Res #40 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Ronald Moran THAT the staff report concerning the 1985 Park Development Program of the Metropol~tan Toronto Parks & Property Department be received CARRIED 2 METRO TORONTO WATERFRONT -Boating Demand Study Update Mr Hans Sustronk of the consulting firm Johnson, Sustronk, Weinstein & Associates, presented a report on the Metro Toronto Waterfront - Boating Demand Study Update Res #41 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the Metro Toronto Waterfront - Boating Demand Study Update, with its conclusions, as appended as Schedule "B" of these Minutes, be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the study be utilized by the Authority in ~mplementing the present 5-year waterfront program and developing future 5- year programs for waterfront development, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to pr~nt 100 copies of the study for distribution to the public, upon request, at a per copy cost of $10 00 CARRIED 3. PROJECT FOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST & WEST BRANCHES OF THE HIGHLAND CREEK 1984-1986 -Site MB 12050 Res #42 Moved by Monte Kwinter Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control remedial works be carried out at the site referred to as MB 12050 in the Project for Channel Improvements on the East & West Branches of the Highland Creek, 1984-1986, in the City of Scarborough, at an estimated cost of $73,500 00, subject to approval of flex funding allocations by the Ministry of Natural Resources CARRIED -3- D-46 4. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL: 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work adjacent to No. 44 Hickman Road (Humber River Watershed) Res #43 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control works be carried out adjacent to No 44 Hickman Road, Town of Caledon, at an estimated cost of $25,000 00 AND FURTHER THAT the benefiting owner either contribute a total of $4,000 00 plus a permanent easement, or deed to the Authority title to the land where the works will be carried out CARRIED 5. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work adjacent to #226-232 Riverside Drive & #35-43 Riverside Crescent, City of Toronto (Humber River) Res #44 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control and slope stability works be carried out at the rear of #226-232 Riverside Drive and #35-43 Riverside Crescent in the City of Toronto, at an estimated cost of $155,000 00, THAT the Authority waive the monetary contribution from #35 Riverside Crescent in lieu of a temporary working easement, AND FURTHER THAT the owners of #43 Riverside Crescent and #226 Riverside Drive contribute $2,200 00 towards the cost of the slope stability works CARRIED 6 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work at the rear of #39 Kirkbradden Road, City of Etobicoke (Mimico Creek Watershed) Res #45 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control remedial works be carried out at the rear of #39 Kirkbradden Road in the City of Etobicoke, at an estimated cost of $7,000 00 CARRIED 7. EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS -1986 Remedial Works Program Res #46 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to proceed with development of project files for the 1986 Remedial Work Program for Erosion Control and Major Maintenance Sites CARRIED D-47 -4- 8 1985 DAMAGE CENTRE PRIORITIES Res #47 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Rocco Maragna THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Schedule of Damage Centre Priorities, dated April 1985, as appended as Schedule lte" of these Minutes, be approved and incorporated in the next update of the Authority's Watershed Plan CARRIED 9. FLOOD CONTROL DATA MANAGEMENT Res #48 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Authority retain the firm of MacLaren Engineers Inc , at a cost not to exceed $5,000 00, to re-run the Mimico Creek flood line data and to produce appropriate outputs on both tape and floppy discs compatible with the Water Resource Division micro-computer, AND FURTHER THAT the consultant also prepare all necessary specifications required to produce the appropriate outputs for all other Authority watersheds, together with a cost estimate for same CARRIED 10 1986 REMEDIAL WORKS PROGRAM FLOOD CONTROL Res #49 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND ~HE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT project files for the following sites be developed for submission as part of the 1986 Authority budget process (i) Keating Channel - Remedial works in the form of dredging to increase the conveyance capacity in the mouth of the Don River to help alleviate the potential flooding problem ( ii) Bayview Extension - Remedial works in the form of dyking to provide flood protection to the CNR tracks and Bayview Avenue Extension (iii ) German Mills Creek - Remedial works in the form of channel- ization and dyking in the Duncan Road Damage Centre, Priority #2 as shown on Schedule of Damage Centre Priorities . CARRIED II. FLOOD WARNING COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM Res #50 ~loved by Helen White Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received . AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the "Project for Flood Warning Communications System dated September, 1984, as appended as Schedule liD" of these r~inutes, be approved -5- D-48 AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken ( a) The Municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto Peel, York, and Durham be designated as benefiting on the basis set forth within the Project (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the project and a grant of 55% of the cost thereof, (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested, (d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents, (el The project be forwarded to Peel, York, Mono, and Adjala for approval and, in the event that any of said municipalities decide not to participate in the project, that the system be installed as soon as possible at suitable locations within those municipalities which have approved to the dollar limits proposed in the project CARRIED 12. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING PROJECT -Status Report Res #51 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report on the status of the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment be received CARRIED 13 PALACE PIER/MOTEL STRIP Res #52 Moved by Monte Kwinter Seconded by Horton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT acquisition of lands (including legal and survey costs) along the 'Motel Strip' in the City of Etobicoke, to accommodate a future waterfront linear park, be continued in 1985 at an estimated cost of $20 000 00 CARRIED 14. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park. Stockpile Removal and Final Armouring Res #53 Moved by ~orah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to proceed with the final armouring of Hardpoint No 3 at Colonel Samuel Smith Park, at an estimated cost of $200,000 00, AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed with completion of the stockpile removal at Colonel Samuel Smith Park at an estimated cost of $150,000 00 CARRIED D-49 -6- 15. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -1986 Works Program Res ~54 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to proceed with development of project files for the various activities proposed for the 1986 Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program CARRIED 16. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Bluffers Park Marina Results of Proposal Call In response to the above-noted proposal call, submissions were received from the following Brimley Road Marina Inc Centre City Capital Ltd The Genoa Group Hydrus Enterprises J CRoss & Associates Res #55 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Helen White THAT the staff report be received, AND FURTHER THAT the submissions received from Centre City Capital Ltd , Hydrus Enterprises, and J CRoss & Associates, in response to the proposal call for the Bluffers Park Marina, be referred to staffs of the Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department and The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority for detailed review and subsequent report to the Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Committee and the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board of the Authority CARRIED 17 LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Boulevard Club Res #56 Moved by Helen White Seconded by Rocco Maragna THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Authority concur in the principle of additional mooring facilities proposed by the Boulevard Club, as indicated in their ?lan, . THAT approval be dependent upon information determined from factors #1 - # 6 inclusive, as set forth herein #1 the impact on water circulation inside and outside the existing breakwater will need to be assessed #2 any potential hazard to navigat~on presented by the proposal will need to be assessed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Transport Canada #3 ownership and maintenance responsibility of the -existing break- water rests with the Federal Crown as represented by Transport Canada, and approval of the project by that agency appears to be necessary, -7- D-50 #4 construction of the breakwater will require a temporary access road between the mainland and the existing breakwater so the timing and implications of that obstruction will need to be addressed, #5 ownership of the area in which the breakwater and docks would be installed rests with the Provincial Crown as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, and approval of the Ministry will be required, #6 land use considerations and other areas of municipal juris- diction will need to be resolved with the City of Toronto and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto AND FURTHER THAT the staff be directed to assist the Boulevard Club in representations to the various levels of Government requiring review of the proposal and, at such time as all required approvals are received, that the Authority's Master Plan for the Western Beaches be amended accordingly CARRIED 18. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Frenchman's Bay Res #57 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club be advised that the Authority is also concerned about the entrance channel to the Bay, but is not in a position to implement remedial works, AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to contact the Canadian Hydrographic Service in Burlington and request Federal assistance to review the condition of the channel and implement corrective measures CARRIED 19. 1984 AQUATIC PARK BACTERIAL STUDY Res #58 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Walter Tovell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1984 Aquatic Park Bacterial Study as appended as Schedule liEu of these Minutes, be received CARRIED 20 UPPER HUMBER WATER QUALITY REPORT AND DON RIVER FISHERIES REPORT PREPARED BY MTRCA IN SUPPORT OF THE TORONTO AREA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STUDY Res #59 Moved by Bryn Lloyd Seconded by Monte Kwinter THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Upper Humber Water Quality Report and the Don River Fisheries Report be received, for information, and forwarded to the Toronto Area Watershed Management Study Technical Committee for consideration CARRIED 2l. 1982 WATERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM -Release of Report Res #60 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the report of the 1982 Environmental ~Ioni toring Program, as appended as Schedule "F" of these Minutes, be received CARRIED D-51 -8- 22. AQUATIC PARK BUS SERVICE Res ::61 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Authority subsidize the total cost of providing bus service on Tommy Thompson Park for the 1985 summer season in accordance w~th the 1985 Interim Management Program, AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to provide a standard 40-foot bus for the 1985 season CARRIED 23 PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT Res ;:62 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the "Hazard and Conservation Land Acquisition Project within The Municipalitj of Metropolitan Toronto, April, 1985" , as appended as Schedule IlGII of these Minutes, be approved, and that the following action be taken ( a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as benefiting on the basis set forth in the project, (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the project and a grant of 55% of the cost, ( c) The Ontario ~lunicipal Board be requested to approve the project pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, , (d) .,hen approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the project, including the execution of any necessary documents AND FURTHER THAT, in accordance with Recommendation 21 of the "Review of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" the project be forwarded to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for consideration and approval prior to consideration by the Authority CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Dr Tovell informed the Board that a Federal donation of $15,000 00 has been received for the Water Theme display at the Kortright Centre for Conservation to promote knowledge of water behaviour This will be used to install a gauge on the Humber River as a component of the Flood Warning and Forecasting System The gauge will be in operation by June 15th and will be available for demonstration to school groups t,lr Mather advised that (1) copies of the Flood Control and Waterfront Programs are available for new members (2 ) the next meeting of the Board will be held on Friday June 7th, and will coincide with the Official Opening of the new Goodwood Pumping Station The meeting will convene at 10 00 a m in the Uxbridge Council Chamber, and return to Goodwood for the opening ceremony at approximately 1 00 P m Lunch w~ll be served at the Community Centre following the ceremony TERMINATION On motion, the meeting was term~nated at 12 30 P m , May 3 \~ G ~lcLean . Vice-Chairman J C Mather Act~ng Cha~rman Acting Secretary-Treasurer KC ORGANIZATION CHART , . General Manager . . . , - Planning and policy Coordinator . [SecretarY-Treasiirer-\ - Administrative Ass't. ~o December 31, 1985 ____10------- \ , Director Director Du:ector Director Finance and Water Resource Program Field \ Administrator ;>>\ Administration Programs Services operations Historic sites Fin"nce and Water and t- Conservation and Related . Administration Related Lan') nand Management Advisory Advisory Board Management Board Advisorv Eoard en 0 . ::c . ~ .' t::l C I:'" . ~ . t:l . I ;pi U1 ~ ..., tI I VI W l!!!.!!!:l..lla{'f.ITI\N 101>fWm NIl) RmIlWl'O'SI1tYAT/af ~m'JR'TY loIIn:tI PI'SXIQ " -G~:re' I ~E --1."'1 ~Ic:el Drett;rr- ,...I,t~t. r-- ---, ..", tee L JllA11.. _ J Ii, I r--- ---, r-- ---, ..",Iee ..... tee L__lt!fL_J L _ .I.ta.1l.. _ J - aogut_ SUfi "aaMIUoeU_ ....el lID. ._...... - ~-...., lUll ~. ..., ; 1)-J" SECTIONAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES PLAN REVIEW SECTION .- Plan Review - Regulation Administration - Permit AdQinistration ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SECTION - Shoreline Management - Erosion and Sediment Control - Waterfront Development - Flood Warning - Implementation and Construction - Parts of Flood Control WATER MANAGEMENT SECTION Storm Water Management - - - Policy Development - Guideline Preparation - Plan Review ~ Environment Assessment - Special Stud ies - Parfs of Flood Control - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION - Conservation Land Management Program . Plan Rev iew - - Nursery - Woodlot Management - Monitoring and Data Collection - Management Plans J 1984.12.10 . JCM/fs 0-55 SCHEDULE "B" METRO TORONTO WATERFRONT - BOATING DEMAND STUDY UPDATE CONCLUSIONS Based on fleet surveys undertaken including the 1984 Survey, the number of boats wet-berthed and dry-sailed along the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (C V C A ) and Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront sectors, (Market Area Waterfront), has changed as follows PERIOD WET-BERTHED DRY-SAILED TOTAL ENDING NO NO NO 1964 915 685 1600 1970 1420 850 2270 1974 2900 1530 4430 1979 4500 1703 6203 1984 5790 1473 7263 Of the 5790 wet-berths accounted for in the 1984 Survey, 4820 were located in the M T R C A sector and 970 in the C V C A sector During the last 15 years demand for wet-berths has exceeded available supply It is estimated that in 1984 an additional 400 berths could have been in use had these been available In view of the reduced demand for dry sailing spaces, the present number of spaces (2123) is more than sufficient to meet the projected demand up to 1995 (1100) The potential expansion of existing dry sail facilities (150~) may not be required This study projects the following demand for wet-berths along the Mar~et Area Waterfront PERIOD ENOrNG NUMBER OF WET-BERTHS M T R C A Sector C V C A Sector Total 1985 5,056 1,014 5,070 1990 5,650 1,350 8,000 1995 7,800 1,700 9,500 2000 8,500 2,100 10,700 This demand can only be partially met by completion of projects already scheduled D-56 -2- Projects scheduled for completion by 1990-2000 M T R C A Waterfront Area M T R C A Waterfront Area No of Wet-berths 1 Expansion of Existing Facility 390 2 Bluffers Marina 1100 3 Spadina Quay Marina 165 II T H C Marina 1200 5 Col Samuel Smith W F 1100 - Sub-Total - 2555 - C V C A Waterfront Area No of Wet-berths 1 Expansion of Existing Facility 150 2 Lakefront Promenade W F 1175 3 Port Credit Yacht Club Site 50 - Sub-Total - 675 - TOTAL MARKET WATERFRONT ARE~ - SCHEDULED PROJECTS 3,230 Assuming these scheduled projects are implemented as planned, there remain-s a theoretical deficit of some 200 .! wet-berths by 1990, as many as 900 berths by 1995, and possibly 1700 berths by 2000 . In the M T R C A Waterfront Area, potential projects would include the Humber Bay East Waterfront (Etobicoke Motel Strip), the Boulevard Club expansion, and either the Frenchman's Bay expansion or the East Point boat basin In the Credit Valley Conservation Authority Waterfront Area the Jack Darling waterfront project is in this category D-57 -3- Market Area No of wet-berths Total S~heduled Projects 3,230 (by 1995-2000) Total Potential Projects 1,225 (by 1995-2000) - Total Projects 4,455 Existing Supply 5,790 TOTAL SUPPLY (POTENTIAL) 10,245 Even with the addition of all potential projects identified to date, by the year 2000 a theoretical deficit of 400-500 wet-berths is forecast for the Market Area Anticipated Demand 10,700 wet-berths (by 2000) Anticipated Supply 10,245 DEFICIT 455 * . Projected theoretical deficits for five year periods from 1995 to 2000 can be found in Section 5 2 of the report It should be emphasized that these figures are estimates of magnitude only and depend on a number of economic and cultural variables remaining constant The demand for wet-berths continues to be generated more by residents of the Mississauga, Etobicoke and Toronto sectors of the waterfront than by those residing in the Scarborough and Pickering/Ajax sectors Past experience indicates that the lead time required for major new waterfront projects is in the range of at least 10 years due to development constraints such as availability of fill, project approval period, environmental assessment approval, etc This would su.ggest that planning for those projects identified as potential developments commence in the very near future in order to meet projected demand D-58 -4- Available winter boat storage is reaching its capacity and expansion of existing storage capacity is limited A number of projects currentl~ proposed provide limited or no storage capacity As a result, the study anticipates a near future shortage of = 600 spaces, increasing to = 1200 by 1995 The revival of sports fishing in Lake Ontario is anticipated to result in a continued increase in the demand for docking space for charter craft and to contribute to the growth of the powerboat portion of the fleet along the Market Area Waterfront in general The continuation of this situation will further increase future demand for public launching facilities in the Mississauga sector which is in close proximity to the major sport fishing areas in Lake Ontario The 24 public launching ramps presently available, together with 2 new ramps proposed by the eve A. for 1990 = ' are anticipated to be sufficient to meet the demand for the next 10 year period The demand for transient docking space is and will continue to be concentrated in the central waterfront, primarily in the Inner Harbour because of its proximity to restaurants, shopping facilities and other attractions Since sufficient transient docks can not be provided along the central waterfront, visitors will have to rely increasingly on adjacent marina facilities There is a shortage of day trip opportunities for a shor~ duration stop by boaters along the M T ReA Waterfront Area The growth in board-sailing can be expected to continue, at least in the near future. Although this activity is not restricted to a specific area of the waterfront or even necessarily Lake Ontario, waterfront plans and projects should allow for modest waterfront space to accommodate this activity 1985 04 25 LF/fs . (; - S!1E LOCATION SUSCE:.PT NO. UF PRIOR DEPTH VELOCITY TYPE OF STRUCT STRUCT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don ! Don River at Lakeshore 10'3 yr } 20 ill 1 >lM rned-low I, C, R. N >--- [Jor, 8 I Gerrnan Mills Creek at Duncar, Ave 100 yr ) 50 (1) 2 }1M rned -1 e.w I, C, R, Hurnber 14 Oak Ridges Reg 30** 3 }1M rned R Hurnbe~' 12 Hurnber River at I:ce,l tor, 10~ yr )7::; (2) 4 } 1M low R.C ----------- Duffir, 2&3 Duffin Creel< at Pickering 100 yr } 30 (1) 5 }1M rned-low R, I. C, A De,r, .::&3 Don River at I:cayview Ave 100 yr 19 (1) b } 1M low I _1::l':'!~~",,~.J_--Y.l~E~re~&~!:!~ at Rockcliffe Blvd 100 yr )150* 7 }lM low R, I, C, N Hurnber 3 Black Creek. Jar,e & Wilson 100 yr ) 10'21* 8 }1M rned-low R, I, C, N Mirnice. ~ Bor,nyv i ew Dr North of The Glueer,sw~ 10~!" 12 9 }1M rned-low R Et e,b i ce.l<e 6 Etobicoke Crk. at Steeles Ave & Dixie Rd 100 yr >l2 (3)* 10 OM rned-le,w I, C DCtYI 10 Massey Creek at Eglinton. 10\11 yr 11 11 >lM med-low R,A De,r, 11 I:tayview Ave at Lawrer,ce 100 yr b ** 12 }1M rned-low N DOYI 12 He'CJgs He,lle,w 100 yr 3 ** 13 }1M rned-low R Rouge 3 KerlYledy Rd I:ty-pass 100 yr 4 14 } 1M rned-low R Rouge 2 Ur,ior,vi lIe 100 yr 4 15 }1M rned-Ie-w R Re'll[je 1 Hwy 1'.0. 7 to 7th Lir.e 100 yr 2 16 }1M rned-low R Dol', '3 Gerrnar, Mills at Markhar~ Rd 100 yr 1 17 ( 1M rned R . Ete,bice.ke 2 Dur,das St at Dixie Rd 100 yr (4) 18 (1M le,w A, I, C Hurnber 8 South of Hwy Ne,. 7 150 y~' 10 19 >lM rned-low R,C Etobice,ke 13 At I:trar~oton 150 yr 7* 20 >lM rned-low R, I, C, N, A Mirnice -1 C. N. R. te, Lake Ontario 15'21 yr 5 21 OM rned-low I, C Hurnber 7 Weston Road to Albion Rd 150 yr 4 22 }lM le.w R,A en M 1I~ i ce 12 Mimice. Crl< at Airoort Rd 150 yr 3* 23 ) 1M rned-low R,C n :I: E:.tobicoke 1 C.N R to Lake Ontarie, 150 yr 2 24 (1M rned -1 e,w R,A G c:: . t"' tz1 0 = I ---- - = \D ..... I 0'1 0 ,---.------------ -- - page 2 ---MlriiiCo 5-----lsTI r,gfeon at DllYldas St W 150 yr - 2 25 >lM med R, I, C, N, A Eteoblce.ke 12 Bralolotor, at Hwy No. 10 15'21 1 26 >lM med-low R,N E:te,bice,ke 3 E:.teob. Crk at Hwy Neo ~, 150 1 27 >lM med-low I. C HI.H~ber B Ne.rt h e.f H"IY Nc:.. "7 .:;50 2 * 28 > 1M low R,C Humber 13 ~Ieoe,dbridoe at Isl ir'i;'torr Ave 350 1 .. 29 >lM med-low R Milolice 3 Re.ya 1 Yorl-t Rd Reg 69 30 )lM med-low R ---HlII~ber 15- Lake Wilcox Reo (,5 (5) 2>1 <1M low R HOJlolbet' 4 Scarlett Rd Reg 60 3c )lM med-low R, I, C. A DlIffir. 1 Miller's Lreek Neorth of Hwy Neo. 401 Re~ 15 33 ( 1M low R u NOTES ----- (1\ Flooding begins at 5 yr low = <1M Is (2) De.wr,towr, core (weor~s completed) med - lM./s (3) Soill beg i r,s at 100 yt' depths aoorox 1M high = >lM Is (4) Soill Area (at levels e~ceeding 100 yr ) (5) .---- Controlled water level .... Previolls works in olace ** Previolls we.rks i r. 01 ace + dam oreot ect i e.n . 1YPE OF STRUCTURE ------------------ R Single family residence L Le.mmerc i a 1 A Aoart mer,t s I - IrrdOJstrial N Inst i tllt ie.r,al - --------...------ 0-61 SCHEDULE "D" THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PROJECT FOR FLOOD WARNING COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM SEPTEMBER, 1984 0-62 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No Purpose 1. Background 2 Proposed System 3 Costs and Financing 4 Approvals 5 0-63 PURPOSE The pu~pose of this project is to develop and implement a more effective system of communicating Flood Advisories and Warnings to municipal and other associated emergency response agencies This communication system will also be used during a flood event to relay information to the various agencies regarding the status of the flooding situation Information such as expected water levels, time of peak flow and expected duration of the event will be relayed in order for the response agencies to more effectively deal with the flood emergency - 0-64 BACKGROUND The primary function of the Authority's Flood Warning System is to provide through the issuance of a Flood Advisory/Warning, clear, concise and timely information of an impending flood threat to our member municipalities and flood response agencies The issuance of these messages is intended to allow the response agencies to more effectively deal with the flood emergency, therefore the communication system used to relay these messages is extremely important At present, the method py which this Authority is relaying Flood Advisories and Warnings is through the use of a telephone cemmunications system To ensure that all affected agencies have been advised of an impending flood situation, upwards of forty telephone contacts are required Along with the present system being a time consuming process during an event where the amount of advance warning time often determines how effective a response to a flooding situation is, there are several other drawbacks to the Authority's current system The issuance of a verbal message often results in misunderstandings on the part of the recipient, or especially if the message is being relayed to someone else within the receiving agency These misunderstandings have in the past resulted in inappropriate or in extreme cases~ no action taken by the response agency with respect to a flooding situation To-date,the consequences of these problems have not been serious, due to the relatively minor flooding occurrences experienced This situation however, could lead to very serious problems should a major flooding event take place A further drawback of the present system involves t~e complications involved in issuing updated flood information to each agency during the course of the flood event As with the initial contact, the time r~quired to contact each agency often causes serious problems in the allocation of men and equipment being utilized in dealing with the emergency situation The issuance of bot~ the initial messase and subsequent updated information in as short a time span as possible would enable the response agency to delegate its work forces in a more effective and efficient manner dealing with the floodin~ situation It also frees up Authority staff time to deal with the many functions required, such as monitoring, forecasting and direoting other staff Recent flooding events and the enquiries which followed such as on the Grand River in 1977 and within this Authority in February, 1984, during which two small children lost their lives, identified communications as an area where improvements were required This Authority has made effective improvements with respect to relaying Flood Advisories and Warnings to the press through a cooperative system with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force However, improvements to the communications system with our municipalities and other emergency response agencies is still required D-65 . PROPOSED SYSTEM Based upon the difficulties associated with the present system, the criteria for a more advanced Flood Warning System were established The new system should have the capability of issuing a Warning/Advisory on an instantaneous basis to all affected users The message should also be transmitted in a written text to ensure that no misunderstanding of the message occurs The new system should also have the capability to allow for instantaneous transfer of updated information to selected users Last, but not least, the system should also allow for some form of feedback so that the Authority can determine which agencies have or have not received the Flood Warning/Advisory which has been issued. A system incorporating the above components will allow the Authority to issue Warnings/Advisories in a more efficient manner with respect to time and content1 as well as ensure receipt of any messages issued. A system such as has been described is presently in service and is in fact utilized by this Authority in receipt of data from the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities and Water Management Branch, Streamflow Forecast Centre At present, the ENVOY 100 electronic mail service is being utilized and fulfills all of the criteria set for the revised Flood Warning Communications System As the 'ENVOY 100' represents only one system presently on the market which fulfills the system requirements, it is proposed to include a consultant review of available communications systems as a component of this project in order to ensure the use of the most effective system As a component of the communications system, there will be a hardware requirement with regard to the message receival system The receiving mechanism should be capable of automatically answering and printing out, in hard copy, the message being transmitted There will also be a requirement for each receiving device to have a dedicated telephone link in order to ensure access on a continuous basis Therefore, the hardware requirements of such a communication system are a dedicated telephone link and a computer terminal capable of . automatically receiving any message sent These devices will be positioned within appropriate locations at each response agency The types of agencies to be included within the proposed system would include ( i) The Works Department of each Regional municipality (ii) The Works Department of each local municipality (iii) Each of the Regional Police Forces and the 0 P P ( i v) The Public and Private School Boards 0-66 COSTS AND FINANCING The expenditures required to implement this project shall be understood to include a consultant review of available communication systems and all labour, equipment etc associated with the implementation of the system fQlli Activity Consultant Review $5,000 00 Auto Answer Terminals (Total of 43 Units) 64,500 00 Telephone Link Installation 2,200 00 Telephone Link Cost/Year 23,200 OO/Year Communication System Cost/Year 2,400 oo/Year Training and Contingencies 2,200 00 Supplies 500 OO/Year TOTAL (First Year) - $100,000 00 Therefore, the total expenditures to implement and operate the proposed communications system for the first year would be $100,000 00 with a continuing maintenance and operation cost of approximately $26,100 00 per year - FINANCING The implementation of a more effective and efficient Flood Warning Communications System will be of benefit to all municipalities within the jurisdiction of the Authority Not only will the proposed system ensure that each municipal emergency response agency receives any message sent, but also increase the lead time necessary for each agency to effectively d~al with any flood emergency Therefore, the Authority proposes that The Flood Warning Communications Project be a generally benefiting project with all member municipalities contributing to the Authority's share based on equalized assessment The total cost of the project is $100,000 and will be raised as follows Authority $45,000 Province of Ontario $55,000 TOT AL - .- $100,000 The Authority's share represents 45% of the total, where the Province of Ontario will contribute 55% of the total funds Each municipality's share based on the equalized assessment will be as shown on Table 1 0-67 TABLE 1 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT - MUNICIPAL LEVY BASED ON 1984 EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT FIGURES TO THE AUTHORITY Discounted Equalized Assessment Municipality (in thousands of dollars) Apportionment $ Cost Adjala Township 5,643 o 008331858 3.75 Mono Township 4,879 o 007203816 3 24 Durham Regional 1,121,474 1 655849918 745 13 Municipality Peel Regional 5,607,241 8 279059128 3,725 58 Municipality York Regional 6,391,717 9 437333434 4,246 80 Municipality Metropoli tan 54,597,044 80 612221846 36,275 50 Toronto - TOTAL $67,727,998 100 0$ $45,000 00 u-vo 1984 AQUATIC PARK BACTERIAL STUDY SCHEDULE "E" SUMMARY A 3tudy was undertaken to examine the influence of the breeding colony of Ring-billed Gulls at Aquatic Park on densities of indicator bacteria in the Outer Harbour. specifically in the vicinity of the Leslie Street Spit and Cherry Beach swimming areas. Fecal coliform (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS) bacteria. and Pseudomonus aeruginosa densities were measured at 21 . sampling stations in the Outer Harbour. Two three day surveys were completed; July 11-13 when gulls were present and September ~-6 when most lulls had left the breeding area. . . The distribution of FC and FS densities 3uggests that gulls at the breeding colony are the probable source of fecal contamination to the Leslie Spit 3wimming area since July densities are several times higher than September densities. However. in July FC and FS densities decreased with dista~ce rrom the breeding colony suggesting that fecal pollution is localized. and does not affect nearby swimming areas such as Cherry Beach. The Hearn Generating Station discharge does not contribute to FC and F~densities in . the Outer Harbour under its current operating regime. Although densities were lower than July. FC densities at the Leslie Spit beach remained above the HOE gUidelines in September although the majority of gulls had left the colony. In September FC densities remained near the HOE guideline in the Eastern Gap suggesting that the Inner Harbour contributes to f~cal pollution in the Outer Harbour. . It is important to note that these surveys were undertaken during dry weather and higher densities would be expected after rain events. The results of this study suggest that any water areas on Aquatic Park adjacent to major gull nesting/loafing areas could be expected to exceed current HOE guidelines for body contact recreation during the nesting season. - o I CT> ID TORONTO HARBOUR .0 ,_o_~~_., ;-.;.= :;~=_-:~: ~,;~~:~~,;,j~:~:~~.~ ~~~~~~,~~i~~~5~r~~~~~~\~1t.~~~~iii~~:~.~=:.:. :'Y~:_h~~t: . .-.-_. ._.~~_.. -. - - _. - . - _... . - - _. - .-.. . . - .....- ,.---- - - ---. .. -- - - . - p' . - -. -- -.- -.- ~ . - .- - ....-- . .- .. --.-'-'."---. . .. ..-" p" .. . --.. . .. .. ____. '0 .__ .. "'_P"_ ._ n. ' __ ...... .. - u_ _.__. _. '"._ .. . ... - .--. . - - . --- ..,-.-.. .....- --.-_. -.... ._.. - ... -.. ... -...-. - "":.=":_ ,:~. ......7_..:, ..";', _: ",.1 ---. .--_ ',.. .2490 .2489 .2487 e2488 OUTER \-\P-RBOUR el eH eG eF .8 .E eo e248L e2484 ... ... _ H"" .._. _.. _ . OUTER HARBOUR BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEY - STATION LOCATIONS FIGURE I. JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1984 10 000 10,000 '000 0 SEPTEMBER, 1984 0.000 B, . .IULY, 1984 6.000 ~ ~ !l,OOO 4.000 4poo i 3poo 3,000 o o 2,000 Zpoo "- .. ~ . .2 ~ ~ ~ o 800 ~ ~ ~ ~ ILl. ~ i= !lOO. . '^^' in 400 . . 400 Z . . ~ ~ ~ :IE 0 0: 200 . 200 ~ . . -' 0 . 00. U PWQO 100 100 PWOO -' O. 00 00 80 ~ 80 000 0 U . . ~ 60 . 0 60 ro 0 0 ro z . ~ 40 · 40 :IE ~ O. SO U it: t;j 20 20 :IE S 0 C) W 0 j! ~ je ::: ~ 2 g iii :;: ; :; ~ :8 ~ it :g g; g ~ ii ;t:t;t:t;:G it:t:t ;tN;t;t l!i :t!!;t;t a.;t:; SAMPLING STATIONS (See Location Mo OUTER HARBOUR BACTERIOLOGICAL SURVEY FIGURE 2. GEOMETRIC MEAN FC DENSITIES ~ o r lj .....,:'t:! D-71 &. LI~'-6 SCHEDULE "FI! . . ^ REVIEW OF TIiE 1982 W A TERF"RONT MONITORING PROGRAM A Report prepared for the: . Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Prepared by: IEC BEAK CONSULTANTS L TO. 6870 Goreway Drive Mississauga, Ontario L~V IPI January 1985 . - . I~C h~~il 0-72 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Benthic Community . . Benthic assemblages in 1982 at Humber Bay (HB), Bluffers Park (BP) and the Guild Inn (G) were indicative of environmental conditions in each area. Total benthic densities were higher at Humber Bay (up to 29,.500/m2) than at Bluffers Park or the Guild Inn ( 7,.500/m2), suggesting greater organic enrichment at Humber Bay. The occurrence and abundance of indicator species in each area also indicated environmental differences among the areas stuqied. The community at open water stations of Bluffers Park indicated relatively undisturbed environmental conditions, with oligotrophic and' mesotrophic indicators (oligochaetes, amphipods, chironomids) being common. Major community differences between BP and the Guild Inn, which is . designated as a control are~ for BP, were related to differences in depth. The ben thic community in the yacht basin at Bluffers Park (BPE) indicated slightly more organic enrichment than at BP and G. At Humber Bay, pollution-tc>lerant chironomid and tubificid species were present in very high densities, while the more .sensitive species that occurred at other locations were absent. Local pollution sources in the HB area, including the Humber River, Mimico Creek and a sewage treatment plant discharge, appear to strongly influence the benthic community. A cluster analysis identified four major station clusters on the basis of benthic community parameters. Clusters generally separated embayed and open-water locations with some overlap between HB and BPE. Most BP and all G stations clustered to~ether, indicating similar conditions in both areas. Sediment Grain Size Grain size distributions of open lake and embayed areas were strongly different. The open lake at BP was characterized by patchy areas dominated by fine to very fine sand or silty sand. Guild Inn samples contained 8.5-90% fine to very fine sand. The clay content of all open lake sites was small. Embayed areas at HB and aPE were comprised primarily of silt, with up to 2.596 clay. Sand percentages were generally low except in locations which receive direct lake exchange. . 2219.2 Ii IICt:u:' D-73 I Sediment Quality , The chemical parameters measured included nutrients Ooss on ignition, total organic carbon, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total' phosphorus and non-apatite inorganic phosphorus), metals CAl, Ca, Hg, Pb, Zn), cation exchange capacity, oil and grease, and organochlorines. Of the 11 organochlorines measured, only PCB's, DOT and chlordane were routinely detected. In general, sediment quality declined according to the following sequence: G '>BP >BPE '> HB. Major differences occurred between the open lake and embayments. In embayed areas, MOE Open Water Disposal Guidelines for Dr~dge Spoils (MOE, 1976) were generally exceeded. Contaminant concentrations at HB were significantly higher than at BPE. With the exception of oil and grease, contaminants in open lake samples were significantly below the MOE ,guidelines. Concentrations of most parameters were within typical range~ recorded in the Lake Ontario nearshore zone. Elevated levels of oil and grease, recorded at BP around the mouth of the Yacht Basin (BPE~, appear to be related to storm sewer discharges and boat traffic. . Comparisons with earlier monitoring surveys show that sediment quality is improving in the open lake, and declining in the embayments. Interrelationships Between Physico-Chemical Parameters Physico-chemical parameters were highly intercorrelated. In open lake sites, strong associations were found both within and between groups of metal, nutrient and grain size parameters. Positive correlations occurred between fines (particularly clay), metals and nutrients. In the embayed areas, physico-chemical associations related to grain size were obscured by the homogeneity of the sediments. In order to further elucidate the indicator variables in the nearshore zone, a cluster analysis of stations on selected physico-chemical parameters was performed. Five major clusters were formed. These included a G cluster, two BP clusters, and BPE and HB clusters. Subsequent discriminant analysis gave rise to two major functions. The first . function, which accounted for 64% of the observed station variation, includes TP, total 2219.2 Hi - Ire ~--'l . )-74 1 .....:lo I phosphorus, non-apa ti te inorganic phosphorus and Zn. This function separates HB from the other clusters, and is interpreted as an indicator of anthropogenic loading. The second function includes percentage clay. This function separates the embayed clusters from the non-embayed clusters, and is interpreted as reflecting trends in overall sediment quality through parameters related to grain size. Benthos-Sediment Relationships . Several relationships were observed between benthic and sediment parameters, based on simple correlations, multiple regression and discriminant analyses. . . Correlation analyses of embayed and unembayed areas showed tha t the sediment properties that appeared to influence the benthic community differed between embayed and open water habitats. Benthic densities were positively correlated with the fines fraction and uncorrelated with nutrient content at BPE and HB. Reasons for a negative . . correlation with the fines fraction at the embayed sites are unknown. A relatively strong correlation between density and zinc was observed at BP and G, suggesting some impact of this parameter on the benthic community. Several possibly spurious correlations also occurred between contaminant and benthic parameters. - Multiple regression and discriminant analysis of benthic clusters on physico-chemical sediment parameters were performed in order to furtl1l~l. d~fi'l~ ~c'Jh)gi(:al reiatlonships. No clear relationships emerged, and results are presented in Appendix 2. ... - -~ . . 2219.2 - iv D-75 SCHEDULE "G" THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HAZARD AND CONSERVATION LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO - APRIL, 19a5 0-76 CONTENTS OF BRIEF PURPOSE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING APPROVALS - - - D-77 -2- PURPOSE The purpose of this Land Acquisition Project is to permit the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to acquire within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the remaining significant parcels of valley lands which are not presently in public ownership and which meet one or more of the following requirements The site (1) conforms to the Authority's goal, objectives and criteria as identified in the Land Acquisition Program of the Authority's Watershed Plan (2) meets specific water and related land management requirements (3) meets specific conservation or recreation requirements (4 ) is now or could be subject to development proposals (5) meets specific open space and park requirements This Project will be funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto who is designated as the Benefiting Municipality D-78 -3- LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The policies and programs of the Authority's Watershed Plan have as their overall thrust, the retention of the major valleys from top of slope to top of slope as natural units capable of passing flood flows, avoiding development that would be hazardous to life and property, and retaining the opportunity for preservation of valleys as public open space consistent with municipal official plan policies The Authority's Watershed Plan also identifies the Lake Ontario shoreline as a major natural resource and the need to recognize its erosion and flood hazards The importance of making these waterfront lands available to the public was also identified Although there are various other Programs contained within the Watershed Plan which assist the Authority in preserving the valley systems and the waterfront, the Land Acquisition Program is the most effective in preserving what is considered to be the most important non-renewable natural resource in the Authority's region The Watershed Plan which was adopted in 1980 clearly identified the need to continue a valley and waterfront land acquisition program where other means of control are not effective In this regard, the Authority adopted as its land acquisition goal to ACQUIRE HAZARD AND CONSERVATION LAND IN ORDER TO PROTECT SUCH LAND AGAINST UNWISE ~SE WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE LAND TO PERFORM ITS NATURAL FUNCTIONS, AND TO CONSERVE SIGNIFICANT AND SENSITIVE LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION In order to achieve this Goal, the Authority needed to define Hazard and Conservation Lands which were deemed suitable for acquisition In this regard, Hazard Lands were defined as (a) those hazard lands which are flooded from time to time in order to have maximum control over their ability to safely accommodate flood water; (b) those lands which, due to physical hazards of slope instability and/or unstabla soils, are not suitable for development; D-79 -4- an.d Conservation Lands are defined as (c) those lands of a significant and/or sensitive natural character which are best managed by a public agency to retain their natural characteristics and functions In general, these lands comprise the major river valleys and the Lake Ontario shoreline as illustrated in Figure 1 This recognition of the importance of the major valley lands as a natural resource has been shared and supported by "the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Since the preparation of the 1959 draft of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan, Metropolitan Toronto identified the valley systems and recognized their importance as performing both a flood control and public open space function The 1959 draft Official Plan stated "All of the major valley lands in the Metropolitan Area are to be kept free of urban development as part of the overall flood control and conservation program" and; "Within the Metropolitan Area the proposed valley park system will include all, or a substantial part, of the following river valley systems " Metropolitan Toronto has continued to place importance on the valley systems as evidenced by the following statement in the recently approv~d Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan SPECIFIC POLICIES FOR VALLEYS , It is the intent of Council to maintain the major river valleys from crest to crest primarily in a natural state exc~pt for compatible recreational uses and essential public works Therefore Council opposes all other development below the crest of the slope in major river valleys which a would be susceptible to flooding or require fill to raise the site above the flood line, or, b would be susceptible to property damage due to unstable soil conditions, or contribute to increased erosion on valley slopes, or, c would conflict with the maintenance of natural and environmentally sensitive areas of a valley as a public resource D-80 -5- Although acquisition is not the only mechanism the Authority and the municipality has to protect the valley and waterfront lands, there is an ever increasing pressure for development on these lands especially on the "conservation" lands where no hazard exists While Municipal Official Plan statements and zoning along with the Authority's regulations, are and have been effective, public acquisition avoids the development pressures and at the same time preserves their natural character and function To date the Authority has been relatively successful in preserving the natural areas either throogh outright purchase or through the municipal planning process Figure 2 illustrates the success the Authority has had in bringing the hazard, conservation and waterfront lands into public ownership It can also be seen from Figure 2 that there remain ~ignificant areas of privately owned lands which have been identified as suitable for acquisition since they represent a flood or erosion hazard, exhibit "conservation" land characteristics, or are of environmental importance The majority of these remaining private lands are made up of relatively small parcels with no real potential for development or redevelopment, or there is sufficient control through zoning, official plan designations and Authority regulations It is the intention of the Authority to continue the acquisition of these properties under the existing and future extensions to the Land Acquisition Project, as they come on the market or through the municipal planning process There are however; a few major parcels which may have development potential and recent decisions or proposals within the Metropolitan Toronto valley system have raised concerns by the Authority and Metropolitan Toronto that there is a real possibility that some of these major natural areas would be lost There are also a few major parcels which have some form of existing development and have redevelopment potential Although they may not presen~ly be in a state of nature, any opportunity to return them to one would be lost once redevelopment took place These concerns prompted an analysis to be carried out by the MTRCA, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of Ontario which would identify properties within the Metropolitan Toronto boundaries which unless acquired now, could not be totally protected against unwise land use nor could the preservation of the land's natural function be ensured The following characteristics were used in the analysis to determine the desirability and need to acquire the various properties which remain in private ownership within the major valleys and along the waterfront D-8l -6- _ The property is defined as suitable for acquisition under the Authority's Land Acquisition Program and contained within the boundaries of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; _ The property represents an existing flood or erosion hazard; _ The property is now or could be subject to development proposals; _ The property has been identified as environmentally sensitive or significant; _ The property is a missing link in the Metropolitan Toronto Regional open space system; _ The property is a major component of the Authority's Waterfront Program Based on this evaluation, seven areas were identified as requiring immediate acquisition If the properties within these areas are not acquired now, the opportunity would be lost It was recognized that some of the properties identified presently have a land use which represents an economic benefit to the community by way of employment or tax base It was therefore recommended that these remain on a lease back arrangement for as long as the economic or social benefits applied or until the lessee desires to terminate In this way, public ownership would be guaranteed for the future but would not create an adverse economic or social impact on the community The seven areas recommended for acquisition lie within the general geographic area~ listed below and are more specifically located on Figure 2 (1) Lower Don Valley between Bloor Street Ramp and Millwoo~ Road ( 2) West Don River Valley between Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue (3) West Don River Valley between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street (ij) East Don River Valley at MacDonald Cartier Freeway and Don Mills Road (5 ) Humber River Valley at Weston Road and Sheppard Avenue (6 ) Rouge River Valley - Ontario Land Corporation Lands between Metro Toronto Zoo and Steeles Avenue (7) Lake Ontario Waterfront at Kipling Avenue Although the Authority'S Watershed Plan and Land Acquisition Program identify mainly the valleylands and the Lake Ontario Shoreline as its prime area of interest, they do make provision for acquiring lands which are identified by its member municipalities as being complementary to hazard and conservation land acquisition This has occurred in the past especially where the lands are contiguous with or under tl1e same ownership as a parcel of valley or waterfront land under negotiation by the Authority D-82 -7- Such is the case with a portion of table land contiguous with the Ontario Land Corporation Lands indentified as area (6) on Figure 2 The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto requested that this property be included within the project since it would be complementary to the valley lands alreadY identified This property therefore has been included as part of area (6), however the financing of this property would be entirely at the expense of Metropolitan Toronto . -8- D-83 COSTS AND FINANCING The costs associated with this project include land acquisition, legal and survey fees and demolition Costs Acquisition (shared between Province $45,450,000 and Authority) Legal Survey (shared between Province 2,550,000 and Authority) Acquisition (100~ financed by Metro 2,400,000 Toronto) TOTAL $50,400,000 Financing The acquisition of the properties in this project are major parcels which have been identified by the Authority and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as requiring immediate acquisition, to ensure that they are preserved or can be restored to perform their natural water management functions and to ensure that they can be made available ta the people of Metropolitan Toronto and region as part of the Metropolitan Toronto regional open space system Therefore, the Authority proposes that th.is Hazard and Conservation Land Acquisition Project be a Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Benefiting Municipality Project It is proposed to phase this project over a 5 year period as follows 1985 1986 .llli 1988 1989 Total Province of Ontario 16,800 000 1,900,000 1,500,000 1,500,000' 4,700,000 26,400,000 Authority 6,700,000 1,600,000 5,400,000. 5,500,000 3,800,000 24,000,000 TOTAL 23,500,000 3,500,000 7,900,000 7,000,000 8 ,'500,000 50,400,000 . This figure includes funding for parcel of land identified as being financed 100~ by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto It is important to note that the phasing of the Project as proposed was prepared on an order of priority based on the present and potential development/redevelopment status of the individual properties The dollar amounts are based on appraisals of the properties however, it must be recognized that the final negotiated price may differ . 0-84 -9- Given the complexity of closing a deal on these relatively large properties, it must also be recognized that a particular property may not be able to be closed in the year identified which may then require either a shifting of the priority list or the necessity to carryover fundin~ Finally, it must be recognized that all dollar figures are given in 1985 dollars The total cost of the project to be shared between the Authority and the Province of Ontario is $48,000,000 and will be shared as follows Authority $21,600,000 Province of Ontario $26,400,000 $48,000,000 The Authority's share and will be raised by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as Benefiting Municipality representing 45% of the total The Province of Ontario will contribute the remaining 55~ An additional $2,400,000 will be totally ~inanced by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for lands identified as complementary to the lands to be purchased under this project Thus bringing Metropolitan Toronto's total funding requirements to $24,000,000 ($21,600,000 + $2,400,000) 1985 04 23 JCM/fs . ....... p.vt" ~~ -. ... . -~ \ % '''''''.1; ..... ..... - ~~. ~ ~<" ... <!' ... n o' . - .... r ; r- ---- , P I . T A ..... .' i 0 0 . -iT"" .. -- . , '" LEGEND HAZARD LANDS CJ CONSERVATION LANDS ~ .. MARCH, 1985 2> 'he m."opo"'en 'ooonlo end reg'on 0 I 2 3 4 5 LAND ACQUISITION - - ACQUISITION LIMITS FIG 1 con1erv.hon .uthOflty SCALE: KllOMETRES PROGRAM '=' I IX> U1 I I 00 0'1 . ~ j ~ ; <:> , .... .. , j c:. '- " \ i ~ c- . . , . , . ~ t ...': _~~ 1:~~_~ 1 II'rSl ~ ~~ \ ~ r. I 0 I \ '!.t ... .. i 0 R I! '.....'D.. ..l , . LEGEND ~~ PRIVATELY OWNED LAND Cl PUBLICLY OWNED LAND 11III IC:J ~ M.T.R.C.A. LANDS \ '. LANDS PROPOSED FOR 0 ACQUISITION UNDER THIS PROJECT t, 0 I 2 3 " 5 LAND ACQUISITION V the melfopohten toronlO and region - -- .- PROGRAM LAND OWNERSHIP FIG 2 conse'V~hon authorily SCALE KILOMETRES ~ 0-87 V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 7-JUNE-1985 #3/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Township of Uxbridge Municipal Offices 20 Bascom Street, Uxbridge, on Friday, 7 June, 1985, commencing at 10 00 a m PRESENT Acting Chairman William G McLean Members James W Davidson Elizabeth Gomes Lois E Griff in Bryn Lloyd Ronald A P Moran Basil V Orsini Morton M Smith, QC Norah Stoner Dr Walter M Tovell Helen White Robert F M Yuill ABSENT Chairman Edward A Fulton Members Roger J Crowe Monte Kwinter, MPP Rocco Maragna Frank J McKechnie Peter E Oyler MINUTES Res #63 Moved by Ronald ~loran Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the ~linutes of Meeting #2/85 be approved CARRIED l. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECT 1984-1986 -Kingsbury Cres & Crescentwood Rd Design Block Res ;1:64 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the stuff report concerning the status of erosion control measures along Kingsbury Crescent and Crescentwood Road in the City of Scarborough, be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff proceed with expropriation of the remaining section of shoreline required for continuation of the erosion control measures along Kingsbury Crescent and Crescentwood Road in the City of Scarborough CARRIED D-88 -2- 2. SPECIA L PROJECT PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS ADJACENT TO AN ONTARIO HYDRO CORRIDOR, TOWN OF PICKERING, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM (DUFFIN CREEK WATERSHED) Res 11:65 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control remedial works be carried out in the vicinity of an Ontario Hydro corridor located in Grand Valley Park in the Town of Pickering at an estimated cost of $28,975 00, such costs to be paid entirely by Ontario Hydro CARRIED 3 THE TORONTO HUNT CLUB -Proposed Erosion Control Work Res #66 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT upon receipt of a request from The Toronto Hunt Club, staff of the Authority be directed to prepare an agreement to carry out certain erosion control work at the Club property at the total expense of said Club CARRIED 4 FLOOD CONTROL MAJOR MAINTENANCE -Woodbridge Flood Control Channel Res :;6; Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith . TH.tIT the staff report be received A~D THE BOARD qECOMMENDS THAT major maintenance be carried out in the Woodbridge flood control channels at an estimated cost of $14 580 00 CARRIED 5 M T R C A PARKING LOT POLICIES Res ;:68 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Helen White THAT the staff report and the proposed M T R C A Parking Lot Policy be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the M T R C .~ Parking Lot Policy, as appended to the \l~nu t es of Sxecutive Committee Meeting #7/85, to be held June 14, 1985, be approved and util~zed in ~he review of development 9roposals requiring Authority approval CARRIED 6 1987-1991 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Res #69 Moved by \valter Tovel1 Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the s"aff report regarding preparation of the 1987-1991 Waterfront Development Project be received A~D THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff be directed to proceed with preparation of the 1987-1991 Waterfront Development Project for consideration by the Board at its meeting scheduled for November 8, 1985 CARRIED -3- D-89 7 COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA -Landfilling Fee Schedule Res #70 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff be directed to temporarily suspend the requirement for a fee of SlO 00 per load of earth fill received at the Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Area at such times and for such periods as to attract significant additional volumes of fill material CARRIED 8. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1982-1986 -Bluffers Park Marina: Report on Selected Proponent Proposal submissions are being reviewed jointly with Metropolitan Toronto A report, seeking authorisation to negotiate a lease agreement with the selected proponent, will be considered by the Executive Committee of Metropolitan Toronto Council in July Copies of that report will be forwarded to the members of the Board A further report, outlining the details of the proposed lease agreement, will be provided to the Board for approval in September 9 WATERSHED URBAN DRAINAGE PLAN: ROUGE RIVER Res Jj:71 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Ronald Moran THAT the staff report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Authority proceed in developing a study framework and Terms of Reference for a Watershed Urban Drainage Plan on the Rouge River, THAT staff proceed to obtain support and input from the watershed municipalities, provincial agencies and other related public interest groups, THAT the services of engineering and environmental consultants be retained, at a cost not to exceed S15,000 00, to assis t in the preparation of the study framework and Terms of Reference, especially for the purpose of costing the future study requirements, AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board to obtain approval of the study f r ameh'ork and Terms of Reference CARRIED 10 STUDY OF SEDIMENT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY & AQUATIC LIFE Res #72 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Ronald Moran THAT the report entitled "A Study of Sediment Impact on Water Quality and Aquatic Life" , by IEC Beak Consultants Ltd , be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the report "A Study of Sediment Impact on Water Quality and Aquatic Life" be forwarded to the Metropolitan Toronto Water Pollution Committee for its consideration in developing pollution control projects CARRIED D-90 -4- 11 AQUATIC PARK MASTER PLAN -Status Report Res #73 Moved by IvaI ter Tovell Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report on the status of the Aquatic Park Master Plan be received, A'1D THE BOARD RECOM~ENDS THAT staff be directed to present the "Phase 1 - Aquatic Park Master Plan - Master Planning Zones" report, including all the Task Force and public comments received, to the next meeting of the Board for its consideration CARRIED 12 PROGRESS REPORT Verbal progress reports were presented by the Managers of the appropriate sections of the Water Resource Division on works in progress and complete in the areas of Engineering & Development, Water Management, Resouce Management, and Plan Review 13 1985 BUDGET ALLOCATION OF "FLEX" FUNDING Res #74 Moved by James D av idson Seconded by IvaI ter Tovell T~AT the staff report on the allocation of "Flex" Funding be received CARRIED NEW BUSINESS TORNADO OCCURRENCE - MAY 31, 1985 Res #75 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Bryn Lloyd . THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT a gift of 100 trees be offered to the City of Barrie Muncipal Government to assist with rehabilitation of the area devastated by the tornado occurrence on May 31, 1985, and that this donation be acceptable at the convenience of the City CARRIED APPRECIATION - TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE Dr Tovell expressed appreciation to the Township of Uxbridge for hosting this meeting of the Board OFFICIAL OPENING - GOODWOOD PUMPING STATION i'lr Mather informed the Board that the Official Opening ceremony would commence at , 00 p m to be followed by luncheon at the Goodwood Community Centre -'- . TERMINATION On motion, the meeting was terminated at 12 25 P m . June 7 W G ~lcLean , Vice-Chairman J C Mather Acting Cha~rman Acting Secretary-Treasurer KC ~ D-9l V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes REPORT #4/85 WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 6-SEPTEMBER-1985 #4/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre on Friday, 6 September, 1985, commencing at 10 00 a m PRESENT Acting Chairman William G McLean Members William Belfontaine Roger J Crowe Elizabeth Gomes Lois E Griffin Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna Ronald A P Moran Basil V Orsini Morton M Smith, QC Norah Stoner Dr Walter M Tovell Helen White Robert F M Yuill ABSENT Members Ja~,es Davidson Hon Monte Kwinter Fr" ank J McKechnie Pe.er E Oyler MINUTES Res #76 Moved by Mortoll Smith Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the Minutes of Meeting ;/:3/95 be :ipproved CARR IED ~he Chairman welcomed Mr Belfontaine as a new member of the BoarCi DELEGATIONS Government of Indonesia Public Works Delegation (Sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) ) The spokesman for the group expressed appreciation for the oppcrtunity to be present at the meeting, and briefly explained his Ministry's re5~onsibilities for construction and development of highways and bridges, water resources development, flood control construction of dams, development of urban sanitation, drainage programmes, water sU9Ply, urban development, and on progres~ made since the start of the development plan seven years ago D-92 -2- The following delegations were heard in connection with Item 4 - Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Master Planning Zones Phase I Report (1) Mr John Carley, Co-Chairperson Friends of the Spit (2) Mr Bob Christie Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto (3) Mr Geral~ Campbell Toronto Multihull Cruising Club (4) Mr Stephen J Reid, Commodore Outer Harbour Sailing Federation (5) Mr Alf Jenkins, Executive Director Ontario Sailing Association (6) Mr Roy Merrens Beachers Marathon Runners Association (7) Mr Ken Bryden Representing Marion Bryden, MPP, Beaches-Woodbine (8) Mrs Wilma Harniman (9) Mr David Astele (10) Mr B K Bertie SECTION I FOR CONSIDERATION 1 LAKE ONTARIO PARK WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCARBOROUGH SECTOR -Bluffers Park Proposed Marina A staff report was presented advising that Hydrus Enterprises provided the most innovative proposal and best-projected financial return to Metropolitan Toronto in response to the proposal call for Bluffers Park Marina Res #77 Moved by Norah Stoner Seconded by Morton Smith THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (a) The proposal submitted by HYDRUS Enterprises for the development and uperation of a public marina at Bluffers Park be accepted, in principle, (0) A suitable agreement, containing terms and conditions satisfactory to the M T R C A and Metropolitan Toront~ be negotiated and presented to the Authority prior to execution I CARRIED 2. CITY OF MISSISSAUGA LAKEFRONT WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE A staff report was presented advising that the City of Mississauga has recommended that a Lakefront Water Quality Committee be established to direct a study of water quality along the Mississauga shoreline and to formulate reactive and pro-active strategies for pollution control The proposed committee W9uld consist of representatives from several municipal and provincial agencies including The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority _ -3- 0-93 Res #78 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT ( a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority advise the City of Mississauga that it would be pleased to cooper a te wi th the City in its efforts to improve the water quality in Lake Ontario, (b) The Authority advise the City of Mississauga that it would agree to to appoint a representative to their Lakefront Water Quality Committee, ( c) The City of Mississauga's Lakefront Water Quality Committee be encouraged to coordinate their efforts with the Metro Toronto Water Pollution Committee ( d) The Authority compliment the City of Mississauga for taking such a positive step in addressing the water quality issue in Lake Ontario CARRIED 3. T T C. SERVICE TO BLUFFERS PARK Controller Bill Belfontaine of the City of Scarborough has requested bus service to Bluffers Park The Park is operated by the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, and any request for extended bus service must come from the local municipality Res #79 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Walter Tovell THAT the Authority request that appropriate officials of the City of Scarborough and the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department review the possibility of bus service to Bluffers Park, AND FURTHER THAT, with the concurrence of the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, the Cit1 of Scarborough formally request the Toronto Transit Commiss~on to provide bus service to Bluffers Park during the summer months CARRIED SECTION II FOR INFORMATION 4 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN MASTER PLANNING ZONES -Phase I Report The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board directed staff at its ~leeting #3/85 to present the Phase I - Aquatic Park (now Tommy Thompson Parkl Concept Plan - i~aste:- Planning Zones report including all Task Force and public comments received to the next meeting of the Board , The Authority staff presented the Phase I report to the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force on June 5 1985, held public information centres on June 24, 25, and 27 at Toronto City Hall and requeGted public/task force comments by July 31, 1985 The Authority staff have evaluated all comments in relation to the Phase I report and recommended Option 3 The staff has prepared a report for the Beard's consideration Res #80 Moved by Robert Yuill Seconded by \~al ter Tovell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT ( a) The staff report on the Tommi ~homoson Park Conceot Plan - Master Planning Zones Phase I rep~r~ and" public/task force comments as appended as Schedule II.~ II of these Minutes:, be :-eceived, D-94 -4- (b) The Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones Phase I report, including the recommended planning Option 3, be approved in principle, ( c) Staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and III of the study approach as approved by the Authority and the Task Force (d) All public, associations, and task force members be forwarded a copy of the Board's recommendations ON A RECORDED VOTE - VOTING YEA 8 VOTING NA Y 5 Lloyd, B Crowe, R J McLean, W G Gomes, E Orsini, B V Griffin, L E Smith, ~l M Maragna R Stoner, N Moran, R A P Tovell, W M White, H Yuill, R F M CARRIED Res #81 Moved by Robert Yuill Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the Chairman of the Authority approach the Minister of Natural Resources to clarify with him the authority for parks planning as far as this Authority is concerned CARRIED 5 . DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE USE OF THE GUILD INN The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of the Board of Management of The Guild Inn report "Development Plan for the Future Use of the Guild Inn", as adopted by Metropolitan Toronto Council on June 25, 1985 The report identifies the M T R C A as the agency responsible for the implementation of the Development Plan for the day use facilities (arboretum interp~etive centre, parking area, landscaping, day use pavilion/day mooring facility, interpretive trails along the bluffs), at an ~stimated cost of Sl 384,000 , and the shore-edge treatment (not costed) The Authority staff have initiated a review of the "Development Plan for the Future Use of The Guild Inn", including discussions with Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department Res #82 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Norah Stoner THAT the information report as prepared by Authority staff on the "Development Plan tor the Future Use of The Guild Inn" be received A~D FURTHER THAT statf be directed to prepare a full report, including recommendations on the "Development Plan for the Future Use of the Guilq Inn" for tht:! Board's conside~ation at its next meet~ng CARRIED 6 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET A staff r.eport was presented having regard to the 1986 Preliminary Budget Estimates for those programs within the purview of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board, which include Conservation Land Management Program Flood Control Program Stormwater Management Program Erosion and Sediment Control Program Shoreline Management Program Waterfront Development Program Land Acquisition Program together with the administration costs associated with the management of these programs -5- 0-95 Res #83 Moved by Robert Yuill Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the 1986 Preliminary Water & Related Land Management Budget, as appended as Schedule ItBII of these Minutes, be received and forwarded to the Finance & Administration Advisory Board with the recommendation that a preliminary budge t , containing non-capital program improvement priorities to an extent of 15%, be included in the preliminary 1986 Authori ty .Budget CARRIED 7. REVIEW OF ADVISORY BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SYSTEM A staff report was presented advising that the Board has been requested to make recommendations to a sub-committee established by the Executive Committee to review the role of the Executive and the functioning of the Advisory Boards Appended to the staff report was a report of recommendations submitted to the sub-committee by the Finance & Administration Advisory Board The Board made no recommendations in respect of the above review TERMINATION On mot::.on the meeting was ter:r.inated at 1 15 P m September 6 , W G McLean W E Jones Acting Chairman Secretar1-Treasurer KC ~ 0-96 SCHEDULE "1\" TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M T R C A - Meeting *4/85 FROM MR J C MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE 1 REPORT At the meeting *3/85 of the Board, staff were directed to "present the Phase 1 Aquatic Park (Tommy Thompson Park) Master Plan - Master Planning Zones report including all Task Force and public comments received to the next meeting of the Board." It ~hould be noted that all references to "Aquatic Park" are deemed to mean "Tommy Thompson Park" in accordance with the Authority's resolution at its Meeting ~3/a5 The Phase 1 report (copy attached to this communication) was released to the public at the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force on June 5, 1985 The ?urpose of the report was to establish planning zones for the master plan area setting out the general direction for the park and providing a clear statement of intent regarding the ultimate concept for public use The many c~nflicting demands on Tommy Thompson Park and the varying time frames in which areas of the park will be available for use, make planning for the park a particularly difficult and contentious task It was therefore essential to establish these zones before attempting any more detailed allocation of space, activities, or programs. The report outlines in Section 2 the following 1) those government policies which have a direct bearing on Tommy Thompson Park (MTRCA Watershed Plan, Metropolitan Toronto Official plan, City of Toronto Central Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning) 2) key developments within the planning area that . will significantly affect the future use of the area (THC Industrial Park, THC Marina proposal, THC Landfill operation, Keating Channel dredgate disposal, Metro Sewage Treatment Plant ex?ansion - see Figure 2.1 in the report) 3) opportunities and constraints presented by the location and pnysical characteristics of the site (location on the waterfront relative to other facilitias, site configuration and ec~logy) and 4) public input concerning the preferred role and potential development of the park (preservation of a significant area of wilderness on the water- front, provision of recreational boating facilities, diversity of public uses on Metro's waterfront, prevention of pollution and financial considerations) Section. 3 of the report establishes goals and objectives for Tommy Thoml?son Park following the direction established by the i1etropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Watershed Plan and, more specifically, by the Lake Ontario Waterfro~t Development program In addition, the goals and objectives specifically reflect the opportunities for this waterfront area, the policy and development factors identified and the diverse interests of public agencies, interest groups and the public whose submissions were received The four goals developed for Tommy Thompson Park are as follows TO CONSERVE AND MANAGE THE NATURAL RESOURCSS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA OF THE SITS TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WATER-ORIENTED OPEN SPACE WHICH WILL ASSIST IN MEETING REGIONAL RECREATION NEEDS /2. D-97 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M.T R.C A. - Meeting #4/85 FROM MR. J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 2 . TO DEVELOP PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE ; OF THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT, AND OF TOMMY THOMPSON PARK IN PARTICULAR TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR TOMMY THOMPSON PARK WHICH IS COGNIZANT OF THE POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA. Section 4 of the study developed three planning zones - Natural Resource, Recreation and Long Term Development which are defined .n terms of site character, degree of physical development, level of operation, access and uses The definitions of each zone provides the framework for the development of design guidelines for the site in the evaluation of preferred components (Phase II) and the formulation of alternative concepts (Phase II I) . Three (3 ) planning zone options were then generated as follows OPTION 1 - concept plan area designated "Natural Resource" OPTION 2 - concept plan area designated "Recreation" OPTION 3 - concept plan area designated - Natural Resource, R~creation and Long Term Development . Note See to Figures 4 1, 4 2, and 4 3, appended to this communication. The above options were then tested against the goals and objectives for Tommy Thompson Park with Option 3 meeting the greatest proportion as described below TO CONSERVE AND MANAGE THE NATURAL RESOURCES. Option 3 identifies a substantial land and water area for a 'natural resource' zone, makes a clear commit~ent to that area identified by the Authority as an Environmentally Significant Area, allows ~aintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat, and provides research opportunities TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE, WATER ORIENTED OPEN SPACE By designating a substantial area as 'Natural Resource' , Option 3 provides an opportunity for an , area unique from all other waterfront areas in scale, character, and recreational activities By establishing a 'Recreation' zone, a limi ted opportunity is also provided to ~onsider the range of recreation uses as set out in Table 4 1 of the report TO DEVELOP PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT . By providing opportunities to establish interpretive programs ex?loring historical processes, natural processes, and environmental management techniques, and by allowing establishment of an interpretive "centre" in the 'Recreation' zone Option 3 supports this goal /3. D-98 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M.T.R C A. - Meeting #4/85 FROM MR. J. C MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 3 . TO DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH IS COGNIZANT OF POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA By definition, the three zones as drawn in Option 3 generally recognize policies of Metro and the City of Toronto, the long term commitment of the THC to port facilities in the outer harbour, THC and Metro Works development proposals, and the landfill and dredgeate disposal programs. Option 3 also permits the maximum flexibility in considering alternative uses (either natural resource or recreation related) for the endikement and Cells 2 and 3 (Long Term Development Zone) over a time period which is beyond a reasonable planning time frame Option 3 was therefore recommended as the preferred option in the Phase I report. The procedure used in preparing the report has followed the study approach adopted by the Task Force and endorsed by the Board and the Authority The third opportunity for public input in Phase I, as outlined in this study approach, was initiated through a public notice of information centres placed in the Sunday Toronto Star (June 16, 1985) and the Globe and Mail (June 17, 1985) Notices were also sent to over 100 people on the Authority's mailing lists and Toronto radio - TV stations including the posting of a notice at Tommy Thompson Park The public information centres were held at Toronto City Hall - Monday June 24, 1985 - 2 00 pm to 7 00 pm, Tuesday June 25, 1985 - 2 00 pm to 5 00 pm and Thursday June 27, 1985 - 3 30 pm to 8 30 P m Thirty-two (32) people attended the information centres Copies of the reports were available at the centres or by calling the Authority Public comments including those of the Task Force were requested by July 31, 1985 (All comments received up until ~ugust 23, 1985 have been included in the comment summaries) To date, 131 submissions responding to the report have been received from the general public, and from various associations with an interest in the future of Tommy Thompson Park Summaries and individual submissions have been appended in the following order general public; associations; Task Force members Of the public and interest group submissions, the majority (122) were in favour of maintaining the entire spit as a "natural resource" areal or "wilderness" Specific concerns raised by the public and interest groups are briefly summarized as follows The public and interest groups supporting preservation , of a wilderness area objected to any compromise The inclusion of embayment D in the recreation zone will remove the existing buffer and impinge on the Environmentally Significant Area The general public and groups supporting preservation oppose vehicular access to any portion of the paxk. The individuals and groups requesting inclusion of water-oriented recreational uses maintain that the land and water area allocated to the Recreation zone is inadequate /4 D-99 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M T R.C.A. - Meeting jf4/85 FROM MR J C. M.f\.THER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 4 Although detailed responses were received from some individuals and associations, very few of the general public indicate having read the report, and it is apparsnt that most responses followed the publication of a nature column in the Toronto Star, and in the "Friends of the Spit" newsletter The result has been that few specific comments are made on the background, goals, zoning options, or evaluation procedures presented in the report Only 45 mention a zoning specifically (these all request adoption of Option 1), and few indicate an acquaintance with the jurisdictional, ownership and site constraints. There were also several comments dealing with the study process, as distinct from the report recommendations M Bryden MPP - Beaches-Woodbine, suggested that the evaluation process used was :lawed, as it was based on questionable goals and objectives which were not subject to publ ic review and which are subject to varying interpretations Ms Bryden and others also suggested that the planning responsibilities of the Task Force and the Authority should be expanded to include the Outer Harbour and adjacent land under the Toronto Harbour Commission ownership M Brjden also protested the "significant departures" from the original study process, the elimination of public meetings and the substitution of information centres for formal public ~eetings. (Note 11 Bryden's comments - summary of public comments appended to the communication) The Task Force submissions (no comments received from the City of Toronto) indicated their concurrence with the recommended Option 3 (see Summary of Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force Comments appended to the communication) It should be noted that approval by City of Toronto Council of the Central Waterfront recommendations and land use zoning for Tommy Thompson Park is still pending Staff have reviewed the public/interest group and Task Force submissions, and note that the major issues have not substantially changed since the p:;:esentation of the first Aquatic Park Master Plan in 1976 If a plan for Tommy Thompson Park is to be developed, the process must progress beyond a discussion of these issues alone To that end, the selection of a preferred Option 3 and adoption of the Phase I report will allow the study to proceed with Phases I! and II! - selection of alternative development components and concept development Option 3, as outlined and recommended in the Phase I report, is considered to provide the best basis for proceeding as it recognizes the unique character of the headland by presently committing approxi~ately 55% of the land , and water area in th~ planning area as a 'Natural Resource' (Note Natural Resource zone is twice the area of the Recreation Zone) and by ensuring protection of the designated Environmentally Significant Area recognizes the significance of and the unique opportunities preserved by the outer harbour for recreational boating and other water activities recognizes that a major portion of the park is still under construction and leaves all options for its future use - natural resource or recreation oriented uses open for future determination under the definition of the Long Term Development Zone /3 D-100 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M T R C A - Meeting H/85 FROM MR J. C MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN - MASTER PLANNING ZONES - PHASE 1 REPORT PAGE 5 It should be noted that adoption of the Phase I report, although an important step in the study process, represents only the first stage Phase V of the study provides for a full review of the final concept plan by the public, Authority, Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and subsequently through the Environmental Assessment process. Staff therefore recommend adoption of the Phase ! report and the recommended Option 3, and that the staff be directed to proceed wi th Phases II and III of the study RECOMMENDATIONS Whereas the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board directed staff at its Meeting #3/85 to present the Phase I - Aquatic Pa!:k (now Tommy Thompson Park) Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones report including all Tas:< Force and public comments received to the next meeting of the Boa rd Whereas the Authority staff presented the Phase I report to the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force on June 5, 1985, held public information centres on June 24, 25 and 27 at Toronto City Hall and requested public/task force comments by July 31, 1985 And Whereas the Authority staff have evaluated all comments in relation to the Phase I report and recommended Option 3 And Whereas the Authority staff has prepared a report for the Board's consideration. Therefore, THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (1) The staff rej?ort on the Tommy rhompson Park Concej?t Plan - Master Planning Zones - Phase I report 3nd public/task force comments be ::eceived (2) The Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones Phase I report including the recommended planning Option 3 be adopted (3 ) Staff be directed to proceed with Phases II and II of the stud} approach as apprQved by the Authority and the Task Force (4) All public, associations and task force members be forwarded a copy of the Boards recommendations Attachments 1985 08 28 LF/md 0 --1 I -- ...... -. 0 I ...... - - - --...- -- - - - _.~!.r - - - - - -- I - - I I -- - -., I ----_.- - -LJ..""'iT - 'L1 L..J -- __ FIG 4.l . OP'fION #l . PLANNING ZONE - MASTER - - ~ , - .I I. --"""-'r i i I --t- - - -.. ! ! I i I -':..!..- I I I I : - - aM '-e'- IN ....ropoI~=-&hOrtJ ~...._-.- .- -- AQUATIC PARK l L-r LLl t::l ~ -- 4.2 I FIG I-' OPTION # 2 0 ~ PLANNING ZONE . MASTER , tl -I ~ I I w I, ~L I ! r-- : J J ~ - n]ironmen I I ~i~nifican I ~~ I ~ - I I I I ~"j, -~i - - u '-" ;, >-J -- FIG 4.3 · 33 . ZONE OPTION PLANNING MASTER D-104 SUH~ARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS , D-IOS - SUMMARY OF PUBt.IC COMMENTS THE FOt.LOWING SENT t.ETTERS REQUESTING THAT THE E:-ITIRE HEADt.A~D REMA I~I A WILDERNESS AREA, THAT TH~RE BE NO DEVELOPMENT ON T~~ HEADLAND, THAT TH~ ENTIRE HEADt.AND EE DESIGNATED A 'NATURAL RESOURCE' AREA. OR THAT OPTION 1 FOR THE M.~STER PLi\NNINCi ZONES BE CHOSE~j WHERE ARGUME~TS WERE i\DVANCED TO SUPPORT THE CHOICE OF OPTION OR DESICiNA':'ION, THE ~OS':' FREQUENTLY MENTION~D WERE too m~ch of the waterfront is developed parkland the water:ront is being monopollzed by boaters Tommy Th~mpson ?ark repres en ts the only opportunity fer a natural environment park on the waterfront ~n which it would be posslble to escape the .urban environment preservation of habitat unwarranted public expense =or development no access for private ve~_cles ,~LL TEXTS OF THE LETTERS ARE ON FILE AT THE M T ? C A HEAD OFFICE , D-I06 Cord Carley ,\ug 2, 1985 M V Liucaicius July 18, 1985 J North July 25, 1985 Jacqueline Courval July 21, B85 W A Martin July 20, 1985 R1.Oby Welcourne July la, 1985 Elizabeth F Nuse July 18, 1985 B A White July 15, 1985 Lisa Wood July 17, 1985 Mors Bruce McIntosh Ju 1 y 31 1985 Lyn July 29, 1985 Charlotte A Reid July 29, 1985 Grant ~urlcurt July 29, 1985 Lillian 0 Corley July 28, 1985 Mic:,elle \Iayhew July 24, 1385 ~ Smith July 28 1985 H Hoyer July 28, 1985 ? Parnell-Jones July 29, 1985 Mrs V ;.. ..illiamson July 29, 1985 John ':':egur-=na July 30, 1985 \!s Clara J Stacey July 27 1985 Frances Raynor July 29 1985 John L Chamberl~n July 25, 1985 Sheila '1 Neys;nith July 22 1985 3arbara :.! Fallis July 23 1985 1-Iancf Galbraith Julf 23, 1985 S ;:::'"Iar~': July 23, 1':85 '. ? aul ;~ Mayhew July 24 1985 'larcia 3urstyn July 24, 1985 Jonathan W Grant July 24 1985 Donald '1 DeNike Jul y 24 1985 John Cranmer 3y~g ";uly 27 1985 N C Murr July 21 1985 D-10 7 -2- Barry Sray Aug 8, 1985 Wendy Hughes Aug 10 1095 a J U de Zwaan July 29, 1985 Sheila de Zwaan July 28, 1985 Mrs \of Harniman July 27, 1985 ~aurine Harniman July 26, 1985 S ~amQert July 30, 1985 Margaret & John Armstrong Aug 6, 1985 Mr ~ouis 3eCnar July 28, 1985 Saul Glickman July 29, 1985 Jean Hutchison July 28, 1985 J D Curtin Aug 1, 1985 Mr H Elliott July 25 1985 R Brunell July 22 1985 Pat Rae July 22, 1985 Mrs S K=yz ano"...sk i July 22, 1985 E Davis July 22, 1985 Gavin Miller July 23, 1985 'lar;aret Wilson July 24, 1985 Li.se Angli:l July 22, 1985 L Witlox July 22, 1985 Ms Odile Le ::lain July 23, 1985 Miss Gladys ~ay July 22, 1985 George Miller July 23 1985 Alice K'ane July 21 1985 Gail L Cox Jul.! 20, 1985 Anne Hansen-Johnston July 23, 1985 "Irs L ':' Gardner ';uly 19 1985 , , H Hansen July 19, 1?85 ::ave Carley July 19 1985 Louise ':'aite ';uly 19, 1985 Terenc!! .~ Kelly ';uly 13. 1985 Neville & Dor~s Wood July 18, 1985 2ric & Karen ~arker July 17, 1985 'Ierman Lofts July 17, 1985 ~ D-108 -3- Susan Wood .July 17, 1985 Mark Ku.cis % Jul y 17. 1985 T & H Kugel July 18, 1985 M D Goldrick July 17, 1985 Mr & Mrs 0 Oppertshrauser July 16, 1985 Fran D Grady Aug. 6, 1985 \ Mrs Elinor Beard t\.ug 1, 1985 t\.nnie Hooks Aug 7, 1985 " D arewer July 28, 1985 J K Van Boven July 29, 1985 Peter & Allison Lowens t\.ug 1, 1985 Mrs Marie Naylo: July 29 1985 Anthony Lisant1. Jdy 29, 1985 L & I Geller July 24, 1985 Mrs M t\. Neil July 29, 1985 Dennis G Rioux July 29, 1955 R ;:) McRae "July 28, 1585 Phyllis 1'1 Scott July 27 1985 Satu Pernanen & Randy Parisien July 29, 1985 .; ames ~~ C1ri=fi~h July 28, 1985 Janet Pugsley July 28 1985 M:-s ",~leen Colas July 29 1985 T H Le'/ere July 26, 1985 Ida K .s t =~.1 t h July 26, 1965 Mrs !lizabeth ~atheson July 28 1985 ;.lary t\. '1urray Jul Y 27, 1985 ;.!ary l' Jones July 25, 1985 ~osemary Hal: ';ul/ 30, 1965 " 3 Yuk_ch July 25, 1965 T Krushel Ju...y 28, 1985 "" Sandra Har.mer July 29, 1985 Ruth ,:l.rnt:z July 23, 1985 . 3:-ailey Jul y H 1985 Norma C '4ac~eod July 24, 1985 ,:I. R '4orpurgo July 23 1965 Helen Anne ao~;er July 24 1985 . D-109 -4- W [.aurence Jones July 26, 1985 Ms Pa~ Evans ,l.ug 13 1985 John Stone July 27, 1985 Sob Fra.ser ,\ug 1, 1985 Merlin Andrew July 20, 1985 I . , D-110 FORM LETTERS (SAMPLE FOLLOWS) WERE RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUAL ME~BERS OF ~HE 5T JAMESTOWN S~ILI~G CLUB R G Bce!<ner Aug 12, 1985 E Davis June 21, 1985 ';ulie Zariolo June 21, 1985 Catherine Wecc June 21, 1985 ..I Dow June 21, 1985 , 1 v , ST. JAJ\t-\ES IOWN SPdLiNG CLuB \4 ~ P.O. 90X 984, STATtON a. ~ONTO, ONTARIO M4T 2M ~~ilI'" t~ i:"C D-111 A..... E i i;.... -. ~. t::D .../ -.. J. o' ~j~ .~ ~ J~~e 21st, 1985 I ~'1 I :"0:. · · .N. C.4. ~he Chairman and Members, . The Aquatic Park Planning Task Force, c/o M.T.R.C.A., 5 Shoreham Drive, North York, Ontario M3N lS4 Dear ~~. Chairm~~ and Fellow Members, I welcomed ~~e release of your Phase 1 Report on June 5~~, would like to thank you for it and add a few thoughts of my O"oIIn . I was introduced to the sport of sailing, along with thous~,ds of others, through a low-cost comm~~ity sailing club. I learned to sail dinghies in the safe, protected waters of Toronto's Outer Harbour, ~~d now ~~oughly enjoy the beautiful su:rc~~d~ngs there. The club to which I belong will not be allowed to stay on the north shore where it is, al~~ough I wish it could forever. I am welcome there ... I have many friends the=e ... I can drive there ... and I can sail safely there. In respect to ~~e bdatL,g survey you commissioned :ast year, ! find ~~e area on Tommy Thompson Park zoned recreation- al ra~~er small in as much as the demand for boating is ever L~creasing . Please, consider our needs when you ma~e your final c.ecisions on Tommy Thompson Park. I am sure h(~ would have wanted ALL the people to use it. Yours T=uly, /' "".; ,,/ / , /-/./ /c---<../ St. Jamestown Sailing Club. I MEMSEFl OF iriE ONTAA10 SAI1.lNG ASSOC:AT1CN \M!\rn~.("l ~~ D-112 THE TEXTS OF ~ZTTERS RECEIVED FROM THE FO~LOW!NG INDIV!DUA~S EXPRESSING SPECIFIC CONCERNS REG~RDING THE HEAOLAND AND THE PROPOSED ~'STER ?LANNING ZONES ~RE A?PE~DED James E Loukices Auq 7, 1965 Bruce Kidd July 22, 1985 Jake Smythe July 26, 1985 Harriet Dav~dson July 27, 1985 o K Bertie So H Mackey July 31, 1985 'I 3rycen, M P P , Beaches-Woodbine ~uq S, 1985 " . 1 '-113 i& iE@ fE OW IE ~ August , 19a~ 8 .ss:$ -M'"r.~C~ I Mr. Larry Pields . . . Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham drive Toronto, Ontario Dear Mr Fields I request you~ attention for support and assistance to the immediate needs of the Outer Harbou: Sailing Clubs and Schools for an adequate as ~ell as a permanent site to locate and continue their successful sailing opportunities ~hich they provide the pu~lic. At present the location or the clubs provides convenient access by those using public t:ansit or private t:ansportation fie car pools ~r bicycles) vs other locations lika the island or out of to~n. In addition the location provides an ideal environment for sailing because it is weather sheltered ~ith little traffic unl.ke other locations along the Toronto water=ront. The significance of the clubS is that they provide training in both racing as well as basic sailing In addition they provide a low cost means for non boat o~ners to learn sailing because ma~y clubs have their o~n boats This large fleet thus makes saili~g easily availa~le and encourages participation. Another cause for the success of these clubs is the fact that they are run by volunteers thus generating little cost as well as providing new experiences in areas of boat repairing as well as in the management and operation of the clubs All these can help to create in an individual personal satisfaction as ~ell as build a larger sailing co~~unity and promote enthusiasm in sailing. Finally the sailing clubs are open to anyone and as a result have drawn ~eoole from all walks of life but whOQ all have in common an interest in sailing For rne, rny sailing club has ~ent that I have learned to sail in friendly com=unity like s~rroundings It has provided ~e with a place to go sailing after work during the week as well as a place for sailing on weekends Thus it has made Toronto a better place for me to live in As a result I wish to protect the sailing opportunities here fo: others in the future r 0-114 T~US with our future at the present location questionable as well as the saftey of tne waters at stake I ask that _ Council guarantee that the Outer Harbour sailing and Surf Schools and Clubs will have a location on Tommy Thompson Park. _ Council approve the Outer Harbour sailing and Surf Schools as permissable in the ~Transitional Zone~ as defined in the MTRCA Phase One Report. - Council ask the City ~lanning Oepar~ent to report on the impact of the proposed THe marina on dinghy and board sailing in the Outer Harbour. I look forward to your support and the continued contribution of Outer Harbour sailing to the recreational opportunities of Toronto. James E Loulcides ST. James Town Sailing Club 121 Ferris Rd Toronto, Ontario, M4B lG6 Home Number: 755-8463 Eusiness ~:Jltber 369-5023 , (j 1~ ~ School of Physical and I-Ieallh Education .--------- ------ t.!....~:.'l.,.."i UJlIVcrsily 01 10101 110 .. , ,July 22, 198'1 RECEIVED :1 . Hr litH Y r j e ld .1 - "hni'lger ..,. 1!)8S Wilter t1.mar.enpnt Section ftJ~ IURCA { T peA i S Shm-e'li,m L-ri ve · · · · · · , inmsview, (htario H3tt lS'I ! D:!,u' t-h' field Pe Ir.s lie S t Spit I am writ.inr in response to t.he ~fI'I~CA Ha.':ll:er Plan fop the Spit, is!J,,'~d in .June, <"ml tl1e U1ree options outlined i11 /Jr.1t Pl,1.n 01 the basis of "" experience as a lGf-year u;;er and as soncolle who hils prof.~:mion.'l.lly stulietl trends alld developnents ill the fieJd of ptJblic l'ecr'€'ation, I stronr..lv believe the m'RCA should adopt Option I, n.:lllcly to dCGip,Jlate Ure whole Spit a.'l a "~h tural IlesoI'\ICcs" area In bl'ief, Urere is a tl'CI'cnclollG recreal: ional. ecolor,iaal. and soci.~l1v psycholoriccl1 need for the self-develop.iJlr, wihlen,ess of Ute Sp.i.t and the ~;pit repn~sellts our ollly oppor1:lnlity to neet the:;e i.n full in Ure 1'letrW>:llitan 1bronto I'€'gion In i.ts procsenl: form, the Sp.i.t is Ure II0St 'Jap,Jli.ricent eXc1Jnl'le of ., wi.1denless urlJan park in the wor.ld and we should preserve it as such I also believe ~\, the oUlE"r r'€'creation..u needs wh.i.ch call upon tl1e Spit can be net wIthout conflromising UIl~ wi.1denress character of the Spit or in other ways 3:'0 , ".f)1l ~"ec' llJ1OflloOntmlOCanmta t.8.",S ,^, lele,,".'" ~ 161'J7(1 J~~(I lO ~ ~ . . f"\ I.D ....... M I 0 If you would like re to exp.],vJ 0/1 either of thr.se po:lnts, plca'Je feel free to do uo, Keep the Spit in ita enth-ety iI3 a wilderness '1hank YOIJ fol' YOllp considcl'<"ltion , -- Sincerely, ~UA V~.tA 8n r-e KidoJ AssocJate Profesoor )-11 7 Jul y 26, 1985 Jake Smythe 20 Grosvenor St Toronto, Ontario M4 Y 2VS Mr Larry Field Manager MTRCA 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ont.rio M3N 1S4 Dear Mr Field Not all the sailers want to ~ove to the Leslie Street Spit I am a regular user of the Outer M3rbour/Leslie Street S~it . . 1'1" a member of the Mooredale Community Sailing Club. I think the boating community on the north shore is best served by staying where we are To move these sailing clubs over to the Spit would be a great mistake The heavy car traffic it would bri~g to the Spit is obvious, and of course it would not be more convenient for the sailors Clearlf we need more docking facilities in Metro for sailors However. to move t~e din;ry sailors over to the Spit and to add large nu~bers of ~eelbcat sli~s ~ould be to ruin the natural use of the Spit as it is As a sailor and a person who uses the Spit to walk, jog and enjo'l nature, I urge you to keep the whole Spit as a natural ~esource A.rea Si""el~~ :):~~he 11 t:'t"\:c:p 'f!D -. ..." ~ :.; ,- "'1 ~ ~~ :Z9 lSas ~i! r R '" ~ ,. " .v "4 . ~ . , D-118 15 parkhill Court - 506 Eram~~on, Ontario LSt i.?o July 27, 1965 n' Larry :ield !~a..,."ae;er '::ater :;a...,a~e::1.e:'lt Secticn 5 Shor~ha:r.-Drive ~ow-.sview, On~ario !.:;.: l54 uea: t,:r, :ield: I ur~e you to leave the Leslie Street ~pit i~ i~s ~atural state as a peaceful wilder~ess area for the ~a.."y people who enjoy .,ature, wal~ine a...,d cycling in a na~ural car free enviro~7.ent ~he other recreatio~al pursuits requ~ring carinas a...,d -heoe par:.s have alr~ady been ca~er~d for 1 SUe~est that ~ne o.,ly o.e.elop~ent oe ~~e crea~~o" 0: ~ ~arsh whi:h was ~?rwerl! ~~e .,a:~al sta~e o~ ,he Ashcr_d5~s ::.a.j' area. ^ ca~~a"-~ ::s.rst' '1101...10. !:elp pur.;.!;,' t;",e c:l~,,:a.::;.;.:,.a 'tee. wa~er ~d at~ract a :=eater varie;;v of wi11li:e It co~c alSO 'C'" 0'" -0"- erl 'c-~;o;;"'" "une . 1;,0; ... ~_ __ "" 1..i._ g...- ....:;;a...o.. v .... . Inst:aad 0: spe:-.di:".g !:loney 0-. c::arinas a."1d the~~ par:.s. ~:-e mo:".e~' wculc :e be-::-::er spen~ 0:-, !:loder:'lizing tr,e i:".adeq..:.a~e sewer .systec which ~h~s de.,_e:i t:-.~'..:.sa..,ds of ~pecl?le ......hO ca:,-:.ot a::or:. ~o =-0 ou": 0: _oro~"1i:O ~he 'Oleas'.iI'e 0: s....~r.r."-:-,i: .;.:". tre la~:e -- ':1.ou:,s si:"cerel.J. ./~ dJl-.- ~arriet Davic:.son RECEIVED J'" ,,"- 30 !geS ... ~ \ rt.. T.p C 13\ " .,. .~. D-119 PJI.NI) ~ 14 Sarldstc:ne Lane 'l'craatO, cntario July 31. 1985 Mr W.A. ~ 01ai::ran Ac:quatic parit Planning Task FOrce c/o Met.rOpOli tan Torom:o F.egion COnservation AU1:.~rity 5 Shoreham Drive North York, OntariO Dear ~z Mc!..e.an P1.ease fi:xi enclcsed our ca:rne.."lt.s on tr.e ?hase I ';cquatic Par.<< planning exercise Because r.'CS~ or to''le north sl10re '::let''''e<>-I1 ~erry and Les lie St.:eet.5 is o.med by""tiie 'I:-iC, planni."lg, :=-an a recreationaliparkland point of vi~, for 1:.""e general area has bee..'l focused on the "spit" area pro~r cespite 1:."le gocx! i.~tentions or ':.."le i.."li tial te~ of reference Your aT.mittee has no't ad.i:'essed tl''le question of \oIhe':.."ler or oot the present. land use on t:.""e no:-..h shore is t.."le best use possible This ~ c-.at ':..""e spit ha.s to be ?lanned in isolatior: frcrn t,:"':e surrour.c.ing lanes a:.d t.."lerefore ~t;. acca:r.o:1ate ...,:,e r:eeds of all ':.."le enV1.r :lrl::lentall recreational interest grO'oJPs This r.ecessi tates the =lti-use ~roac.'1 en the spit des?it.e t..":e :~c-:. that tl':ere is o....e~..hel;~wlS ?-WHe Sl,;?;lCt"t t."lat ':.."le spit just '::le lef'l:. to evolve Ideally, '...oe l,o,Culd Lke t."le total spit area. beLcing t.'":e tria."!gle at i ':.S ':ase, le:t in esse.'lt~ally t.."le . do nothing' s-....a-:.e This '..ould. r:-.e~ tha t. t.'1e recreational ( con'"entional ) park focus "'-0':,1":' 1-.a....e to shi ft. t.o..a.r:is ':.."'le ~ lands SO'.lth of "TnwiJ1 A':e."lue ;,e feel t.'1at. t."le key problE!!:: frar. a park....and./recreation [:erspec--ive is t."le Toror.to r=..ar::our C:rn:'.ission, i~s deficit probl~ ~~d ~~e long ~e~ pon of Toronto outlook ':'he second :<ey problem l3 the trade-off ';:etwee.'l park..l.and. and poss,i;le econanie develo;:me.'lt ...-i thin the area ~u."lded Oy Ule Lakesho:-e A,'enue, t.'1e la."<e a.'ld C:er:y a:-.d Leslle 5 t..:ee'=. The: issues t.'1en l,o,Culd :e 1 Is it in t:.-:e pul:llle i.."l.terest fer t:-.e .ar:ds south 0: Urr..'in ,~venue b2':..'",ee.'l cne:ry an~ Lesl_e Str*,ts to be in t."le 1-.ands of t."le To:cntO ::.ar::ou: C:r.r.'.issior.: , 1-, , . D-120 - 2 - 2. D:les it. con~ue to be in t.'1e public intereR to ~esignate t.'1e lands as Stated in (1) as indusuial lams? 3 Is it. in t.'1e p,lblic interest t.o designate sane/all of t::ese lands for residential uses as t..'le ~g::oa Int.ernational pro~sal suggests? We re4liz8 that. the questions loA!! ask are quite ~1e."C inasfar as t.'1e Pui:llic Interes1:. includes -:he legit.i.mu.e int.erests of <:he Toronto HarIXlUr Carrr.i.ssion. MY prop::lsal to put t. "lose lands to another use /lUS1:. provide a o::mpensation m!!C.'1aniSll for the 'lEC to ensure t.~t it remains whole ?erhaps Meuo ...culd be prepared to transfer ct.'1er ~et.ro properties to the THe in exchange :Or the exist.~'19 'lEC lands ~"l of UI'hIin or perhaps the City of Toronto ...ould be prepared to grant great.er density rights on other 'lEC proj?l!rties as c:anpensation for t."le lands involved We al$O realize t.."at. .....r.at we are asking is beycx'1d t."'.e jurisdiction a::d au~ri -:y of your Ca!1lIi t.t.ee If i~ is t:! be addressed, it. :m:st be disC'.JSsed by and be":.....een t.."'.e appropriate political levels and ~'1e '!'He We respec--i...ely sug;es'l:. t."'.a1:. plan.-u.'19 for the Acquatic ?ark be sla..-ed or put on hold pending an assessnent of the whole area be-:..-e-..n Leslie and Cherry Str~ south of Urrrin Av~ue and t. "'.at your c::rn:U. ttee reccmnends to 1:he Cit.y/"Iet.ro t..'1at. a planning review be urrlertaken of a ltUJcl'l larger area One mai."1 objoac--ive of t:"\is exercise IoOJld be to <:iefir.e t.. -'e bourx!aries of ~tic Park in this la.. --ger planning con'l:.ext.. In closi.."1g, ....e believe t."'\.a'l:. t..'1e ex:.sti."Ig t='hase I pla."1 developed by "fO'.Jr C::r.tni. t. ':.ee is ~irly reasonal:lle - except as ~ed in our enclosed cart:'I"..tlts given t..":.e prese."1t :.oni."\g an.:1 o..mershi? =!".s~-ait"..9 on t..'le lands sou1:h of UI'hIin Avenue Tr.e issue 0: t.'le desirabilit.y of ~blic lands adjacen'l::. t.o the la"o;e - as a pri.-u:ip':'e - should ....e feel, be referred by your O:r.1ro.ttee t.o t."le approp::l.ao:.e levels of ~.icipal gover"'ll:".e:lt an:i pe:::-.aps provincial g::lve~":'er.t. Yours tJ:U.i.y, R t () , / 1~... T--<... atl ~ I~ I S.K 3enie H !-lackey E:conam.s't. 3iolo;i5t. Encl C c C".ai.r.ran, ~~.micipa...""ty of ~ro Torcnto Mayor, c:.. toy of Toronto Alder::len, ward Eight., Ci ':.y of Torc:1t.:J MPP, Eeac:.~es - 'M:x:lCl:li:1e O".air::-arl, To=cn1:.o ::.ar:our C:mr.issi~n ?la:.ni..'lg cc:m.issioner, c:..t.y cf :'orono:.: " ~.issiO:1er, ?a:ks anC ~ec::eat.ion, ~e1::.ro - 0-121 Q:Ho!ENl'S PfW>Z I - N:J;;JJA..-r.C PARK ~ PIA-f , D-122 ~ Issues Pace - - Initial Ter.:'oS of Refarenoe to the MI'RO. Ta.SK Force Planning Area (a) MetrO Wa~erf:-c:n't. as an 'Acquatio ParK' - Multi use in t.,is sense r:CM (c) Acq.Jatio Park So1Jndaries Area SO'.Jth of Ur.w~ Avenl.le Torom:o r..ubou::: Ccr.r.J.ssion t..anda (a) Toron~o as a ShiP9il"lg Ca""l~e (e) '!be Toronto Oartcur Ca:'rr.ission and i~' s l.efiei~ Prob.l.en Econ:rrJ.o C-evelc:r..ent Proposals ta) '!He Marina Proposal (0) Magrra !nte:national Proposal (e) L..a.nds Nort., of Uno..~ Qee....een Leslie and Olerry Streeu A.ssess"7.en~ of ?hase I Pla.n (a) :reCgea~e Cispcsal (c) MeU'o Seo..age T=ea-:.":'~~ Plant ?roper-:y (e) Transitional Zone (d) 3oa~g Faeili~ies tel Recrea~iona.l/CErranC Analysis , )-123 1 ~ I - ~C PAl<K 19SrER P~ ~ The effec-..i. veness of Phase ! plar.r.i.ng should be addressed L" t.e~s of now well this phase addresses ~~e issues The key issues for Phase ! as we no.; see t1':eo are as f:lll~ 1. Is it in the public interest for tl1e lands south of UDon.n AVen:Je ~ O1eny Street and Leslie Street to be in ~e ~ of t.'le ToraJtO Ba.rtx:ur Cc:mIl:i.ssic:n? 2. Is it in the ?Jbllc interest to designate the lams as stated in CXle (1) alxM! as industrial lands as Metro/City of Tor::rrtO have dale? 3. Is it in the ?Jbllc interest to desi9=13te sene/all of t.'lese lands for re:sidem:.ial. uses as the MagDa InternatiO'lal prop=.sal suggests? Initial Tems of Reference to the ~ Task Fort:e hcccrd1r.g toO t."le ~1ay 1984 . Infor=-ation ?a.~,let' p:crluced '='/ t.~e "r.::<c..;, the t.er=-s of reference given toO t.~e t.ask force 'At.h respect to ~~e study area '..as t.o _ncluee Acq..:atic Park ?=opert.y I hCI.,'ever, .:'::::lUa"t. i ,= Park '",as toO be olar.."ed in lich:t 0:: e:<:..s-:.i:lc and fut.t.;re ...lses a.,,:l p:lssible L'lt.era~ions wi m the ~or-..!'. shore 0:: the Outer !-;ar'::our ===n Cher:"'f Seach t.o -::"e :~earn clant. <ii.schar:::e, 1"'-he t.ri=.ncle :~..,d a:e.as a~ me base 0:: t1':e ,Io..c::-..:atoic Park a.".d ~6e ~in 5E!'..;aae ~=eat."":"!e.~t cla."'!t ~ cur:ent....y ~c.'1 of t.'1e la."'l:i araas sou~'"t 0:: U::'N'in .J;.vem.:e :?et"N'een ~lo.-! eastarn and western st.:'eet. li.."l'.:i.':.S _s ?resant..ly ::eing use1 fot' :ec:ea- tio:'laJ.. purroses, s;:eci=ically; , , 0-124 2 (a) sailing (b) fishing (c) cycling, wa.l}ti,ng, jo;qing i e Ma..~in Goocl:ran ~nil In to"le absence of . irxil.:S~ial . cevel~ent on to"lese lands cefa~o recreational uses have emer;ed. Other uses e g. pic.'<:ti.cY.i:'lg, could evolve if the lan:i use zoni::g '45 changed fran its existing industrial designation to parklar1d/recreational While the original sew:iy focus area was correct: i e larger t.":an ~e for:ral 1:oundary area of Acqua.tic Park, to"le 'given' of industrial laro designations, wit."U.n the seooy area, could sic;n.ifica."lt.ly influence t.."le resu.l. ':.S of t.."le study in ~erms of land use :tOnes Indeed this is the case :?ecause on ~ge four of the May, 1985 ?hase I re?O~ , it. is clearly Sta":.ed to"lat a key objec-..i.ve is t.~e estaOl_3r:.ent of planning ZOo"les in the Ml'Ro.. QoI'ned lan:s aNi t.."le THe leased lar.cs (fr-...m ~'?) ~ at.ter.pt.ing arrt m::>roa ce-..Il.i.l.ed allocations of space, activities a..,ci pro;ra..'"lS P larlninq Area \a) MetrO Wa~erfront As A.."l '.~-q,Jatic ?ark' - Multi Use in Tl".is Ser:se ~ If Acquatic Park is lcc<<!!d at. sol~ly as an isolat.ed e."ltity then it is i:levitable t.."l4<: a r.-..Jltipie use plan allcwi.ng for ...i.lc areas, boa":.ing and ::'Ore ce"."e...oped ge:':eral use pa:kland and r~::'eaticnal facilit.ies r.-..JS t. l::e consider~, i= to....e r.eeds of all a=e t.o be served To dat.e L., to....e public par-.ici~at.ion in t."le ?l~~.ing ex:ercise ~e have se.an r:'MlY int.erest g::'o~s s~a'te thei::, ?Ositic:'l and -:..'":.e.'"1 L.,fco t."le C:r:rnittee t."lat groU? 'X' represe."lts ' Y' indivtcuals , D-125 3. As long as the 'spit.' is viewed i:1 isolation fratl the ...nole "1et.re Waterfront. , there tTUS't. be a t:~e off relative to sane form of l!Ul'ti-use as it relat.es to the curre.''lt 'spit' planning el<cercise 3y changing the focus to the overa.ll 'waterfront., it is possible to vie.... u-.at. 'Acquatic Park' in t.ern-oS of nulti-use over the ..mole \tIaterfrc:mt In t."ti.$ exlt.eXt. is the ccnce?t. of t."Ie 'spit' as a , -.rl.lderness ' area in it's totalit.y out of line in terms of servicing the needs ar.d desires of the Me--...ro ~lation? nte ~cs of analyz.ing t."Ie problem this 'waY is ou:.lined saneo..hat wi. thin this paper u.'"lder t."le heading, e:'ltitled. 'Recre.ational/DEra."l:i A."lalysis' Ee<:ause of -:he '..orld i:lterelr.:. in the ' spit' as an evolving '-.rl.ldemess' area 1." a large IooCrld class city, it o..ould seem ir:prucier.t 00't. to e.'l:arnine t."Iis plar.ning proposal fran a ~ch wi.der pers~...i...e befit.ting a '..orld class Meuo area (0) .a.o:r..:atic ~~k 3o'.1.."Y.l.aries Area Sout."I of Ur:.rin Avenue In s?irit. t."Ie L"L.t.ial t.er:':',s of reference reco;nized ..."Iat t.'1e t'eal plar.ning area L'1cliJCed all lanes SOl.."'t.'1 of Unwi." Avenue Oet\o'een Leslie St.=:ae~ and ~.e..~ S t: ee'l: . including t."1.e Met...""O Sewage pr~rty 1:.0 t."1.e east of Leslie Street Seca~e t.l"le la."1d area. ~u'th of Unwi.'1 ~.venue is owned by t.'lje 'I':~C ti'lat land area is current.ly :toned i:'ldusuial v.e rote t."'.at. the Cit.y of Toron'::) Council in 1984 acopted t.'1e Land Use Ca:mit.t.ee :"eca:tl'.endatict'lS for official plan policies and la.'1d use zoni.."'lg fot' t."le Ce.'1ual wcl1:.erfront. area The result. of t."ti.s decision is t.."lat it er:su:es a r.JJ:ti-use plar. : i e ESA and rec:-ea.t.ion, of J:.cquatic Park (Page nine of ~"'le ~~ ~1ay, 1985 Phase I refOrt.) It. apparent.ly is a giJen t.'1at. , despit.e all good int.en::ic~.s , t.'1e planr..i.. "lg area is t.::l 1:e r.a..""r~ 1 y fx-.:sed: i e to incluce soley ~":e r .spi-c' area '!'X.s 7~as it. a1.7Cst. i::.evit..J::::le ':..'1at. 1:..'1e Spit.' wi.ll Ce" D-126 4. llU.l ti-use. Whet.":er this is desirable or ~ de?enCs on to":e existina uses of to'1e land adjacent to Lake anurio between t.'1e bou:ldaries of Meuo Within t.'1is sense of 'Acquatic Parlt ' . wilderr.ess ' par)(s are unde:- represe.'1ted Wi thin this context a "..-il:erness' spit in it's tota.ii tY lray not be out of line ln our op1.."'U.on a lTQre desirable perspec:'ti va is to plan for the area bet'.oIeen C1.erry Street. and Leslie Streets south of Cr:win using the City 0: Toronto 1984 c:'iteria for this ....hole area~ 1 e. asSUl:te no C'.Jr:'e."o: zoni.ng constraints (commercial/industrial/residential. This would allow for, say, 'coating and rrore inte."lSi ve recreational use of ':he area sou-:;', of Urr"ri..n Avenue, ...hile allowing to":e S?it area (incl~9 the , triangle' ) to remain U nat.ural" or becane . natural' with li1;-:19 otficial interference in the process other ti'.an s::me soil ac:.i::icns in areas that are now rrainly building l!'a':erial ruJ::t)le etc. 'i!y presentir.g this option it is reco;nizeci to'1at there will be objections iron specific s-....akeholders. These are legit~ate and must be addressed At a mini.'tD.."lI t.'1e objec"'..ions would lil<ely be as fo1100/8 1 'I't.e ~ty and ~uo have 00 real cont..'"Ol eve': tl':e ~C T:"".Je, l".oo..'Sve':, if t.'1e City/:1et.:'o evolved a plan 1:.'1at would solve t.'1e nlC problem a,,,d allow t:le Federal go-.I'e::'.~t to be L" a pesi tion of r.eutrali':j" or de:inaee ae....antage t.'1en the percei'red r-..ad blocks rray end up just being that e 9 parcei 'fed 2. Part of 1:.,e ~lic int~rest involves the THe and its debt prcbla~, hence, the ~eed to sell/lease land Tr"..le, 01.:': can to":ese ;:robla':\S be evercane; i e are ~~ere al':ernatives: 3 Potential i..~ust.:'ial la.''ld could genen-:e ineust...ry and hence jobs for V,et.:'o ( Ci 1;Y 0: Toronto) Troe, bu't. is it likely: 4 The area sout.h of Unwi...'1 .~....en;;e rray ":e r:eeC.ed oy 1:."le shipping/ dis't:~1.I':.ion ne.eds !r"..le, bu1; is it lL~ely: " )-127 s. Fran Met.ro's and t..,e Cit.y of Toronto perspective the question to be asked is wheU\e:' or not. t..,e niC lands as currently designated have ~'e best. lan:i use category :Or t..,e citize."ls of 1'!et-~ and ~'e Ci':.y Elec:ause of t.,e \.lnique l"'ature of t..'U.s case '..culd it perhaps be desin- ble, if feasible, to subject this area to the Onurio Envi::m:nental Assess:r.ent. At:t? In this way alternatives can 'be exa.~"led Part of examination '..cIU.ld presl.:l\aDly revolve around t..,e question of whether or not it would be socially ar".d envi~rl:al.ly unsound to place ir.dustry on t..,a ;"at.er:f:'Ont in this area? ...."et..'er or not. t.,e niC" a s6lti.- a~~narcus _agency of t..,e Federal goverr.:ne."1t is subjE!C't to the Act. 'is not. iax;:l.In, ho.orever, if the rational for a hea:ing can 'be convincingly made in t.ems of the public good of "leero, the Federal govern:nent might be persloOaded to ....a.ive t.."leir exet;lt.ion on t..,e groun::s t.."lat there could FOSsible advantages for them in ':.er:\1.S of public perceptions ar.d FOSsD:lle eliJllination ane../or reeuct.ion of it's fi.!'.ancial liability stErnl".i.ng fran their conneC't.i.on wi.~, the 'n!C, if any 'n1'lile ':his q..:estion proba:oly car."lOt 'be addr'!!ssed by e:e Task Force or t.."1e M!'RC."- i...,asfar as they are lL'<ely Oeyor-.d -:."'leir jurisdic--ional au-:.."'orit.y a.."1d ~r, \ole -:.."1inl< ti1at. t..'Us should be addressed agai."1 by the :-ele',;a.."1t polit.ical au'thorities at. t."e :ru:u.ci p!.l , ::rovincial a.."1d Federal. levels and \oil! ur;e your C:mr.it':.ee to consider t."1_s course Tora1to 8artlour 0::r.nIi.ssi0'1 !..aDds Is t.."le C'.:...-=en': zc:U..."1g 0: t.."1ese la.."l:i,s (sout.., of U~,,"i.."1) t.."le ':::es': la.."1d use fer ti'.is land considerL"lg t.."1e :rajor s":.a.'~e."'olders? - citi:~~ (?~e : citi:en inpu~) - developers; i e 'Iagl"..a International - Cit.y of '!'oronto i e taX revenue, recreational conc'!!~s, jcos - ':"":'.c and its :i:".a!lcial pro::lea>s , D-128 6 (a) Part of Toront~ as a Shi=ina Ce."1.t:e It is aclcrnofledged that t..'lere is tremer.cous dema."1d for sail.i."1.g facilides i., ~euo. hence, a logical initial setting within Cenual Metro ...ould be t..'le non.'l shore of the CU~er Harbour HooIeVer, the '!He, is r.ainly reserving this area for poten':ial a:rnnercia.l shippi."l9 exp!l1Sion, hence. sail clubs t;.hat are presentiy located t..'lere are on short. term l~es a."'ld are under~ly nervous. hence. t..'le pressure eo locate "to the Spit Given t..'lat these 'me la.'"llis could be considered desiraole from a recreational boating poi.,t 0: view, ana given t..'lat t.."e location ...ould l'lQt int.erfere wi t..'l a 'nat'..lral spit' t.."lis ~c assumption of preserving shippi.:'lg opt...OI'lS deserves serne serious exa.-ni."1ation anC pcssiCle study \\".at are the c.~"1Ces for shippi.'g grow"''':''\? T..o r.ain influences. in our opinion, negate against t.."lis 1 COr:ve.'1tiona.l ' la.".<er I ~ulk traffic is ill decline and this :.-ay be oe:::-a..'1ent At a.'1Y given ti.-re i.'"l the last 3-4 y~s, approxi."2tely 10-12 s."lips are on lay I.I? in Toronto ~t of t.."Iese ships are bul."- carriers 3ul."< carriage on t:".o! Great L.a.<es is p:":lCaJ:lly in pe:::-.anent jechne i.'"I. te:::-.s of t:aditio:-.al car:;oes suc." as g:-ain, coal an::. iron . E~et":".al :actors to Canada are ::'Ost lDtely to":e cause; i e decli.'"le of t:,e steel indust.:",f in ~ortil ';'-rerica 1.'1 :avour of third '..or ld :-.a t.ions , tec:-.nology i e plastics suJ::istitutl.cn et.C , and e!r.erc;illg agricultural self-sufficiency i., traciitiona.l gn...n i.."?Or..ing ;-ations suc.'l as \='\i~ In a recent ~icle in to"le Glcl::e ar.d ~l (July 24-:..."1) it t..as re;:orted t.."at S) sl".ips (3~ of t..'le Ca.'1adian Fleet.) is t.ied ~ ! t ';;as f"~'1er re;:ort.eci il'l ~e Toronto. 514= ~""~at. ~ )-129 7 Augus~ an additional :0 ships \oIill pro::ablj be laid up S<::me of t.~s is the result of prairie drought. ho.Iever, it is likely tha':. as the prir.a.ry industries decline in Canada a.."1d t."te U.S .A. . the overall i."I'!pOr-...ance of G:-ea~ ~es shiP9inq will also decline If the buli< carrier t.ra:e is in per;t"a..'1en~ d~line t."ten t."tis will affect. the o;)St of operating the Sea...ay, he.'1ce, it will ll'ake it ll'Ct'e expensive to cperate oo:'ltainer ships to inla.-"d . destina1;.ions The cost of t."te Sea...ay is s;:r.;e..'hat fixed: i e indepe'lCe."lt of traffic. If 'lake:-' uaffic con~in\.les to decline 'ocean going' t..-affic: i e. oonuU.."ler srJ.ps \oIill have t.o l:ea: lTC.lch higher St Lawrence Sea....-ay use: charges which t:"an) Q?era':.ors already cor-.sider onerous In t:x:t."t Ca."laCa and t."Ie (J S.A, derego.llation an:: user pay forces are quit.e su:ong hence t."Iere will be proba::ly ':"Ore ?ress:.ore on t.'"Ie Seaway Authority to raise fees 2 Railway co:'ltainer t.:ai.."tS cor.necti.ng sea;x:1ns wit.h inla."lc disuiblJt.ion centres are or:.e.'1 muc."\ rrcre ec:lncr.ti.c fran a tut.al ~st:i'=ution =int. of vie.; 'n1is concept has achieved a r.igh level of developl'.~':. in the U S .~. - par-icu1ar~y t.'1e ',ies:, COas':. ar ea. .~:.erica.n ?residen:. l.,L-"les (a s't~.ship ~) r-.3S ~::8'.:':.e1 ~.._s S'istern to a fine science If rail'..ays control their 1 a.::our cos'ts - and evide~ce indicat.es that. t."ley will - through significant. c:ew reduC':.i.-;n si::e, it. is likely t.'1at. ~'Us n~ disui'::U'tion =.cept cc\.llj beccr.:e u-.e OOr::\. , , D-130 8. ,- It may make :lOre sense to relocate the propcseci 'tSC !:'at'ir-.a proposal, if econanic, fran t.."le west side of t."le spit to the ror::. side of t.."le CUter Harixl'.lt' E:dsting clubs and new ones perhaps could also be ac.......",~ted Given that. 7 ~ or 195,900 resident.s of the Met...-o pop.llation will sail this SIm1'ller according to a JurA 16, 1985 Star article and given that this is ~ed to increase to :3:)8,000 in 15 yeus this option should be examined fu..-t."!er 'r.U.s ...oWd require an :L"Miept."! assess::'~t of t."!e econanics of , laker' and 'ocean' shipt)ing prospects on t..'\e Great Lakes in acldi tion to the usual engineering feasibility and sailing dema.'1Cl. st.udies ana assessrnenu In a May Z3t.."'I, 1985 article in t.."le Globe and ~.ai 1, t."le Olair.ran of the '!HC 5t.3ted that Ccmnission planne:s were i.~ faco=. stu:iyi.,g t."!e future of the port. ?ernaps pl~-u..'g for t."le Acq.Jatic Park should ":le slewed eo..n pending the resul t.s of this report. I= there is 00 strong r...t'.Jre need t."le.~ i-: loOula t.end t~ fOCUS t."Ie ce=ate on t."le appropriate uses :~r t."lis l~~; i e total recrea-:ior.al or recreational/housing as proposed ':::y ~.a9l'.a r.'1t.ernational ?~ of t."lis assess.":81t shoula be tied into exa.-nu1ing to "lat part. of Toron'tC's official plan IoIhi c."l ro.I prohibits ...aterfron,,; housi.~g bet....e-o..n Yonge Street a."1d the Beaches Should it also ?rohibi t i.,cus~ial/cornmercial aco=.ivity also? b) .The 70ron1:.0 Harbour Ccm':'.ission a."'.c :)eficit ?t'Oblem ~e deficit of the ':'HC is 0: p.Jblic concern ....-:.asfar as :...'1.e 'ISC is a 'PJl:'lic' aut.~rity ;..s woe ureerst.=d it the niC deficit s-...an..:s at $30 millien ...nic."l ...as aCC1--r-..l.lated over a 25 year ;:eri~ The sale/ lea-sill'; of t..-u.s land a."'ld 01.:5 :L"less venturas of t.'1.e Ccmnission on i,,;' s . _anC.S ' CQ1.lld ~el~ to aLi.evi:1te or el.-"!'.ir'.ai;e - " D-131 9 Ute THe deficit Mar.agement of the ~ ...ould be remiss i~ it did net a~t~ to utilize the l.an:l. asse':s i~ has in order to generatll sufficie.'1't cash reser/es to pay do..n its aCC'..r.lUlated deficit '!he THC rranagelt'oent has no real choice but to consider proposals to maximize reve.~ue fran its operations It is beyond tile rranCate of the 'ISC to consider the areater ?W:llic Interest of ...mic."1 t."1e '!HC interest is orUy c:ne c:::::rt;lOrlent bue nevert.."1eless t."1e '!HC interest is an ill;:or-..ant one At t."1e pmlic meeting prior to the release of t."le Phase I report there was ove:-..nelming citizen su;:port for recreational/~ areas Oet'.Ieen O\erry ana Leslie Streets a."1d ~ of Unwi...., Avenue '!he City of ToI'Clnto current official ?lan prohi~its waterfront housing bee.",een Yonge Street ana t."le Beaches Obviously i: the Ci~y decided to rezone t."e specific area bet''''e-o..n Leslie and Clet":"'j Streeu south of Unwi.., fran industrial/ c::m:tercial to ::erkland. it llUSt. oeviously 'ce ?repared to CCJl1!?ensate the ~C L"1 ltCnetary ter::lS or ot."ler considerations for t."le oppo~uni ty foregone: i e t."le ?rice per acre for iroAustrial land less t."le price per ac:-e =or parkla."Xi or lease revenue foregc:ne et.c !n addition the Ci -:.y "!U5t bala.,ce off the p:xential jobs lost aroA t.."le consequent. eo.::on:::rnic spinJr:s (r:-.lltiplier effec"'-s) and conseque.,ces (econanic ....elfa:a payments ) ~e fata of <:.'1e I :rian<;l~' and Ot.. '1er 'I:iC lands sout."1 of <Jr:wi.n AVen:J.e is cu..-=e."1tly ~er st.udy '=Y <:."e ~ relative to develo!T.lerlt feasil:lili t.y, including pote.'1tial :rarke~ Again pendi..."lg t..'1e ~lic ta:::l.L.i.,g of <:."lis dc:x:onent by t."le ~C, it :ray be' advisa.l:le to slew do..n or delay any fu:-..her planning on .~cquatic Park 1:1 ou:' opinion t.."le "'!!'?,c,;. . '1et.ro '!'oronto ana City of Toront.o policies as ou--..lined _"\ sec+'..icn 2 0 of the Phase ! report could be :ret. -;uc."l rrcre =u.uy if <:.'1e '!SC la.'1ds SOl;th of Unwi..'1 A....enue Oet""een Leslie a."1d Cherry 5t:ee1:.S ....ere ::ansferred toO t.."1e MrnC.~, , , 0-132 10 I':. is strOngly urged that. t.'Iote 'reC lands in question be coug~ out - si:llilar to t.'Iote proposal for tlle remaining "alley lanjs i." privat.e hands - or the Ci q 1'Me':-'"O/p'rO'Iince p'rO'lide c::crnparable acerage elseo..here in SaM SO~ of a land exchange deal Alternatively perhaps t."le City of TorontO would be prepa:ed to gi"e to the 'IHC higher density rig.'Iotts on sane of it.s ot.."\er proper-..ies It is i."1t.eresting that. in a May 2!3t.."\, 1985 Globe ani Mail ar..ic1e disC'.JSsing t.'Iote I"agna I:l":.er:'~tional ?rop:ls.U, i':....as s':.at~ t.'Iota':. a 'F.ey consideration in this prcposal ...as whether or ~t the 'mC wouJ.d Ce W'illing to sell T.'l.is is also iJr;:or-...ant. relat.ive to the disC'.JSsion ai:OVe Ae--parently t.'Iote land '4S deeded to the ~C ...men it. 'olaS creat.ed in .J.911 t.o plan as part of i':.s !T'andat.e, t.'Iote fu<:ure of the Po~ of Toro..,to. I':. ...as Stat.ed i." the article o:.'Iotat t.'Iote c:::mnissicners are ...orried t.'Iotat if they sell <:.'Iote l~ood (or agree to a land exchange) they W'ill be jeopardizing the only likely reascn fer the o::rnnission' s existence 'n",e future p:-ospec':.s fer the port are Key i.., a number of relat.ed p1~~9 ~~cercises Ea;::n:lllic ~ p~. ~1.. Within the area of planning conC9-00n '.ole have had to date twO p:x~"ltial pro j e<---.:.s a.."U'lOlJ."1Ce:i: (al 'n-!C ~.ari.--.a ?!'Ooosal AccOrd1..ng t.o a June 16th Toronto Star ar:.icle, t."\e Clair.:-an of the 'n-!C is ~ed as saying of his projec-:.. "Everyone wi. th an eye ~ the need is t."\ere fer :rcre ber-.J-.s but i<:,' s blcody eJq:ensi"e an;i it.' s ncr:. a profit. cen't:e 1-:.' s nard to rra.<:e a go of it " nus projec-:. focuses on t."'le '!"":.!C 'ola't.er lots adjace."t to t."le ~. .. lands 'This i:nplies o:."le need for ~lic ::-.mds to develop a 17ari:"..a , )-133 1l (b) M:lana Int.ernaeiol".al ?rooosal Magna's proposal (as per t.."1e Globe ar..ic1e) requires the lMld south of Un'ofin Avenue for oousing It. is ineereS'ting t.."1e "Iag:'la is saying thae t..":ere l".as eo be new housing as part of this ~posal in order to justiri funds to build t..":e factories t..'1a. t ...ould -\"'- ~ "" provide t.."e jobs a.'1d 1:he consequent hef':.y 1nc::eases in t."e city's assess::e."1t. base. . If this is true t..":en Alder:nan Dale Martin suggests t.'1a.t. the City industrial policy is no':. viable econcr.ti.cally \rithout SO':'.e way of intrOducing hig.":er level uses: i e housing If Alde::ran /o'.arti.n's conte."Xtion is tr.le t..":en t.":e City of Toronto's E:ccnc:mic Corporation - as descril:ed in t..":e July 12th, 1985 'Real Estat.e Ne.IS' CO'..1ld be a fizzle '..1nless part of the 100 acres of idle industrial la."1ds have allO"lallCes for housing A5 we understand it tile ...hole city object-ive is eo get these lands ineo prociucti ve i:".:iusuial use and discourage t.."e present a..ners fr:r.l oolding on or asiti.'1g 'specu.laeive prices L'1 to'''le oope the 1.:u'lC \rill evenwally be zoned resid~tial or ca:t:lercial (c) Lanc.s Kor-_"1 of Ul'"!'oIi.:'1 Avenl.:e 3et:...een L-aslie a."ld Cher=v St:~1:S Surely inCust:ial rede./elopnent should f=s on t..'1e area OO1.:.'1ded by La..'i<eshore, Um.ri.." A"/er.ue and Leslie a.'1d Che..--ry St:eet.s, rat..'1er t.."'lan on the Lake itse...f Tc al.i.o.w developT'.e.'1t. i e c::x:rnercial, resideneial, i:".dust,rial sout.."1 of l.::1IoIi.." Avenue seems extremely short. sighted inasfar as there are si<;r'.ificant. T:-iC and ot..":er privaeely held lands ....t-.ic." have l:een availa.:lle and vacan't. for years L"1 t.. ":e SaI7'.e Col.:."ced area as descriZed a.l:ove ~luc." of t.."e area l::ou."'lded by t.."e ship o..'1a1 is ccc1.:;lied by bulk Cist:i:uticn facili~es i e oil ~st.rib~~on, salt. storage ~c , 1oIh.:.c.'1 a:'i! no~ signifi::~m:. jcb generaeors l'fTnile t...~e ~'T~C3 of D-134 12 tranSportation by \oIllur :ray have been valid years ago - is t."Us still valid today? Eve.'1 if it. is, should t."lese storage and dis~~on ir.dusuies be located else..here in Met..-o ..mere indusU'ial land is ~ as sca:ss as in U1e City of Toronw? It. rray even Oe i:1 t."le City of Toronw's interest to S\Jl::sid12:s t."le difference in trar.spor-.ation oor..s i e rail versus water, i~ ,there are significant differences. 'This c::ould be justified en t.l'l8 grounds of t."le potential for lalxlur intensive industrial develosr..ent and the resultant taX assess::lent ac:::r.n.nc; to t:.e Ci:'t.y 'The focal point of this whole area is the ship canal ~'hile the ""est ends of the canal still sees a~..ive ccr.mercial ship activity the east end is used prir.,arily as a 'oIi.nter storage point or year ~urx1 lay IJ!? p::li.'1't. for inactive shit)s ....'hy could 'ole oot c:cnsider ~i.'"Ig this easterly area 0: the shi? canal for rrarina a.'"Id s;:oall beat ship puI'?OSes in U1e longer ter::l. Prior to prog=essing- this toO far, a study should be requested fran t."le 'ISC as to t."le feasilJJ.lity of storing over winter 'ocats elseNhere i e r:ain ha.r:X>ur and/or t."le wes" e.'1d 0:: t."le existing ship car.al Asses---t of Phase I Plan (al Dredoeate Disoosal nus is probably t."le r:cs" ~na:"..ic from a purely operational :=:oi:r~ of vi ew~ i e 1.'"1 t.erms of line haul ti.':1e t.o/from o:,i gi. '"1/ designation This I C'.,xt::.in; t of the s?it. a~~~"l in t."le longer ter::l could lead to an irresis~le u..--ge t.o use ce.i.ls O:'le,- eo..o, t.'"'.:ee as "ccating refuges I" \ooCIuld be a logical ex-:e."lSion 0:: t."le "ccat. :n:orinc;sl facili~es already OCC"..:.rt'ing L"l ec:'.ban~en-:. 'C' ::; t \ooCIUld also pre-d~e:;:tine all t."le >.:se of :his area , )-135 13 In order to )(~ . devel~1:. options' open. t.."le longer r~rou1:.8 ~ the headland into cell three and I:eycn:1 should be considered . If all 'cells' are even1:.ually e.'1visioned as :cat !!'COring point.!, hew wculd you propose to e:'lSure (1) int.egri1:.y of t.lote ESA areas and (2) the wishes of Council to ban llCtorized vehicles beyond Leslie/ Ur1lolin Avenue'? (b) Me1:.ro Se..<aoe Treat."TIe.'1t Plant (Y5TP) ?rooe!"':V OU1er t."lan the need to ex-..,.atld this pla.nt and t."le oonseqJent t.a."<ing of t."le MI'RC\ lands there a~s as if no thought has bee.'1 9i ven to the ~egration of appropria1:.e pa.ns of the MS'I'P pro~y for par:dD; arr./or re-::reational ~ses including boa~ launc.....es. m::oring spaces eee. At a r..:ini."TUlI parJd..'1g for A..--quatic Park should be oonsidered here At present there is a lot of lawn. Reasons fur ~ being al:ile to do t. "lis i e jurisdi~ions . should be spell ed 01..'"1:. for furt.....e::- puI:llic ca.t:lent (e) T~~itior~l Zo~e The t.ra.-.si tional zone is a e."tcel1 en"t idea 1:.0 ensure -:-.i.r'..iJ:1.rn deg:'eda.tion of t.."le EnviroMlel':-=a.l.ly Sensitive Area (ES;") \c) SOa~'1q Facilities ;.s S.....00In in figure 4 4 0: t.."le Phase I repen. only alt.ernative #2 (t.ot.al recreation) allOolS t."le biggest .....eight for shon/long t.er::: regional :eating needs Ideally, :'at..~er t."lan r.avir.g t:.e prcp:sed TS: J'!"arL-'J.a where presently pla.'"'_'1ed , and in the longer t.et'!ll c:-ea t.L'1g boa e-r.g pressure fOr cells one, two, t."1r~, c::lnsideraton should 00 given t.o I , D-136 14 (1) sit.uat.ing to. "e proposed '!He marina 9!. ~lic facilit.y out f~ the :'lOr":." s."ore, \o/est of t..'1.e exist.ing 'tria.rlgle'; (2) develop conventional rec:eationAl/tcating fac:ili~ies ~ of Unwin Avenue be~..E!'"J\ Leslie and Cherry StreetS at'.d (3 ) davelopnent of shi;:s/r:arina t.ype operat.ions at. t..'1.e ~ end of the existing ship canal; i e be':ween Lakeshore and t:r:wi.n Avenue (e) Rec:::eat.iol"'.al Der.a."\1 Analvsis It. 1otOUld appear as if wat.erfront rlY'..rea~iol"'.al de!'and could be croken down int.O a =nr.~r of mar~e<:. seg:ne:'lts A partial list.ing - it. is ~ r.-eant to 'oe all inclusive - is as fo.l.l0W5 1 On ...clt.er - surf sailing or sai.l~-inS - dingy sailin; (inexpe."1Si 'Ie) - large b.:lat. sailing (expensive) - sr.a11 :rot.o: boat. (inexpe."'lSive) - llCt.Ot' yac.'1.ts (exz;ensi ve) - fishi.,C; - swir.ming 2 On land - w~ - biking - nm."\i.,g - pid<nicking - .3por-....s e 9 baseball - envirorunen-:al (nat.u.~list. ac-..ivities) - for:=al garde.'1S - attractior.s i e Cer:t.:e Island , 0-137 15 nte Phase 1 :eport. dealt explicitly only with boating and sailing as per the reference w the 1984 recreational 'o:ating stud'1 \.JFdate IooIhich had been o:r.missioned 'cy the Ml'RCP.. What IoCUld be interesting and could be of i.~se help i.., deo:ision rraking fran all perspeco::; YeS ...ould be a study detailing: 1. nte t.'leoretical derand for all ac:-...ivities on t.'le MetrO 'ooICtterfront. 2 nte i.~rtance of values (attributes and factors) rar,x ordered. 3 nte correletio:ls between t.'le marke<: s~ts and the dem:::gra;Xlics of t."e ~..ro population par:.icularly as it. relates to income levels In addition the Phase I re~rt. should include a invenwr"l of all facilities/land area (private and public) a~~ilable now along the '1et...--o .....ater==~nt by market se;;r.e.."1t a."'ld/or interest 9rou;l '!'his inventory then should l:e anal~ed by o::r:;:.ari."1g existing demand by seg::-.e."1t or activity ( . ~ availacle) a.....d/or by market :esearch :1._ tecl-..-.iques w deter.:-.i."'le d~and. The obj~ive, of course, is to assess whet."ler eac."l group has it's fair share While t."e sailillg c::r.m.mi ty, according to The TOr::lnt:l Star articJ,.e dat.ed Ju."1e 16, 1985, is a."1 ex-,..a.ndi."'lg one, t..'le plan."1i.."1g exercise sl,ould identi=i within t..'le "1e~""O .....ater:ront area jus~ ho.I well serviced t.."lis ~ket segment is (both private and public) relat.ive w ot.."ler market s~ents In ad~ition is the:e a point at which public invest....rent in terTS of leasing of public la:1ds for rrarina' 5 and yac."t facilities is disfunC':.iol".al and dispr::lpor-...io.'1ate with :~spec-; to t......e d~a::hics a.....d ec:-..al .-:ecreatio.-.al needs of t.'1e Metro populaticn: , D-138 16 In this overall context. is our desire to see ' spit' area as defined in this report out of line This in our opinion has yete. to be proven. p~ tJ C rs.t~ (c-""\ 1),<.....- B.I'. Bertie H Mac.l<ey Econor.ist Biologist July 31, 1985 , D-139 !" .Arm OEl.r.rr:.:u:!: Auquse ot~, 1985 Mr w A. McLean, Chair.llan , Aequatic Park Planning Task :orce, c/o Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation ~u~~ority, 5 Shoreham Orive, North York, Ontario Dear Mr. McLean Further eo our submission of July 31se, we wish ~o clarify part of our position. IrresPective o~ ~~e ultimate land use designation for ~~e THC lands sou:~ of unwin Avenue, the phase I report has not yet addressed the question of the 'Spi~' area as part of a total Metro waterfront aquatic park (between the boundaries of Metro, including the Toronto Islands, Harbour Frone, Ontario Place, Ashridges Bay, Beaches, Bluffer's Parks, Exhibition Park e:c ) We feel ~~at the crieeria for exacining the 'Spit' area should reflect the fact that ~~e existing Metro waterfront acquatic park areas are now se~ented by multi-use principles Wi ~~in this 'park' planning definition it has yet to be proven by your committee that leaving the 'spit' completely alone, i e an enduring na~ral resource area, would not be an appropriate balance within the existing multi-use area desiqna~ions in the overall Metro ac~~atic park sche:ne !oIore '~arket research' in this area as s~ggested on page 14 of our submission under 'Recrea:ional Demar.d ~~alysis' is required. I~ is not enough jus~ to look at boating da~and by itself The final 'Fhase l' report, in our opinion, should address ex?lieitely t~e concept of ~l"e 'Spit' as an enduring natural wilderness area within the existing Metro ac~~atic park systa~ The May, 1984 'Information Pau.phlet' has provision for a public ~eeting prior to cccmence:nent of the Phase 11 planning (Fig 44) ?2:'esUl:\a.bly, ~'1is ::leeeine; will allow ::lembers of ~'e public the oppore~nity to question the co~ittee as to their reasoning for chosing or not chosing to include the sugqes~icns brought for.rard by ~":e public at this t:':':Ie, -if app=o~riate analysis is no: included in ~'1e proposed fi..al draft of t~e Phase 1 report we .ook =or~ard to ~~is ceeting and urge that it be sc~e=~led af~e~ ~'e SU::lOer holiday period - perhaps in Sepeember Hopefully, the responses received eo the P,ase 1 plan ~ill be automat_cally cistributed to all ':he respondenes along with an" :::inuted decis_ons ::lade by your c=ittee prior to ~l"e ne.,<t publiC ::leetit'.g Yours trolly, f)t f5 tL R t I) t /)-- ....,p H Mackey B ;C. 3e:-':ie , c c Chai~an, M~nicipal_ty of ~etro ~oronto ~la~ni~q C~issi:ner, Ci ~y 0: ':'0=0:".-:0 Mayor, City of Toronto C=issioner, ?a:ks S ~ec~eaticn, Alderman, ~ard Eight ~ec:o ':"o:::o:'1~o MPP, aeaches - Woodbine chair:::an, Toronto Harbour Cc~ission D-140 50 ':iaverley Rd Toronto. M4L JTl August 5. 1985 ~lr. Larry ?ield ~~ger. dater ~anagement Section. Metro Toronto & Region Conservation Authority. 5 Shorehal:l Or.. i:lownsview. MJN 154- Dea:, Sir: Rei Phase 1. Aouatic Park ~~ster Plan I write to express my s~rong support for Option 1. Option J achieves a higher pseudo-n~erical rating only on the basis of subjective assessments of arbitrary criteria. In fact. Option "J attempts to combine incompatible uses which will ulticately :,esult in the ~enviro~entally sensitive~ area being destroyed. The suggestion that it is tair to mix uses in Aquatic Park results from a myopic focus on that one area in isolat- ion. If one takes the enti:,e waterf:,ont into acco~~t. one c~~ see that there is already suostantial provision for other uses inclUding boating, while there is no provision at all for fostering the natural ecology and compatible passive recreat- ion. To designate the entire Aquatic Park tor that purpose would redress the oalance somewhat ~~d is there!ore the only fair thing to co. rr.oreove r. it is clearly wr~t most people want. notwith- standing an aggressive lobby by boaters who apparently believe tha~ no one has rights except them. In any case, provision for additional boatL~g facilities can be made elsewhere on the waterfront without encroachi.~g on this envirot"..::llentally sen- sitive area Yours ~lY, lf0-j h~ .L K 3ryden ~ - - -,.. ;f'''-- n ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ \j ~-,.. ... .., ._! "" '-"!'.A! . . ~w n", .... .. ~ n '! f r't (, H.. I .. 1 ~ c.r. ,...~. , 0-141 0 ...: ~ i"~ ~T'=~ ..~~.. r \ ~ ! =OC~A :. 0 SC~~'- WI ;'0 cz:::. = .~, .:O.:S'TI'r....I!:..Cy .,~r,Cl l.,E'j:~;....;.":"':...i:: SUit..:' ...S ....... ...":l'.rl" :'1 I 'J OA,..,....O~TJo1 A "1:' :..;:t -C;:'C::'!': C T..l..IQ ...~...J" ...;: - ':'e~Q~T'o. ON;.;"P:O ."'AI; ..13 :'tj!i:.."'.e L.=<3ISl..A71Vi: ASScMSL.Y ..1.:1 1110 MARION SRYOEN, M.P.? 9EACHES.WCOOBINE Augus t 8, 1985 ~l" Larry Field, i'~anager , Wa tel'" :I,anagement Section, Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, DomlS',ie'll, Ontario r.15N 1 S4 Dear t'!r. Fieid Re Aquatic Park Master Plan ?ha~e I I am writing you for two purposes (1) I want :0 express my streng support for Option One proposed in the Aquatic Park ~astel" Pla~, Phase I l"e~Ol"t cated May, 19B5 Option One proposes that the entire Ou:er Harbour Headland, othernise kno~m as the Leslie St Spit or To~y Thompson Park. be designated as a "iiatul"'al Resource .<l.rea" I~ my opinic~ Option One is the oniy option compatible with the preservation af the unique character af "t~e spit" as an urban nildar-ess and an env;ro~mentally significant area .t is the oniy opticn co~.s~ible ~ith ~rotection of the spit's ecological uniqueness and maintenance of opport~nities for st~dy and i,terpretaticn of natural processes in t:'e ,.Ietro Toronto area It is the only optic~ compatible with cevelopment of the spit as a vlorld C lass tourist attraction (2) I want to protest the significant deoa.t~resfrcm the public participation process outli~ed in a ficw chart in the first "Information Palioohlet" issued in r'1a'l 1;84 by the 'I,etro Toronto and Region Cons~rvaticn Authority ire authority had been gilen the responsibility fcr co-ordinat n; recreation planning in the Centr! 1 !Ja terf',-ol'lt -\r'ea by the 11i n; s tr/ of Natura 1 ~escurces 1 ~ 1973 Part of ~~~ mandate included a stipulation "to involla l:c!l c1:izen grcup~ ir1 ceveiop ng :he ':lar. " I , In i983 the ~uthorit) set u~ an Acquatic =~r~ ?lanning Task Force ~ade ~~ ant~~elj cf government officials f~o~ yarious levels and re?t'esentat;'1e~ of agencies such as the Teronto Har:our CCr,';;lission At :s first major Dubli: m~eting on June .2, 1924, attended ~y close :c 300 ~;rsons, the Chairman cO: the iask ::'O!"'::, -ir ..I A i'!cLean (then Deou:v Genera 1 ;'~ar,3g:!r of i.1T R/.:...../ verba 11/ ::r.fi r~ed the ~t:~ 1 i c participa:ion orocess n the i.1ay, 1984 ~fo~ation ?a~prlet It ../as also Jr1nt.d word for word in a flow char~ n the 1985 ~hase ! t..c~a:' c r~i..< "'~st;r ~iln r:?ort 'fol1o'.tir'; , . , ./"1i c;, : tl.o:~ siJhjer- ~ ) ,:': :~lS ~~.. ~S:"" cor::ir,;;~d 0-142 - 2 - However the Task Force at a meeting on June 5, 1985 has torpedoed the whole public input process by adopting a "revised study schedule" which wipes out two crucial public meetings in Phase I and Phase III and reduces all further public input on Phase r to a letter writing campaign in the vacation month of July Moreover the Task Force has speeded up the whole planning process so that a final choice on one of the three zoning options proposed in the Phase I report may be made as early as September 6 at a Task Force meeting not designed ~r advertised as a full public meeting The revised schedule envisages co~p1etion of the Master Plan by early January with very little opportunity for public input in the various stages. The ihree Options in the Phase r Report rne Phase I report is a very comprehensive 91 page documen.t whiCh brings together a let of useful information on the history. geography and ecology of the spit It also documents current and proposed uses It proposes three zoning options 1 Natural Resource - entire spit 2. Recreation - entire spit 3 Division of the spit into 3 zones--natura1 resourc~ recreation and. long term development. plus a possible transitlon zone between 1 and 2. In the introduction the report sets the framework for the p1ann ng process It states (p 3) that planning for the spit must be "based on a recognition of the unique character of the spit--a character determined by its location on the waterfront and by the complex natural processes which have shaped and embellished it since the first loads of fill and dredgeate were placed" On page 1 the report notes that "natural succession has produced an environmentally significant area with a wealth of flora, some nationally and/or regionally rare, and one of the largest nesting colonies of ring-billed gulls in the world It The report also docur.1ents that the spit is "now considered an area of importance for migratory bird protection It It states that local scientists value the spit as an ecological "demonstration of successi~n and 0" habitat diversit::" and fee 1 tha: II :.n" arae scale dev~10:ment n t~e areas of interest will reduc2 the educ3:io~a1 and sc ent :ic la i 'je .,f ~he s i ~e 11\ ~ 20) 7he report notes that the Ministry of ~acural Resourc2s ~as identif'ed . the Lake Ontario shoreline as an imOort3nt 'wetl:.nd' resource a"ea ihe j'!inistrJ' considers "'lIet1and habitat '11ore iiCportant th,an val ey lands and upland hab tat because it is -~e least plentifur and ~ost p roduc t i 'I e .. (p ,-, ~I ) Continued )-143 - 3 - The report further notes that part of the ~inistry's mandate is tQ provide wilderness experiences to the population of Ontario It is also committed to protecting endangered species, providing educational programs and attracting tourists (pp 46-7) The continued development of a natural wiid~rness on the entire spit would meet all these considerations and produce a world class tourist attraction at the same time rlo ottter option would That is why I supoort Oction One and r~ject Options Two and Thr~e In my oplnion optlons 2 and 3 are lncompat101e wlth the oojectlves quoted above by the .4.uthority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. I would like to point out that Option One is the only option supported by a large majority of the 160 deputants wno spoke or submitted briefs to the only public meeting held by the Task Force to date (June 18, 1984) Many of my constituents in the Beaches-Woodbine riding,which is close to th~ spit, favour this option It also has wide support from people all across Metro who enjoy its opportunities for hi king, cycling, jogging, natural history study and quiet relaxation in a car-free area Many of my constituents and Metro residents also enjoy recreational boating and sail ing There is no doubt that extra "ooting spaces are needed Also needed are more support facilities sucn as boat building,repair and maintenance industries, food services. sailing instruction, club houses. boat launChing and winter storage I want the Central Waterfront to serve ail these people But I seriously question application of the multiple use concept to a unique and sensitive area such as the spit The entire waterfront must be included in the planning to meet these needs Specialization is desirable to develop those activities best suited to each geographic area on the Central Waterfront The Limited ?lannino Study Area Unf:rtunately the limited planning study area given to the Task Force put ~linkers on th~ir eyes Ahen they were faced with eemands for ~ultiple uses for waterfront lane and water, rhey had ~o place to cens der co ~eet trese :er:.ands except on the "arr:'" anc unique ~~ece of land covered by t~eir mandate 7here ~s a mao ~n the Nav 1984 lnf:r~~ticn 'amohlet wh~chrdel n~ates the "~uatic ?~rk Plannin~ Area and the ~~uat~c Park Maste~ Plan Ar~a Tnis map is re~eated in the May, 1ge5 Phase I report ihe princi~al difference be~~een the Z areas is that the Master Plan area is limited to th~ spit alone None of the waterfront 1 ands on the north side of the Outer Harbour are included Nor is the triangle of land at the base of the Spit south of Un~I;n Avenue nor the ~etro sewage ~lant lands and land north of Unwin Sontinued 0-144 - 4 - No justification is given in the report for limiting the Master Plan to the spit only In its terms of reference the Task Force was called on "to COllll!ent on the adequacy of the study area in light of the interests and positions of their respective ~unicipalities/asencies" As far as I know this was never done: Certainly the limite~ coverage of the planning process was never drawn to the public's attention by Task Force members at the public meetings As a result they ignored the possibility of meeting many of the needs on other parts of the Central Waterfront I wonder if the iask Force would have even considered options ~~o and three if they had been planning for the whole area ihe Task Force also seems to have had a narrow view of its mandate. Larry Field, a membe~. is reported in the May 3, 1984 minutes as saying that "MTRCA will not plan for uses on the -cronto Harbour Commission lands" I thought the whole idea of developing a ~aster Plan for the future of the spit and appoint~ent ofa Task Force with representatives from all levels of government and all agencies concerned with the Central Waterfront was to bring together all the players and work out with them sensi~le use plans for the whole area When the Ministry of Natural Resources delegated this planning function to the MTRCA it gave them a mandate to co-ordinate recreation planning in the Central Waterfront Area (Information P!mphlet May, 1984), not just to plan for the lands under its control In the Phase I report the Authority states that one of its Objectives is to increase the diversity of recreational opportunities offered on waterfront lands (p 29) In my ooinion the limitation of the study area to the spit a:one is a fundamental flaw in the Phase r report I think the Authority needs to back up and reconsider its study area The Evaluation Process Another serious f1aw in the Fhase I report is the option evaluation sJstem Its weakness stems from the fact th:t the goals and Objectives which are used as ~valuation criteria were never circulated to tne public for comment or debated at a ~ubiic ~eet~n; 7he copy i re-:ei'led ~n reql..es: is part -:;.: ~ _~c;,;rnent entit'ed "'~aster Planning Zones--Prel iminary Report - i)eca!7'~er i. B8li " A.quatic Park goals and objectives are the l:st tdO pa;es cf -~e 7 page report en the MTRCA Watershed Plan The goals and cbiec:ives orinted in the ~~ase r report (~p 2i-~O~ ire al~ost identical :0 t~ase ~xcept fer the addition of a ref~rence to preserving the en ironmentally significant area of the site Ccn"inued 0-145 - - 5 - While I agree with many of the goals and objectives, they have not been reviewed by the public and are not therefore a valid set of criteria for evaluating the options Some of tnem a~pear to have been designed to produce an evaluation in favour of Option 3 which is the Authority's recormlenda t\i on For example goal 4 is "to develop a plan for Aquatic Park which is cognizant of the policies and development proposals within the planning area " That recognizes the blinkers I have just discussed due to the narrow planning area Moreover the goals are subject to various interpretations and wit~out a public meeting on them, there can be differences of opinion on whether they are met by t~e various options For example, the report interprets the goal of meeting regional recreation needs as a justification for filling the spit with every conceivable kind of active and passive recreation and related commercial activities As a result Options 2 and 3 get a big ~ark fer meeting this goal while Option 1 draws a blank What about the need for regional access to a unique urban wilderness available to all the residents of Metro Toronto and Southern Ontario? Options 2 and 3 destroy that access by taking over most of the spit and forcing users of the remaining natural resource area to hike, bicycle and ride through about three kilcmetres of parking lots, marinas, beat clubs, co~ercial and industrial activities and active sports facilities in order to get to the natural resource area Incidentally the Phase I report exaggerates the amount of natural resource area left under Option 3 by ignoring the proposed transition zene On p 85 the report says that over 50~ of the site,excluding the Long Tenn Development Zone,will be committed to "natural resource" This is more likely to be about 1/3 if the Transition Zone goes iO,as the natural resource 40ne it will lose all of peninsula D and part of embayment C In. addition part of the. environmentally significant area would ce in the Transition Zone While the report says the boundaries are not finalized, neither has any clear indication been given as to ~hat will be allowed in the transition zone The flawed evaluation system comes up with a chart after p 35 which gives the highest score ~o Option 3, second to Option 1 and third to Option 2 However I feel that Option 1 would score much higher if the criteria were interpreted differently ~hy, for example does Gption 2 get a higher rating than Jption 1 for a centre for education research Surely the nat~ral reso~r~e area has ~uch grea~er potent al for an inter~retive and research centre I also r~te that the Phase I report c:~~lete1y ignores the City of i~r:ntc'5 policy calling for car-free access on the entire spit r~,that was taken into considerat~on, the criteria of conformity to goal 4,--zoning policies and development proposals--wou1c surely give Opticn 1 a big score and downgrade Option 2 and 3 depending on the extent or car access envisaged for them but not indicated in the Plan Continued 0-146 .6. Giving Option 3 a big mark for flexibility of future U2S in the Long Term , Oevelopment Area is another gratuit ous bo.os: to this Option Since no one knows what the future use of the Long Term Development area will be---and it will not be known for at least 10 years--it is dif~icult to know whether it wiil fit in with wall.to-wall commercial and recrea~'onal activities or with further development of the natural resource ~rea By setting up an evaluation system the Autho~ity is trying to give an aura of scientific independence to its choice of 0ption 3 All it does is discredit the whole evaluation by ques~ionable interpretations of the c~iteria I therefore suggest that no weight be given to such a flawed evaluation system The Task Force must go back to sc~are one on this and involve the public in developing a proper evaluatior system Departures from Original Public Participation Plan and InadeQuate Notification of Interested ?a~ties As I menti oned earl i er, the May, 1985 Phase i j'laster PI an report repri nts the "study approach" planning flow chart which 'lias in the first Information Pamphlet issued in May, 1964 r have learne: from the minutes of the June 5, 1985 Task Force meeting that the whole publiC participation plan was revised at that meeting Two crucial public meetings have been eliminated in Phase I and Phase ! II A speed-up has been instituted in the schedule for :Jreparat~:Jn of the :'!aster Plan so that there will be 1 ittle opportunity for publ ic input at any stage The short time frame for each phase will make it impossible for interest groups to obtain and circulate copies of reports, consult their member~ study proposals and put in alternative suggestions It will also mare it difficJlt for interested municipal corporations and gcverr.ment cepartments to react to the proposals Unless considerable advertising or ~ailings are done, concerned individuals may not even find out about the proposals until the time has passed for study and comment The revised study schedule calls for a meeting of the Task Force on September 6 tn the busy week after Labour ~al to choose one of the three options-- a crucial d~cision The only ~~c'ic input they wili have to guice them are the letters sent in ~y those who Jt:~ined a Fhase ~ report anc sent in written comments prior to August ~. C.- ".~~ ~S 1 mentioned earlier, the Sepr.=~oer 6 T:; ~crc~ ~:=~;ng is ~o~ casi~~a: cr advertised ~s a ~ublic meeting ~otic=s Jf Task Ferce meetings go ~11y to rcel"i:Jers of the Task F':Jrce and a small iis- :f pe':Jp1e .'Iho ha e si;nec a list t'O be notified Since :nost mee tings are in the cay time en ..eekdaJs and held at r'1TRC" prem~ses on Shoreham Ori Ie in Downsv ew, ''fe~1 halie si.;ne~ The public's partici~ation in the choice jf )ptions has been greatly in1ioi:ec by the substitution of information meetings in June, 1985 for the promised ~hase I pUblic meeting The information ~e=:irgs Here inadequately advertised under the heading "Notice of P~b ic Information Centres ("Aquatic Park")--Tommy Thompson Park" whic!" c:uld onl! lead t~ confusion as to the nature or subject of the meeting The ads also were limited to one insertion in the Sunday Star (J~ne 16) and one in the G1:be and '.la i 1 (June 17) ~o ad was placed in the -':Jr:n:'O Sun or daily Star ~'eetin9 hours were also very limited with 'IHY few evening hours The C)n~inued )-147 - 7 - ti~es were 2 to 7 p m on June 24, 2 to 5 p m June 25 and 3 30-8 30 P m June 27 ihey were all held at City Hall Only 32 people signed an atte~dance sheet covering the three days, which indica~es what a poor substitute they were for an adequately publicized public meeting I am told that noti'ces about the June information meetings were mailed to people who attended the June la, 1984 public meeting and signed a list or made a submission rnis was not true in my case even though I had done both Apparently politicians were put in a separate category and not included n the mail ing I would have thought that all Metro politicians at all levels of government would have been notified so that they could pass the word to their constituents and perhaps put the meeting notices in the window of their constituency offices Local municipalities in the area who are not represented on the Task Force might also want time to prepare a response Distribution of the text of the r~ster Plan Phase I also left much to be desired if real public participation was sought Copies were not automatically sent to all the deputants at the June i8. 1954 public meeting. Instead they were informed in the Information Centre ads and notices that they could obtain a copy of the report summary by contacting Mr. Larry Field, Manager, Water Management Section of MTRCA at 5 5horeham Drive, Downsview. Ontario. M3N 1S4 telephone. 661-6600 and that written comments were requested by July 31. 1983 ihe summary did not include appendices which contained much valuable material 50 the general public was given about 5 weeks in the middle cf the summer to obtain a copy. study a 91 page report and prepare written comments Interest groups would find it impossible to consult with their members in this time frame. especially in the sumrr.er ihe nine day extension granted after r called the Task Force officials at the end of July was laugha~le and was only publicized in a three inch story in one newspaper, to my knowledge Even more detrimental to the planning process 'lias the lack of any o~~ortunity for the publiC to discuss the A~uatic Park Goals and Objectives presented to the Task Force on December 13. lS84 As far as I knew these Goa1s and Objectives were never circulated to the publiC even though they became the basis for the Task Force's evaluation of the three options presented in the Phase 1 Master Plan Re~ort May I remind you of the statement on the planning ~rocess in the first Information Pamphlet issued by the Task Force in May. 1984 I t says "The process will also provide oppor~unity fer a complete publiC consultation ~roc=ss through publiC ~eet ngs andior open houses, as :el i as contact with a bread range of nte!'"~st crcuos and liaison with the Provincial Gover~m~nt " ! am very disaopointed that this ccmmit~ent is not being,~onoured r hope that the Task Force will re-ccnsider i~s ~ublic particioation orogra~ and get back to the planning traditions that have played a significant role in the development of the City of Teronto in the past Cont nued 0-148 - a - Recommendations (1) An Enlarged Planning Area and New Directions for the Task Force In order to fulfil its mandate from the province to co-ordinate the planning of all the govern~ent bodies and ager.~ies concerned with the~ntral Waterfront. the MTRCA and its Task Force must do more than plan only for the lands under its jurisdiction It must therefore enlarge the Aquatic Park t.laster Plan study area to cover the full Aquatic Park Planning Area as shown on the maps in the Inforrr~t~on Pamphlet and the ?~ase I report Only then can it consider the use of alternative sites on the Central Waterfront Only then can it meet the diverse needs of the various interested groups and sele~t the land best suited to meet each need. The different bodies reoresented on the Task rorce have control over the entire waterfront and are there~, in.a position to undertake this kind of joint planning In my opinion it is the jCb of the iask rOr:2 to work out joint plans with all the players to meet the waterfront needs fer more marinas, sailing clubhouses, commercial and industrial racilities ser/icing boating, active recreation and the general public It is not necessary to destroy a unicue natural resource to provide these facilities On the mainl~nd they can have the space, transportation access and reiated facilities needed if undeveloped lanes are looked at I realize that this co-ordinated planning cannot succeed without the co-operation 0 the Toronto ~arbcur Co~~ission which is represented on the Task Force I think it is high time that the THC recognized that it is a public agency set up under federal legislation to 100k after the publiC interest in the Toronto Harbour That includes the interes:s of the thousands or people who want to u~e it for recreation, boating and sailing, not just the interests of shipowners or land developers Instead of helping the saili~g clu~s t, ~et tne facilities and space they need, the Toronto Haroour Com7.ission is coing the opposite It is refusing to renew 1ease~ c~ the ncr~h shore of the Outer Harbour or extending them for :n1, one 'Jr :\-10 years It is te11ing them to look :0 the spit fer i~:ce,~hich s one reason why the Task roree is being celJgad i-h reouests from sailing cluos for moorinss and club house land ihe Harcoor C~~ission is ai~o planning to add 1,200 cc~~ercial ffiarina spaces of its own to the spit (with attencant park ng and boat iervicing facilities) !t has lots ofsp"ce en its o',~n lands elsewhere to use for such a develooment,partic~lariy in view of the lack of interest in its indust~jal park lands -'is ,'~agna combined residentiai ana commerciai development lat~l, pro~osed for Toronto Harbour Col1it:lissior. land:; is still onl'1 a a1eam in someone 's e Ie "nd cou 1 d be 1 :lea ted e i se\Vhere - Con t i nued )-149 - 9 - Besides there is plenty of industrial land available in other parts of Metro for developments which do not require water access The Harbour Commission must consider using its industrial development lands for meeting recreation needs. the Task Force must also look at other undeveloped or under-used lands in the waterfront area, especially those north of Unwin between ~es1ie St and Cherry St !f the Harbour Commission incurs anditiona1 costs to carry out its legitimate role in providing recreational services in both the Inner and Outer Harbour and adjatent lands, it should be able to look to the federal, provincial and local governments and agencies to provide additional funds It should not have to sell off valuable lands to developers to cover its deficits (2) RestoratiO"lof a Full Public Participation Process Since the decisions affecting the Central Waterfront and the spit will have long term implications. it is absolutely essential that MTRCA and its Task Force revert to a full publiC planning process. This must include a public meeting to consider the g~als and o~jectives which will be used to evaluate any ~roposa1s that are made in a new Master Plan for the total ~quatic Park Planning Area The evaluations must also be subject to public review !n addition there must be full public meetings on all phases of the t~aster P1 an preparation Information Centres with write.in <::Ofl".ments are not sufficient. There must be adequate public advertising and adequate advance notice of the pUblic meetings and information centres All persons who appeared as deputants or submitted briefs to previous public meetings or signed lists at information and Task Force meetings must be notified by mail or such meetings The Task Force might consider publisning a monthly newsletter on planning activities to keep the public informeo and alert them to the schedule of future meetings While these proposals may lengthen the planning process, the importance of the decisions for the future of our waterfront and for meeting recreational needs in the growing ~etro region justi ri es the stretchi ng out The ec~logical. environmental and transportation importance ~f t~e area also warrants involving the provincial ministries concerned so that ~hey can jibe their ~lans with t~e Task ~crce's Mas~er Plan The Minis:ries must be encouraged to take a more active ro'~ 1n the planning ihey should also be approached, alcng with the federal government, as a source of additional funcing for development o. the full potential of the Central Waterfront Yours sincerely, ~ ~ ~ - 1~!iaifb :~a ri on Sryce , I'"P? eeaches-Wcodbine ~ew Democratic Party O?S;:'J 593 0-150 SUMMARY OJ!' ASSOCIATION COMMENTS , )-151 THE TEXTS OF ~ETTERS R~CEIVtD FROM THE FO~~OWI~G ~SSOCIATIO~S ^RE ^PPENDEO. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto ^ugust 2, 1985 The Zaderation of Ontario Naturalists ^U;ust 12, 1985 Friends of the Spit July 22, 1985 Conservation Group, Department of Botany, University of Toronto July 22, 1985 Sierra Club of Ontario July la, 1985 Beac~ers Marathon Runners Association June 25, 1985 Toronto Field Naturalists July 23, .1985 Toronto Windsur~ing Club July 31, 1995 Ontario Sailing Association August 16, 1985 Toronto Multihull Cruising Club Ju'ly 31, 1985 The Toronto Outer Harbour Sailing cederation July 29, 1985 Mooredale Sailing Club July 30, 1985 ^quatic Park Sailing Club Received July 29, 1985 , ~ THE BOARD e to ( 0-152 rn ~!r~I~~~.TO tJ 1845 M. IOJ III . ~ FIRST CoUlADIAll PUtt. TORONTO. OIIT.\$IIO liD 1C1 TtL. J6i.6&11 July 29. 1985 fPl ~ @!Ell 'iff IE lDJ .~ AUG 2 1985 ;. ~ . 1 M. T. R. c. A. Mr. Larry Field - Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conse~'ation Authority 5 Shoreham Dri~e North York, Ontario M3N lS4 . Dear Mr. Field: The Board of Trade commends The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for its report, Phase I Aauatic Park Master Plan. The Board supports the ~1TRCA's zoning recommendations for the Leslie Street Spit/Aquatic Park, or Tommy Thompson Park, as it is now . known. We endorse your proposed zoning of the Master Plan Area into three distinct zones. The Natural Resource Zone on the southern portion of the spit creates a wilderness in the city, and serves the needs of the many wa Hers, joggers, cvcl i sts, and bi rdwatchers who frequent the area. Your proposed zoning permits and encourages recreation on the northern part of the spit, and this area could be used, in part, for marinas and community sailing clubs, thereby helping to meet the growing demand for mooring space in the Toronto area. The proposed Transitional Area, between the Natural Resource Zone in the southwest, and the Recreation Zone in the north, provides an appropriate buffer area where such uses as an educational facility might be located. The Board also agrees with the designation and location of a third zone, the Long Term Development Zone, consisting of most of the endikement and Cells 2 and 3, which will be used for lang-term dredgeate disposal. This area can continue to receive fill while the other two zones are made available to the puolic. Such zoning permits a variety of uses, serves the needs of a number of interested parties, and minimizes the possibility of friction between incompatible uses. .. . /2 ~7 )-153 CD e Mr. Larry Fi el d Ju ly 29, 1985 Page 2 As for the questi on of auto access on to the spit, The Boa rd bel i eves that it is imperative to penni t it for the proposed boati ng facilities. The Board also believes that pennitting vehicles in the Recreation Zone will not only make that area a more convenient place to visit, but will also make it more attractive for many people wishing to visit the 3 kilornetre long natural habitat to the south. The Board can see no major negative impact on the natural habitat area by pennitting auto access and parking within the boundaries of the Recreation Zone on the northern part of the spit. . . In conclusion, The Board of Trade fully supports the p'annin~ zones recommended for Tommy Thompson Park by the MTRCA. Respectfully submitted, #4~ W.S. Campbell Vice-President ~ l W.G. Ralph Assistant General Manager and Secreta ry , 0-154 The Federation of Ontario Naturalists FON Conservation Centre, Moatfield Park 355 Lesmill Road, Oon Mills, Ontario, M3B 2W8 Phone: (416) 444-8419 Augus t 12, 1985 Mr. La r ry Fie 1 d Manager Water Management Section MTRCA . 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 Dear Mr. Field: The Federation of Ontario Naturalists urges the MTRCA to consider those options which will ensure the highest level of habitat protection on the I'spit". The Leslie Street Spit importance and natural values are out of all proportion to the actual resources contained because of its proximity to the City The Spit is a tremendous resource in its present state providing important bird habitat and a unique resource for en~ironmental education virtually at our doorstep. If development cannot be avoided, the scale should be modest and not impinge on the Spit, but be located only at its base. Sin ce re I y , ~~b- 001'1 Huff Staff Environmentalist I CHime ~ ce. Friends of the Spit I T"'"\ '""" (-l'.: ~., J1?"' f" /-" . t:. : t;:o 'i 'V ~... U :": 1 ~. ..-.:I' ~ AUG 14 lro5 -a -- f1 C 1\ "\ '" ~ ",' tii';J1t 1_01'.1: "liMa -- - - 0-155 RECEIVED Friends of the Spit JUL 25 1985 M. T.R.C.A. - EQ Box 467, Station J Toronto, Ontario l'.14J 422 July 22, 1985 Mr. L. Field, M.C.I.P. Manager, 'Water Management Section The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 Re: Phase I, Aquatic Park Master Plan, Master Planning Zones Dear Mr. Fi!!ld, Friends of The Spit wish to go on record as being in opposition to the Phase I recommendation for 1I0ption 3" as the recommended &ster Planning Zone. As you knew, Friends of The Spit represents over 1200 members, and countless others, who enjoy the Spit as a car-free natural wilderness area in close proximity to the city. We strongly feel that the entire Spit, from Unwin Avenue, south, should remain as it is, a wild place for walks, cycling, nature study, picnics etc., and should not be carved up into zones of development. Under no circumstances should portions of the Spit be devoted to recrea~ion uses such as marinas, sailboat moorings and dry-dock stations, &~d other uses that both privatize the water-frout and introduce uses alien to the essential joys and beauty of the Spit. As we have pointed out before, the needs of sailors and yachters are well- met along the whole Toronto water-front; The Spit is the one last chance to partially redress the imbalance of uses ~~tant on ~~e water=front. The Spi~ is now, and should remain, ~ spot on the water-front where all \/\ those many people w~o need natural solitude can go, a need which is not met elsewhere on the water-front. .. . /2 ~6 - . e ~ 0-156 . As you know, the "let it be" approach to The Spit ':Jill be the least expensive, by far, of all the proposals. Friends of The Spit urge you, and recommend you, to cease recommending "Option 3", and instead, put your energies fully towards the active expousal of Option I. The entire Spit should be a Natural Resource zone, to be left to develop as Nature wills it; to be the one spot on the Toronto water-front that satisfies that great constituency who ':Jish a natural urban ':Jilderness. Please recognize that the Spit requires conservation, not development. . . Yours sincerely, - . ~~~. Lee Gold Chairperson, Co-Chairperson. Friends of the Spit Friends of the Spit Copies to: Mr. W. McLean, General Manager Members, Aquatic Park Planning Task Force Members, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board U1 \ , - ~ D-15 7~ 0 e botany d I UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY TORONTO. aNT M5S1A1 July 22, 1985 Aquatic Park Task Force c/o Larry Field Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, Ontario M3N 1S4 Dear Members of the Aqu~tic Park Task Force: The comments of our group on the Phase I Report will be relatively general. We ~ere, of course, very disappointed with the compromise option #3 preferred by the task force. There is no need in a metropolitan area with at least t~enty-one mooring and launching areas to ruin the only possible site for a viable wildlife (natural resources) area by adding marinas and related recreational facilities. Most of the area recommended for recreational use currently serves as a buffer zone protecting the adjacent enviromental1y sensitive areas (ESAs). The proposed "overlap" area be~een natural and recreational actually takes some ESA and makes it into a ne~ buffer zone! I Without the original large buffer zone, ~e consider that the remaining ESA will shrink comparatively ~~ size. Furthermore, the first bay, which is very shallow and which falls into the recreational zone, has unique potential as both a natural area and a "cleansing" system for water in that zone. Because it is so shallow, this bay could readily be turned into a cattail marsh similar _0 the extensive ones that once existed in that area. Such marshes are known to act as natural filter systems for water and as important refuges for wildlife. Can a city with such pollution problems ignore such potential? We are convinced that the Task Force is missing the opportunity for planning a world class urban wilderness site by making compromises to serve groups ~hich are already served elsewhere and ~hich will be further served by sites under construction. We are enclosing a brochure on Jamaica Bay in New York City as an example of a opportunity which ~as not missed by planners there. Has the Task Force considered visiting this and other such sites to see first hand what can be achieved? " In conclusion, we ask that the option #1 be reconsidered .~th all of the area not still under construction designated as "natural resource areas" and that the plans for the areas still under construction be left entirely open until such time as the landfill operation is completed. Yz: sincerely. Rt:CC\VEO ~&'1~~ j =- '-- Verna J igg ~ ., .., #I ,t':~ 3" for the wonse_ ' ion Group ~'.I...-.~ - j Depar~ent of Botany University of Toronto T!I _II ~~ ,... A '!i \ 'l- , "'.oJ. r. . ~. a'''. - e G D-158 ~ ~-.. eld, Mco@er. S',. ~. tff "r e "t Sec ion 1 ~~ l ~;~~~e~ron(o 8nt.Jno M5T IP9 (416) 596-7778 5 Shorehem Driye, DownsYiew, Ont. M3N 154 July 16-65 Dear Mr Field - . I om wri ting on beholf of the Boord of Directors ond members of the Club, to strongly support the choice of Option 1 in the proposed master plan for the Leslie 5l. Spit, namely, designation of the whole spit as a Natural Resources area. As hes been clear at many meetings in Toronto, especially at the Land Use committee of Toronto Council, there are many organizations and individuals in the city who ore counting on the Authority to recognize its first obligation is to conservation. There are too few qui et and car-free, carefree areas for walking, biking, birding, and relaxation in a natural environment, in this city The opportunity for the experience' of a natural, near-wilderness area on the Spit is one that, once lost through park prettification or marina development, will never be recovered. We are counting on the Authority to protect the natural environment, not exploit it. , John Alan Lee, Vice Chairman. RECE1'ifED 11 JUL 23 lSCS rv't.~,C~ ,. j :. l"l. . n. T~l, p.per conlaic, nc;"cled d.-inkcd ~bre To E:xplore. Enjoy iUld Protect our Scemc Resourcea -- - )-159 Beachers Ma~thon Runners ~ocjatjon L 48 Waverley Road. Toronto. Ontario M4L 3Tl June 25, 1985. Mr. Larry Field, Manager, Water Management Section, M.T.R.C.A., , 5 Shoreham Drive, Nor~h York, Ontario: M3N IS4. Dear Mr. Field, - In response to the IlPhase 1- Aquatic Park Master Pian - Master Planning Zonesll, report, we wish to reiterate the response we made earlier, for all of the reasons we noted earlier: the entire area of the Leslie Street Spit should be left alone, and the Conservation Authority should conserve and protect it so that it may continue to survive and develop itself as a uniquely valuable public urban wilderness. Everywhere else on the Metro Toronto waterfront, M.T.R.C.A. has been developing mari~as, yacht clubs, sailing facilities and parki~g lots. For the sake of balance, it is appropriate to conserve this last bit of raw waterfront - an approach which also makes good economic sense. Roy Merrens R.~Jmc. r, RECEiVED l~ ~L. ~3 195 i\~.T.R.C.A. I 0-160 TORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS July 23, 1985 , SINCE '92:3 RECEIVED }Cr. Larr:r Field. JUL 29 19a5 l-tan26er, 'iater Harageme:l.t Section r~1. T.R.e.A. The Met=opolitan Toronto and Re&ion Conservation A~thor1t7 5 Sbore~ ~ive Rorth 'York, Ontario )(YJI ls4 Dear Hr. iie1d: The Toronto Field Xaturalists led their first fo~~ outing to Yhat is noy To~v Tho~pson Park in 1976 and ye have been conti:l.uously interested ~~ involved. since that time. ~ve~ before, O:l. an in~orcal basis, our ~embers yere visiti:l.g the area. Much of what we vo~d sal in response to jOur request for ~b11c re- action to Fnase 1 of the Aquatic Park Master Plan, we have said before. As we d.o not 'Wisb. to be deemed to have abanq.oned our ~si Hon 'fie are again offering ideas :or your co~sid.eratio~. The ~an is ~~ ext e~si ve a.:ld cdm:?I'e- he:sive one. Since ~ of the ;oints covered in the Plan ....ill only h~ve relevance in relation to the final decision we a~ not attemPting to address t:,.el:l. We su,;ort OPtion 1 - the whole area d.esignated lI~atural ltesource:l. We refer first to our sub=ission to the Water ~~d ltelated ta~ Manage:ent ^dvisory 308-~, on ~~ch 22, 19S5. fte still wish to see no develo?:e~t of To~ Tno~pson Par~ and no access for private ve~icles. We are still opposed to a =arina centred. i"..alf 'flay' out i:l. the ?a.rk. !t is not the coats we object to ~t that t~ere is al:,eady pressure !or ~tomobile aCcess (in a~ition to .....ha tis now ;er::Hted) ~d as the marina ~e,elo?S, the:"e rill be ltO:"e pre SS'l.:.!"e ~o!" buildi:gs and ~ditio:al facilities. , We w~ld liks to see ~e Met:'o~lit~ ~c!"o~to ~d Regio~ Co~servation Authorit~ ~se its i~l~uence to ;ersuade the ~oronto Ea:"bour Co~~ssion to ~eveloP the carina (if it must be develo;ed) at the north eed - in the 11ar:n::itll of the o'l;;.ter harcour - vith all the lIbusinessl1 of the o:?eratio~ located O~ the cai:l.l~d. This 'Would allow easy access and ?arking. The Ousinesses of the :arina: clubi"~use, re?ai: facilities, sto:"a~, ,e:"~~~s a restaurant, would. be on :::arbou: Coc=ission lan:.s a.t:.d 'Would be a scu:"ce of revenue, ~hic~ is t~e goal of the proposed develo~ent of these lands. We youl~ ~aw your attent~on to a lette!" dated Ju:e 27, 1984 ad~:"egsed to Mr. W. A. M~ean fro: :::. Mac~~l a:l.d 3.Z. 3ertie, jointly. The ideas ex?resseci i:l. this letter seem to us ad:irable - in su~~:"7, to 7te~ the wnole :..; D-16l Toronto Field Naturalists of the Metro waterfront as an aquatic ?ark whi~, within ita b~1es, contains a variety of recreational opportu.~itie8: picnicking, swimming, walking or run:ing, ~bathing, and several locations for boating and marinas. There is ~ place 1n this extended aquatic pa~k for ;assive recreation in a natural setting. Messrs. Y~eke1 and Dertie also stress that with comprocise, no one is satisfied. We enclose two articles dealing with wilderness and ecological areas in other jurisdictions. "Waterfront World II , :::u,bl1shed 'oj' the Waterfront CeZlter, Washington, D.C. begins with liThe Leslie Street S?1 tll and goes on to diseuse vild and natu:al areas in various cities of the United States, and in Lendon, . _ Engla..I1d. The other article "Wild in London" was ~blisaed in International . Wildli~e. Ma:ch/A~il 1984. It is an l:sPiri~ acco~~t of how wilderness area~ are bei~ preserved in urbanized, industrial areas of London a~ other great cities of the world. 30th these articles show tr~t there is great value i~ ~eserving !l&tural areas for teaching and a~,reciation. Any elected body or authority can continue in the sace old ~ttern of ~wed la~ns, cultivated plants and paved side~~ks. ~ere is also the tem?- tat10n to bow to ~essure from groups seeZl to be ,owerful. We refer of cou:se, in this instance, to the sailing cocmunit1, ~ost of the me~~ers of which re~ui~e considerable ~onej' to pursue their recreational hobby. ?a.oilies walkins or cycling, r~r.ers, cird-watchers a~d naturalists are :ot seen as economically very im;ortant. However, they do not require large ezpend1tu:es on facilities to enable them to enjo7 their kind of recreation. It seecs a reasonable trade-off. We a~e sure that if the l"~.A. were.. to d.eal with To~ '!'"zJ,o::lpson Park in ~~ch a way that its vilderne98 qualities are prese:,ved, in future years the .;,uthority ',fould be recogni:ed and. honoured as a body that had tJ::.e erJ.ighter_ cent aDd daring to tu:u its back on the cOlm:lonplace, to do socething dif!erent ~d to preserve and conserve socething unique in Toronto. 9YOU:S truly. -J I~! 0 v (Hiss) Jean ~~cdonald rreside=.t , , ce: T~e Eonou:able David ?eterson, ?re~ier of Ontario The Honourable Vincent Ierrio, Minister of !nergy ~i Natural ~esoU:ces 35 ?arklea Dl'i ve Toronto, Ontario l-l4G 2.15 0-162 iI'~ wn~~'"3[]G!J@ @1GDill at ene''''' Beach · Do","",owlt Toro",o REC~!tl~D ~ \: ~. . 318 Richmond Street. West ....., ~ Toronto. Onto MSV 1X2 - 461.7078 596-8015 AUG .- .I~":- "- ..', J July ,31/S5 M. T.R.C.ftl. , TO: The Metro Toronto & Region Conse~ration Authority (MTRCA) HE: kr~atic Park Master Plan - Phase 1 - Discussion participants' Comments mOM: Toronto Wi.'1dsurfiz'l.g Club, in cons-.Jltation with Cherry Beach Windsurfir.g Club, Muskoka Action Sport s Windsurf'''' ng Club We welcome this opportu..'1ity to express the needs and concerns of the Outer Harbour windsurfing community to you, and believe that it is vital that you receive this inplt in order to intellige."'ltly plan the future use of the Outer Harbour Headlands (knaKn to us as the Leslie Street spit). We are the three windsurfers' clubs located adjacent to Cherry Beach, represe."'ltir.g approximately 400 members and host to about 600 regular non-me:nber visitors and countless others taki..'1g lessons and casual practitioners of the sport. Our tenure is limited to 5 months ~~er our lease with the Toronto Harbour Co~ssioners, with whom we have maintai."'led a cordial busL"'less relationship over the past yea:s 0 Increas:"''1gly, our saili.."'lg season has extended to early April to early December, with "off-season" launchi.."'lg from the public sector of Ch~ Be~ch. The Toronto WL"'ldsurf.;ng Club operates sailboard lessons, , rentals and cnmers I storage, ~'1d is constituted as a non-profit 'club with unli"'.;ted membership and its beach '..;holly open to the ;Ublico This submission w~ be short, ~"'ld w:i" not address itself to the details of the Mast er Plan, Phase 1, at least at present, due to two reasons: 1) '..;e are i."'l the midst of the s~.;'.;ng season and have not had ti.11e to prepare a detailed ar.alysis of the :?lase 1 proposals, a..."'ld ( fb '.d . 0-163 , Windsurfers' submis~. .a to Phase 1 - page 2 2) we feel that a ker factor outside the dis~~ssion, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' plan for a major marina on the eastern shore of the Chter Harbou:, shoul.d be included in the discussion around the future use of the Headlands. As well, for your ir~ormaticn, we attach a copy of our submission to the City of Toronto land Use Committee, April 10, 1985, as a general stateme.''1t of our views. In this subr:dssion, we note that it the THO mari.."la is built on th~ large scale that is proposed, relocation of the windsurfing clubs (and perhaps the community s~ clubs as well) on the north shore of the Headlands near Embaym~"lt D would be impractical because of the heavy traffic of yachts (especially into the south arm of the Marina, which would now directly in front of our Headland site.) We noted that. it woul.d be preferable to retain windsurfing activity on the north shore where it is presently located, away frolIl the direct now in a-"ld out of the THC marina. As regards Fhase 1 of the Aquatic Park Master Plan, we feel that the extent of land aro~"ld Embayment D proposed under Option 3 for recreational use, is insufficieI'1t for the dozen or so COrnmuI".ity S::l;~g clubs and windS'.u-fer clubs, along with the proposed Interpretive Centre and support facilities. We feel tr..at, at the ve.-y least, the areas presently labelled. "t:ra.~sitional" will be req:uired by us to adequately position our fac-l''1 ties, ta..ld.."'lg ~to " account at least modest grow~h over the coming years. But if the large THC marina proj ect is approved (enti:ely foo;" 00; Tlg the eastern end of the Olter Harbour) and the strong lobby to retai."'1 the lion's share of the Eeadla..-.ds as "wilderness areas" prevails, we ca.."".."lot but help feel that the future of windsurfing and small sailboat saili."'lg :""l the Outer Harbour is tr:eatened, a.."l1 for some reason our sport has failed to earn the degree of official reco~-ltion it dese~s, cr a-"l ade~~ate Windsurfers I submiss:.. "~ to Phase 1 - page :3 0-164 priority in official pla.nni..~. We can only re-state our belie! that the developne."1t of low-cost windsurfL'lg activity and COlI'.munity sailing clubs is verJ i..npcrtant as an introduction to the general public in Metro Toronto to water sports, a form of direct sports activity which is accessible to all, and safely practised in the CUter Harbour with its relati.{ely clean water and lee shore; sports which are silent and on-pollutir.g, totally compatible with conservatior.ists' aims to prese.-ve a part' of the Headlands ar.d its enda."lgered bird species in relative isolation. We have no desire to attempt to thwart or J.m.t yacht marina developnent or commercial port developnent, or to take over more space on the Headlands than we require. The wi!'ldsurf:L"lg commu."lity only desires to be recognized as one of the most active users of the Outer Harbour, deserving a pe.""l!Ianent location and a share of its waters in the l'uture - a."1d m a.\C.ng a significant contribution to the vitalit7 of the Cityls waterfront :L"l the process. . AI" alte~ative 'D!"arosal to the uarameters af ?'lase 1 The three alternatives posed before us i.."l Phase 1 are as folloTrls: 1) developing the whole Headlands as a "wilderness area,. 2) develop:L"lg the whole Headla:'lds as a recreation area, and 3) a repeat of Option 1 except that a small area ara~"ld Z~bayment D would be set aside for recreation and the locatio:l of the COm:IIU."lity sailing clubs a."ld rr...."ldsurfers I clubs. We have a1=eadj- imncated that the area is ~ :lsui'ficie:'lt. However, it is not only shere space that is requi:ed by -rl:L"ldsurfers and sn::all sa.il:L"lg craft; it is -flater-space as well. This location may be re."ldered impractical if a l~ge ~2rir~ is built ~ediately to the east of it. Natu:al!.y, larger yac~ts req-.ll.re water-space ar..d a safe harbour - but wilat cetter facilities exist for this class of cr~t in ~etro Toronto .ha.n t" -- di d' .? (L"l i'aC't., or.e may ask, is the eastern end of ~ ~e ~ea an emoaymen~s. )-165 Windsurfers' submis.r- to Phase 1 - page 4 the Outer Harbour truly sufficiently protected as a marL~a?) The use of Dnbayme.~t C by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (or whomever) for its mari.."'1a would make optimal use of the water there (unsuitable for sailing) while freeing up the Cuter Harbour for small salling craft. The peninsula between Embayments C and B, as well as Embayment 13 . itself, could provide an adequate butter zone between a marina in Emba~~ent C, and the conse......,ation areas oCC'.1pying EmbaymentA, as well as the Headland point, ar.d the other areas to the east which are. being developped. Such a division of Headland area would be equitable for all, based on present usage of the Outer HarbO'.Jr, at the same time retaining muc..~ the largest area for conservation, and providing for yacht marina developnent as well. Of course, the present Options as presented in Phase 1 ru=e out the possibility of placing a major marina in Embayment C; however, in our opinion, the MI'RCA should. re-consider its options because the options erroneously limit themselves to land use, whereas the q'.1estion of water use is the key issue in the Cuter Harbour. If one of ~he enbayments is not allocated to marina developnent, the Olter Harbour is desti.~ed to become a very crowded water area. Marina traffic w-i....ll be travelli.--:g east and west, coII:m.lllity sa.iJ.i.."'lg clubs rac:i.r.g on triangle courses across the harbour, and windsurfers will. be reachi."lg across the SaI:le body of water north and south. Even at present, 50 to 100 water craft. or more are not t:.r.iUsual on '..;eekends. , , Agai."'l, we tr..ar.k the ~1TItCA for the opportunity to cake our vie'....s ~own, and we do so without askL"'lg any special consideration or favour as a group but, as sailors, able to give you expert and friendly advice as to the problems a.Tld requ::eme..~ts of our sport. We of the ~_"'ld~~fing commur~ty especially desire to be open to public acc~ss, '.nth non-profit clubs operati..Tlg on an open basis, I Windsurfers' submiss:.. . to Phase 1 - page 5 0-166 offering optional membership for the learni."1g and sldlled sailor alike; on a plblic beach open to all - that's the "style' of windsurfir.g. As such, we believe that our sport will become an increasingly important part of the fabric of Toronto life: the waters of the Outer Harbour, albeit created for other purposes, have come alive as a unique location for a vibrant ne'oi sport which aJ.l ages and. incomes can participate 1.'"1. In conclusion, we look fOI'"oiard to further participation in the Master Plan public conSultation proce~s. . For information: John Darling President '85 'niC ~b ~ 596-8015 h 928-3086 - - , ,... )-i67 0\ ONt4RIO SAIUNG ASSOCIAllON 1220 SHEPPARD ....Ve. EAST. WILLOW DALE. ONTARIO. CANAOA M2lC 2X1 . (41111495~240 . TELEX: Ot.9811157 OSAC TO" AUGUST 16, 1985 File No. F:11, 6.21 Mr. Larry Field Tommy Thompson Task Force 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ODtario M3N 1S4 RE. THE AQUATIC PARK MASTER PLAN PHASE I Dear Larry: Attached find our letter of June 24, 1985 providing an assessment of the land delineation for the above Master Plan. The letter is self explanatory and emphasizes the inequity in available space for the recreational portion of the program. Once the land delineation has been modified, to take into account the mandate for the Sailing Clubs and Recreational Sailing Programs, we will be better able to assess your land and water useage which will be most important to you. To this point however, the Phase I plan needs close scrutinizing as referred to in our letter of June 24th, and full clarification of the parking areas and their necessity to the Recreational Sailing Programs will be a factor to further comment. Thank you for the opportunity of comment in this matter. I, Yours truly; R 1= ("\ ~l' J1=D i_v~ ~ "- -. Al f Jenkins r,...3 21 1.985 Executive Director Ontario Sailing Associationr~1 T ReA ".~ aj . . . . /pp encl - The Provincial Sport Governing Bodv for Sailing ~oe~ot - _. ~~.. _. ._..._ ____. .__.. _ ___ __ _ _.____. I""__I~__ A .____. ~~"""I""YT ,.......1"'1"" ~I,"" __.... 1'"'I"'?1l. 0'''''' ~!""!I"'\~ "" 1""1. ~"1.I1~~ /I"'I"'n/r:. ,....-=),.I'~!: 0-168 . 1220 $H('''''RO AVE. EAST WILLOWO"LE.. ONTARIO. e,t.NAOA M2Il: %Xl . r&'SI U5.42~ . TELEX: oe.U8157 OSAC TOR June 24, 1985 File No. F:ll, 6.21.1 Mr. W. McLean Chairman Aquatic Park Task Force 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 114 Dear Bill: RE. Aquatic Park Master Plan Phase I The Master Plan Phase I released approximately three weeks ago has been scrutiniz- ed very carefully by the sailing community. Thirteen clubs an~ sailing schools . most directly concerned and ultimately involved in the end use of AquatiC Park, we~ brought together by the Ontario Sailing Association in a ~eting on June 17, 1955, to discuss the implications of the Phase I presentation. The commodores an~'or their chosen represetatives were present and signed the attached state- ment, wherein they express their objections to the geographica1 breakdown between the natural and recreational zones of the proposed master plai.. Their statement is self explanatory but should be clearly brcught to. the atter":ion of the members of the AquatiC Park Planning Task Force. On the surface they were pleased with the private vehicle access and parking which is to be included in the recreational zone. Each club .~ll however be presenting its own individual needs and concerns to the Planning Task Force in weeks ahead, but it has been made very clear that the space designated is com- ple~ely inadequate in order to satisfy the Objectives laid au": in the report Pl~ase see that this position is distributed to the Planning Task Force members anc staff so that modifications can be made as part of the Phase II report. You will note that these clubs represent 4,180 sailors. I Thank you for your attention to this very important aspect of ?hase I. ::Ff?~/ Alf 'Jenkin~ f..." Executive Director AJ r s 1 b Encl' c.c. Commodores of Clubs on statement The ProvinCIal SOon Governlnlil Sodv lor s..',....g ~oI ,...:,_ .:.~!4,. ..,."!"......H'~Jr; A.c:.~rx:I~T',-,~... ,. .!~~-:~! ..~;1r.""....~. Stili"'': A-;'~""'I"'! s=-r,cn C~."'RI(' a"" -. .. :.::w., SC'~;:--: ~ ~""!'\I:CT=:.T!V€, CF".J'''=; )-159 TO: AQUATIC PARK PLANNING TASK FORCE , June 17. 1985 _ We. the Conmodores or Oesigna~d Representatives of Clubs/Sa11ing Schools, who are members of the Ontario Sailing Association and who may have a direct involvement in the end use of Aquatic Park; do object to the breakdown of land shown on Figure 4.3 of the Aquatic Park Master Plan Phase I. It is our position that the space distribution for the recreational Zone is completely inadequate to meet the immediate needs of the Sailing Clubs, Schools - - - - ... and Boardsa111ng Clubs and Sch~ols as indicated and.~s2~used in the Principles and Goals laid out in the Phase I report. - 1 CLUB/SCHOOL ~ t:~~ c::AT'A{'H~~ cM. ~v.FTI( ?,~I(SIfIk41(:' (,./'..6 'S~~ ~~Ctl P.\"~~~(.,",~") ,~? ~~~_ 'hv~c! 'Wt$..'f.~lJw~--r'~ 7JO ~p tZ:/Q__ - -.- ~ --:\A......-s. i.:,!>l..S~(4! 210 C"t<.;l'j' ~!:~C1>OeE' .ANAJ>/IW tJt..8~q:. tk~ --\400 I ~Hilf'; Ik.i--HE-L _ _I -~ - 1"14 . ~~M.'n...rt c;"\J1"'...wPlM:':1 {~ w............_ -~~ I;,_frt.i--~ . oj 'J.i rv~~ te.,ct-weoi S~IJI~CL~' 15"0 H~ ~~l '/'Y( Tn CC,.. c~4 I , ~4(..;7~ rl(./j..J/~/-J..., :l-'/Q /~)"\ A/(/Vo /-Ie"",'xeJ-. v~_ ! ~~~ / ~/!.oJV1o Jvll.ltJJvt2~/;f/c. Uu~~.fi ~~.v j;)rl72(.4,f/~ ?/(Ef/~~ -~~~ I I ~ - /.p a:x~IHiC.i& SflH-l/fC C/..t.<S I;ZCO /.V""oy :rO~CEL."'~ - OM<",,/,,; ~~ ~ JAIL Ta/fOJ.lTa I Sl5 /9L~J~Yk//V5 / L:lmt/~ ihi ~ G do jZs.:i j-/W Total 4.'80 I - - 0-170 SUBMISSION 'I'O THE ME'l'ROPOLITAN ':'ORONTO AND REGION CONS~RVAT:ON AUTHORITY RESPECTING THE PHASE I AQUATIC PAlUC MASn:R PLAN BY THE TORONTO MOLTIHU~ CRUISING CLUB JULY 31, 1985 I 0-171 SUBMISSION TO THE METFDPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY RES~ECTING THE PHASE I AQUATIC PAR.'C AAS'l'ER PI.A..~ The Directors of ~~e Toronto Multihull Cruising Club (T~CC) have reviewed the M'rFlCA I s Phase I Report respecting Master Planninq Zones of Tocmy Thompson Park. The ~RCA is commended for its atte:pt to accommodate the wishes of all special interest qroups in the zoninq proposal. - Ortfortunately, the proposal falls short of ensurinq the TMCC a future site for its operations. Specifically, the exclusion of Embayment C from recreational use indicates the failure of the plan to meet its objective of providinq "safe harbour age for the boating public". There are indications that other goals and objectives of both the MI'RCA proposal and Metro I s Central Waterfront Plan are also not being met. Followinq are coaoents on specific sections of ~~e proposal which clarify the '!MCC's concerns and recoQQendations on how these concerns can be al~eviated. 1.0 INTroDUCTION 1.1 3ackground In 1973 the Provincial Cabinet gave the Authority the mandate. to co-ordinate "recreational planning". In 1976 the Authority's conceptual ::taster plan emphasized "~~e vast area of sheltered water . . . u."'liquely suitable for a variety of boating uses." wllile the Phase ... Report ... describes ~~e evolution of the Park since that time and attempts to justify Option 3 on the basis of changing site conditions, it is fair to say that Option 3 does not meet the original mandate or conceptual plan since none of the em:oayments have been desigr.ated for recreational use. F~ther , it is difficult to say whether ~~e justification for a 180 deqree change i:1 the Plan is appropriate since an increasing nw:lber of people, including many politicians, are realizing that "the largest nesting colony of rL~g billed gulls ~ ~~e world" is I:1Ore of a liability than an asset. Znjoyment of the ~ark by the public is tr~ea~ened by the constant aerial bombard=ent of the birds and ....ater quality is recuced. ~cologists '",ould argue ~~at ~~e significant doc.ination of one species over ...... others is not natural: di'lersity equals stability. Clearly, lo... _ the M'!'~ should reconsider its decision to promote the continuation of the gull habitat at the expense of other uses for the Park. 1.2 The Study Process In context 0: ~"1e entire p 1 a.?U1i:1q process from Phase I to V it is obvious that ~ %oninq the qreater ::ajority of the Park "Natural Resource", options in ~"1e remaining phases are severely rest:icted. Fer instance, given the small. ac:eage left for recreational use, Phase II, ~l~erna~ive Development Components, ~ill have very few co=ponents _:1ceed. .../2 0-172 - 2 - 2.0 SITE CON'n:xr 2.1 Government policies It is s'tated that policies of Metro Toronto "affect the plans for t.~e . . . park. " The 'l'MCC has discussed the OKS? proposal to relocate on the Park with Mayor Eggleton and the Ward 8 Alderman, F. Beavis, and '1'. Clifford. Their endorser.1ent of the OKSF propos~l has been obtained. < The Ward a btepayers Association has passed a motion ;.Jhich says the OBSF (including ':HeC) should be provided a home on the Park. The M!'::CA proposal should be responsive to the wishes of local politicians and the cotm:1uni t y. The goal of the Authority based on Met:ro Toronto Waterfront Plan indicates the desire for "balanced land use" and "accessibility o~ features ....hich warrant public use". Option 3 of the proposal is not . balanced based on ac:reage nor does it make features such as the embayments accessible. Further, the TMCC ....ould like to remind the MT~A of a number of goals and objectives of 'the Waterfront Plan ....hich have not been recognized in the Report. Paraphrased, t.~ese goals and objectives are as follo....s: "5A.2 The Council's pri."llary goal for t.~e Central Waterfront is to promote inc:reased public enjoyment and use by ensuring that future developcents achieve the following: a) Extend the richness, diversity and activity of city life: b) Increase and impTove public access; c) Inc:rease the availability, choice and awareness of recreational opportunities. 5A.8 It is t.'1e policy of Council to promote forms of transportation, including :recreational transportation. SA. 11 In order to serve the recreation needs of nea:by neigh.bourhoods, t.~e City and the Region, it is the policy of Cou-~cil to encourage: I , b) The provision of public and com:nercial :recreation facilities ... ....ith preference to t.'1ose ....hich, i) need a location at or near the ....ate:'s edge: iii) are compatible ....ith t.~e character of t.~e area and ....ith nearby uses: iv) add to t.'1e diversity of opportunities to enjoy t.'1e ....aterf:ont. .../3 0-173 - 3 - SA.12 Council will seek to ensure that a wide range of rec=eational boating opportunities is available in this Central Waterfront, and in particular that/ a) new boating facilities are encouraged; and, b) sailboat moorings are provided on the Outer Harbour.. . The OHSF's proposal to relocate in the Park meets all of these objectives without coopromisin~ other uses. For example, TMCC and the community clubs provide diversity and increase recreational opportunities to the sailing community and the population at large. By including Embayment C in the Recreational Zone preference would be given to facilities which need a location at the water's edge. Zoning Embayment C as "recreational. would also allow sailboat moorings on the Outer Harbour: a situation which appears to be negated by the cur=ant MTRCA proposal. In the principles established to govern the direction of waterfront development it is stated that .priority shall be assigned to water-oriented recreational opportunities to serve regional rather than just local needs." The MrRC\ proposal does not serve local sailing needs. Fu.--ther, the Central Waterfront Plan states that the Plan should "serve the rec=eational needs of nearby neighbourhoods, the City, and the Region." The "region" is not em~hasized as it is in the Repo=t. It - - may also interest the MTRCA to know that ~embers of TMCC have homes from Rochester through Hamilton to east of Pickering and therefore ,.,ery ::1uch service the "region". 2.2 Key Develo~ment Prooosals 2.2.2 Marina The ':'HC proposal for a marina does not satisfy the needs of clubs, specif ic.ally community clubs or !'~CC. It seems illogical to plan for "someone out t.,ere" when t.":e needs of a pa:rtic\lla:r group" f:roo the neighbou:rhood a=e neglected. 2.2.4 Dredgeate Disposal 't'MCC's proposal to relocate in the PaIk will not conflict with c~rent or proposed methcds for disposing of dredgeate. If the ~atic Park Sailing Club and TMCC were to locate themselves in Ecbayment C the water ac=eage =equi:ed to accommodate existing and proposed boats could be minimized by using slips instead of moorings. (The current practice of using moorings at the 'l'MCC site is necessary due to t.,e lack of break-water. ) By minimizing space to,e barges could travel unobstructed th:ough the proposed channel bet'oleen El:lbayment C and Cell 3. Once t.he Cell is filled the clubs could exp~~d into t.":e remaining waters of . . ./4 0-174 .. 4- Embayment c. This expansion could be accomplished without the use of additional shore area on the south and west sides of the Embayment. \ Impact on the natural resource area would be neglig~le. 2.3 Ocoortuntities and Constraints - 2.3.1 ~ocation on Waterfront It is stated in the Report that "~~e site presents perhaps the on~y new opportunity for a natural environment park" . While this t;1ay be the case, the site also represents ~~e only relocation option for 2,500 cembers of the OHSF and over SO IIlUltihulls. As has been stated in previous papers, no other clubs or marinas will accept multihulls. 2.3.1 Configuration The Report indicates that rec:'eation and construction traffic will potentially be in conflict. This can easily be rectified by placing a sidewalk and bike path beside t.~e road. With respect to automobile/truck traffic, the vehicles can just as easily pass along the same route as they do on any other city street. Further:lore, construction tra.ffic is predominant during business hours while recreational traffic is greatest in t..l1 e evenings and on weekends. Is there :,eally a conflict or is this simply another argument to justify the proposal? 2.3.3 Site Ecology The Report suggests that .. large scale developcent . . . '..,ill reduce the educational and scientific value of the site". Since the amount of land acreage required by boaters is s.:o.all, the impact would be :n.inimal. Further, since sailors spend their t~e on the water and naturalists on land, the i:npact of the naturalists on flora and fauna would be g:'ea~er than the boaters. 2.4 Public Int:lutl~ercet:ltior".s , 2.4.2 ?rovisions of Recrea.tional 30ating Facilities It is indicated in the Report t..~at "catamaran owners p:'efer a low density swing cooring system". This point should be clarified. ?"~:st, TMCC represents catamarans and trimar ans. Second, slips' '",ould ac-:.ually - be better for the Club sinc~ the cost of water acreage is of prime concern. Slips use approxicately one-tenth the water area than that of swing :noorings. It is also indicated that windsurfers and canoeists need protected embayments. If sEps are to be used versus swing coori.~gs protected embayments are also required by ~CC. .../S 0-175 - 5 - 2.4.5 Financia~ Considerations It is important to note that sailing clubs would actually generate capital for the landlord while ca.intaining their own land/water area. This financial consideration cannot be said for any other special intorest group. 3. O. AQUATIC PAlUt MASTER PLA."I As has been noted, the goals and objectives of Che MT~A have not be~n met by Options 1 to 3. Option 3 specifically does not meet Ojbective 1 respecting "diversity" since the lack of use of e!l1bayments as "safe harbour age " for "club needs" is ove%powered by the drive to satisfy a relatively smal~ group of bird watchers and similar special interest groups. 4.0 MASTER P!.ANN~G ZONES Figure 4.4 The TMCC would like to point out ~~at sailboats do not affect fisheries and therefore the small dot under Option 3 shou~d be made a large dot. Under the section on "Diversity of Recreational Opportunities" Option 3 severely restricts activities other than those related to naturalist interests. This large dot should be a small dot. Under the section "Centre for Education Research" the s4l1all dot under Op~ion 3 should be a large dot. Since the vast majority of ~~e area is devoted to Natural Resource the impact of the recreational area would be negligible on educational activities. Further:ore, it may be interesti.~g for teachers and students to note that man and nature can co-exist on the same site. , CONc:.USIONS The zoning proposal (Option 3 ) fails to meet certain MT~A and "ietro objectives including provisions for safe harbour age for the boating public and balanced land use in the Park. The proposal does not meet the needs of the local boating cc::sunity or ~~e desires of local politicians and ratepayers. The OHSF proposal to move to the Park would have minimal impact; on ~"le ~atural Resource area, provide revenue for the M'l'~ and not aft ect current or projected construction plans. The OHSF's proposa~ to move to ~~e Park would meet ~~e needs of 2,500 sailors who have no other long ter: options for a home. 0-176 - 6 - RECO~OATIONS The TMCC would like to recommend a fourth option: that is, that Embayment C and the east and north shores of that Embayment be designated as a recreational :one. This would ensure that all M'l'l!lCA and Metro goals and objectives are met.. If Figure 4.4 were redrawn with this option, THCC feels that this column would contain the greatest number of 'large dots'. While Option 3 satisfies the wants of a small number of interst groups, option 4 would satisfy the needs of !!l of the groups. . Craig.O. Camplonq, Commodore THE TORONTO MOLTIHiJLL CRUISING cum , , 85/07/30 . 0-177 1 COMMENTS ON THE PHASE I REPORT - ~ASTER PLANNING ZONES The Toronto Outer Harbour Sailing Federation July 29. 1985 , / ~ / ') :/ 0-178 Our thanks to the Taskforce. The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation is pleased to see the IPhase I Report' of the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan published. Our members who have attended the Taskforce's presentations or who met Taskforce members in our informal events particularly appre- ciate the the MTRCA's approach, as it reflects the intention to look at the issue from many sides and to do justice to many interest groups. Without getting into the actual details of the plan, we feel that the dividing the lands into a G and open access zone is a step in the right direction, since we always have strongly supported the idea of multiple uses for this large site. Furthermore, the proposal to put dry sailing clubs into embayment "0., if properly prepared and dredged, would suit most Federation member clubs. Aquatic Park Sailing Club and THCe Unfortunately, the situation concerning the AquatiC Park Sailing Club is not quite clear. Unlike other members of the Federation, this keelboat club is already located on the spit and finds itself in a zone for which the Phase I Report remains uncommit- ted. Considering that no alternate location exists east of its present location, the present plan leaves this club in a position less secure than ever before. Similarly, the Tornto Multihull Cruising Club, which already has been forced to moor some of its boats in embayment IC' for lack of space, is not likely to be able to use embayment '01 because its craft require too much draft, are too wide and easily damaged by dinghies. East of embayment "c' there are no protected waters which these fragile craft require. RECOMMENDATION: As these concerns of ours are very serious, and since we have proposed in the past (June 1984) to place these two clubs in embayment IC', we would like to urge you again to designate the water area in this location for boating purposes. The kind of boating activities of these two clubs requires very small facili- ties on land that could easily be integrated with other federa- tion facilities provided proper access to the water is available. I , 2 . 0-179 The area between embayment IC' and '0' is not a environmentally sensitive area. It provides access to a swimming beach, already contains a road, parking spaces and a storage area. We find it difficult to understand that by having been included in the 'transition areal this land should ever appear to be of particu- lar value as natural resource area and be re-classified later. RECOMMENDATION: We propose to include the lands between embayment IC' and 10' in the IGml zone. New arrivals We have realized during the last few months that we are not alone in our search for a new site. In our immediate neighbourhood. and on the Toronto Islands are other dinghy clubs'which have found themselves in a predicament very similar to ours. They will be looking for space within the forseeable future. We consider it reasonable to assume that before plans for the spit are implemen- ted, the demand for drysailing facilities, boardsailing or other non-motorized water sports will increase. (We note that the summary of the 'Metro Toronto Waterfront - Boating study update' does not take into consideration Board- sailing. We expect that in the coming five years a sizeable proportion of boardsailers will migrate to drysailing facilities as their family and socio-economic status changes. Besides that. the boardsailing community can be expected to grow at the same rate as the boating community in general.) In order to gain a reasonable grasp of the situation. our public relations committe has begun to contact various other sailing organizations in the area, which drew an immediate response from five clubs. They were interested in participatirl9 in our efforts to secure land on the spit while some actually wish to join our organization. It has therefore become obvious to us that the demand for facili- ties will definitely be greater than we originally thought, as we likely will be joined by: West~ood Sailing Club (20 boats, approx. 200 members) Toronto Windsurfing (40-60 boards and many members/users) Other windsurfing organizations , North Toronto Sailing club (presently on the Island in very , crowded facilities with approx. 20-30 boats) ? ~ 0-180 Land Requirements When one considers the total land area of the spit and the total available shoreline, then the share allocated to recreational water sports according to Phase I Report appears to be relatively small. Given the demands we can foresee over the next few years, we urge the Taskforce to avoid including areas not considered environmentally sensitive into the transition zone or the G zone altogether. but to reserve them for active recreational purposes. RECOMENDATION In order to make sure that land allocations planned will be adequate, the Federation asks that the Taskforce draw up a de- tailed land assignment by type of boat and sailing activity, along with final zoning proposals. Alternatively, we would be pleased to answer the Taskforce's request for a detailed pro- posal. Representation of 'Low Cost Boating' interests in the Outer Harbour area When the time comes for the Master Plan to be implemented, many different interest groups will rush for what by then will have become a very scarce and valuable land resource. Many applicants will confront each other, defending only their own interests. making the orderly implementation of a plan unneccessarily dif- ficult. The Outer Harbour Sailing Federation believes that by uniting the sailing interests in the Outer Harbour conflict between clubs over land demands can be avoided. Our history during the last ten years, as an umbrella organizion and administrative body, has shown that we are well equipped to look after diverse sailing interests and can present them to organizations like the THe and MTRCA in an orderly and productive fashion. Our goal is to organize and represent all current and future sailing interests in the Outer Harbour with respect to the Master Plan. We are looking forward to making the best out of Tommy Thompson Park! , ~~.L l-k ~Q ""'-- Walter Haeberle Public Relations, OHSF 4 0-181 2- 1& Rosedale-Moore Park Association A member of the Mooredale Sailing Club Outer Harbour Sailing Federation 146 Crescent Read. Toronto. Ontario. M4W 1V2 -., Telephone (416) 924.931 8 .. .... ..,. ..-. -. ......~ ~d ~ ----- --- ~ ~ffi~UW~~ I'" ':0 j8S .. ~- oJ July JO, 1985 ,~ TOs The Aquatic Pa.:=k Plannillg Task Force. M. T. R. C. A. RE: Aquatic Park Master Plan, Phase I - Master Planning Zones Report. The Executive Boa.....u of the Moored.a.le Saili...".g Club, at its meeting on July J, 1985 unanicously accepted the recommendations as set forth in the Master Pla.nning Zones Report, issued by t.he Task Force. Concern was expressed at this meeting as to the adequacy of the lands proposed to be made available for Recrea.tional Use, 1."1 the short term, for the use of sailors, particula:ly for those Clubs and other users presently located on the north shore of the Outer F.a.rbour. This concer:l was particularly directed. toward the capacity of these lands to accomodat.e the ~"lticipated. needs for growth already expressed by most of the present users. Concern was also expressed, relating to the la.ck of positive identification of areas that could be rese=ved for the potential use of the Menbers cf the Outer Harbour Sailing Federation ~"ld the other di."lghy and boardsailing clubs currently seeking to associate with the Federation, and presently usi.~ the Outer Ha.=bour waters as a venue for their activities. We u.~e that due consideration of these concer.n~, which may apply more particularl:r to Phase II of your plar.niz'l..g process, will not be overlooked in the completion of the PrASe I process. Respectfully Submitted; Moored.ale Saili."lg Club , <Dr I&? ~ ' ~ ,.1. t&Q.) David J. Harrison, COIllIilodore. - 0-182 ~ .7' AQUATIC PARK SAILING CLUB BRIAN PATERSON ~ fjffJt@t/ 15 Vicora Linkway, Apt. Don Mills, Ontario, M3C lA9 THE MTRCA, PRASE 1, AQUATIC PARK MASTER P 'J "II/.' ~ $' ~ J... rJ I$Q. -, 14.. 'S COMMENTS -7:17. l -04.$ - J; The comments to follow will re fleet on the Phase 1 report, in general, and relate to boating, in general. They will also be specific to the needs of Aquatic P~rk Sailing Clu.b and to a convergence of ~hose needs with directions of the Task Force. . The report, it se If, lays out the divergent goals of the various interested public bodies. The recognition of the regional importance on the site is welcomed as many non-City of Toronto residents consider the site a vital recreational re source. The clarity with which the common goals and the some time s incongruent goals of the various governmental bodies is e xpre ssed has he 1 pe d us to better understand the dilemma of the Task Force and to re la te to policy directions. It would seem- to be an agile environment in which to promote water related activities, ho',.;ever, the number of activities is limited due to the poor water quality. Planners must take into consideration sa fe ty problems that can arise from m i xi ng bikers and joggers, boaters and swimmers and the various types of boats or water craft that are incompatible for safety reasons. THE REPORT AS IT RELATES TO BOATING While the goals are very clear, there is a hidden agenda to the priority of those goals that should be clearly stated. While water related activities, small cr'aft in particularly, form a major component of every authority's goals, it is clear they form an une qua 1 part of the result in the option pre ferred by the Task For ce . This disparity has been noted and commented on to the Task Force by the Commodores and Presidents of the various interested clubs in the Toronto waterfront area. Concerns of the Presidents and Commodores have been supported by the many thousands that comprise their membership. With reference to: Master Planning Zone Defini tions The natural resource area should not proclude boating access. 0-183 Access No motorized boats and controlled access for other non-motorized vessels is described. It would be very di f ficul t for the MTRCA or Me tro Parks to exclude power craft from entering inbayments provided the water is navigable while allowing other types of craft, larger sail boats (keel boats) will use auxiliary power for manoeuvring in shallow water or confined areas. Resource areas should be accessible by boat as there is a great need in the Lake ontario recreational area for unorganized moorings or anchorages. The prohibition of mot9rized craft would be questionable in the event that safe harbourage was required in the event of a storm. Range of Typical Uses It would certainly be worthwhile to note the necessity for the lighthouse being where it is and using that prominentory for the continuence of small craft safety as well as a vantage point for monitoring the termination of sailboat races. Interpretive Programs Interpret i ve programs should incl ude me teor log ical information as the site provides an excellent display of wind and weather patterns as well as currents and their effects over land and water. Recreation Zone We are most encouraged by the .access descriptions. The master planning zone options listed might not be a complete list of the options available. While I is clearly objectionable, to members of the boating community a combination of options 2 and 3 would be more acceptable and might not be any less objectionable to the opponents of boating in the park area. At some point down the road, the long term development would have to cease. This area would for~ an excellent addendum to the recreational utilization. , Under option 3, the boating community's needs, under short oblique, for long-term regional boating would not be met to a large degree. Recreational activities compatable with unique land, oblique water characteristics, again an objective of the boating community, would be met to a large degree. Developing access and encouraging use for passive I nonpermanent moorages and anchorages in the environmentally sensitive area would also go some distance in improving the needs of the boating community. You are being asked to consider the long-term development area being developed in a way that has the recreational needs, particularly for boat space, developed so that it can be accommodated. Reference is made to the boating surveys of the THC and the MTRCA. 0-184 NEEDS OF THE AQUATIC PARK SAILING CLUB The members of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club were very much encouraged by the Task Force report, however, our position has been clearly stated in the past in that we are looking for tenure year-round, twenty-four hour access, the ability to grow and develop the club in various "sailing" directions (day-sailing, dinghy sailing, wet moor ings) as might be required and to have the necessary shore and weather storage support. With the de fini t ion of the zones and with the maps grovided and with the options discussed, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club could adjust and would adj us.t to meet future requirements and the objectives of the planning body. . AQUATIC P.~K SAILING CLUB SITE The ne e d s of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, as enunciated in previous deputations, has clearly determined that we are after te n ure and a c ce s s with the ability to grow and use the facili ties for s umme r and winter storage. We are most encouraged by the report as it stands and that the pre se nce of some sailing entity is indicated and, with the exception of the proposed by-law from the City of Toronto, access is indicated and the need for winter storage is also realized. The. water si te that we presently use is signi fied as a transitional zone and we would welcome the opportuni ty to address coinciding our goals with the goals of the Task For ce . It is anticipated that the Me tro formula for charging rent to sailing clubs would be applied if this is the case and the zoning requires a low density boat storage. We wish to have considered the concept of a fract ional formula. For example, ';: in a normal boat 1_ storage area a club could store twenty boats per acre in a high or medium density, using finger docks, and we were required to have low density, storing only five boats per acre, then we would like to have considered a q1..l;arter of the basic formula for that water storage area. , The plan-based facilities could be de ve loped to be aesthetically appeal ing and minimal in nature while fitting into the transitional environment. We are very concerned about water quality and there is little that can be done on the short-term. It is realized that the scow route through the bay will not enhance that quali ty. It is a fairly stagnant body of water, and we question the need for that particular access route. I D-185 The members of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club wish to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to have input and to participate to this point and look forward to working further with the Task Force. ~,-k .L~ Brian Paterson Commodore, APse - ,- I I - 0-186 , SUMMARY TOMMY THOMPSON PARK PLANNING TASK ~ORCE COMMENTS , 0-187 PHASE I REPOR~ A draft report - Phase 1 was presented to the Tommy Thompson Park Planning Task Force at its December 13, 1984 ~eeting. Authority staff considered t~e concerns raised at that ~eeting which resulted in substantial ravisions :0 the document including among other items, rewording of some goals/objectives, a reduction in the number of options, the creation of a "Long Term Development Zone" and the identification of a "transition area" The Phase 1 report has taken into account the advice and expertise of the Task Force me~bers. The Authority presented to the Task Force and released publicly the Phase 1 - Aquatic Park (now Tommy Thompson park) Master Plan - Master planning Zones report on June 5, 1985. Task Force members were requested to provide their comments on the Phase 1 report by July 31, 1985. The Authority has received comments from the following . Mr. Ian C.R. Brown, General Manager The Toronto Harbour Commissioners dated July 9, 1985 . Mr. R.J. Bower, Commsioner of Planning, Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property, Metropolitan Toronto Works Depart~ent Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department dated August 2, 1985 . Mr. D.M. Pirie, Chief Approvals and Planning, Ministry of the Environment dated ~ugust 20, 1985 . Ms Laura Palme~-Korn, Recreation Consultant, Ministry of Tourism and aecreation dated A~gust 15, 1985 Mr I.B. Earl, District Manager, ~aple District, Ministry of Natural Resources dated August 23, 1985 The Toronto Harbour Commission, while supporting the recoremendation of Option 3, questions whether sufficient land area has been proposed ~n the recreation zone, and suggests that the Master ?lan, including the zone boundaries, be subject to raview at five-year intervals Clarification of some of the "access" definitions has also been requested The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (l1etro Parks and Property, ~etro Planning and Metro Works) indicated that the time frame for establishing land use in the Long-Ter~ Development Zone will have to be adjusted according to landfill rates. However, the three departm~ts concur with t~e recommended Option 3 The Ministry of the ~nvironment concurs with Option 3 as recommended i~ the report as address.ng the major concerns of the Task Force with the preli~inary report including those of the Ministry The Ministry of Tour_sm and Recreation concurs with Option 3 3S the most viable Ms ~almer-Korn sugg~sted that a policy st3:e~en~ on ma::ers related to the T H C future development needs would be helpful The resoonse from the Ministrv of Natural Resources indicates :hat "the selection of Option 3 does not inhibit any of the programs of this ministry and is the logical op~ion based on the evaluation." The Ci~y of T~ronto's repres ntative has not for~arded any comments as of August 23/85 on ~he Phase I eport It is noted that approval jy City Council of the ~ent:al Water ront recommendations and land ~se =onin; :or Tommy Thompson ?ar~ is still pending ~ttachments 1985.08 27 ~F/md D-l88 SCHEDULE "B" TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER ~ND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M T R C A. - Meeting #4/85 FROM MR J. C. MATHER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET PAGE 7 Non-Capital Projects Non-capital projects include program administration, conservation services, operations and maintenance of water control structures and surveys and studies not charged to specific capital works The municipal portion of the funding (generally 45%) is collectad through a "general levy" on our member municipality, which in turn raise the monies from the municipal tax levies for the budget year. The attached budget analysis outlines the impact of the proposed non-capital projects of the Water Resource Division on the Authority's general levy as well as the consequences of deleting items from the proposed budget The Board may wish to use this analysis as a guide for recommending budget improvements to the Finance and Administration Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT The Board receive the 1986 Preliminary Water and Related Land Management Budget and forward it to the Finance and Administration Advisory Board with the recommendation that a preliminary budget containing non-capital program improvements priorities to an extent of ~% be included in the preliminary 1986 Authority Budget Attachments 1985 08 29 JCM/md , 0 I I-' CO \0 198b BUDGET ANALYSIS WA'fgR AND RELA'l'ED [AND MANAGEMEtll" NON-CAPI'fl\L PROOlAMS (OOO's of $) Provi ocial Grant C,encral Levy Consequences of not undertakinj project $ % $ % 1985 Budget 898 1 100 0 734 6 100 0 Deduct StudiesjMajor Maintenance 78.2 41.2 819 9 91 3 693 4 94 4 Ado Inflation adjustment 52.5 97 1 44 7 100 5 Contract position - administration 8 2 98 0 6 8 101 5 Computer specialist. Lose ability to utilize conputer applications required for analysis of technical. Rouge Ri ver Wa tershed Study 55.0 104 1 45 0 107 7 Unable to resporrl to specific IDlUlicipal request arrl delay in implementinj urban drainage requirements. Major Maintenance - York Mills 44 0 109 0 36.0 112.6 Continued loss of channel capaci ty arrl aggravation of flood hazard. G.Ross Lord Dam maintenance 15.0 110.7 12.0 114 2 Adverse impact on dam operation arrl necessary repairs. SnaIl dam maintenance 20 6 1130 16 9 116.5 further postponanent of repairs required to ensure structural stability E.C - Priorization studies 23.1 115 6 18 9 119 1 Required to identify arrl rank sites for future work Would reduce ability to determine hazard arrl to priorize Flood Control data m.'H~ement 4 7 116 1 3.8 119 6 COmputerization of backwater information Would reduce ability of plan review arrl technical staff response to development proposals Major Mtce - Masscy Creek Channel . 33.0 119 8 27 0 123 3 Failure of erosion control channel - 2 - 1986 81mcET At~LYSIS WA'rER RELATED lAND MAtU\GEMEN'r NON~APITAL PRornAMS (OOO's of $) Provincial Grant General Levy Consequences of not undertakirg project $ % $ % F C. Provincial criteria study 138 1213 11.2 1248 Reduce the ability to analyze technical implica- tions of new flood plain criteria. F C. thall dam studies 5.5 1219 4 5 125 4 Unable to carry out structural analysis to plan required maintenance. Workshop fencing 7 4 122.7 6.1 126.2 Continued vandalism problems. Conservation services, 4 8 123 2 4.7 126 8 Unable to continue portion of wildlife management Tanmy 'l'hanpson Park efforts specific to tern population Conservation services, 2 8 123 5 2.2 127 1 Unable to implement first phase of rural controls Rural Sediment Control for sediment reduction to assist in improved water quali ty. E.C. Technical Studies 6.6 124 2 5.4 127 8 Geotechnical study required to determine ranedial requirements. Corrective work will not prOL~. MaWing - Non-Foop 2.8 124 5 2.2 128 1 Mappirg will not reflect charges resultirg fran developnent and/or ranedial measures. Reduces accuracy in assessirg flood hazard Mapping - FooP 40 0 129 0 10.0 129 5 Continue to be unable to provide flood hazard information in areas drainirg less than 1300 HA (5 sq.miles) required by municipalities and development industry . nood Forecasting, study & equipt 22 0 131 5 18 0 131.9 No improvements to existirg system. 1,181 7 131 5 968 8 131. 9 ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- 0 I ~ \0 0 I 00 I I~ .0 t~ Page V-l 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOUnCt. This Division is responsible for the carrying out of the approved water management policies and programs of the Authority, as they apply to the river systems and the Lake Ontario Waterfront, including - administration of the Flood Control Program; - administration of the Authority's Erosion and Sediment Control Program, including the Lake Ontario Shoreline; - administration of the Storm Water Management Program; - administration of the Waterfront Development Program; - administration of the Conservation Land Management Program; - the development and operation of a Flood warning System; - technical advice and direction concerning the enforcement of the Authority's fill regulations and development control; - the administration of the Authority's plan review function related to the Authority's fill and construction regulations in co-operation with the member municipalities and the Province of Ontario; , - long range planning and policy development related to Divisional responsibilities; - environmental monitoring and review of flood control and waterfront projects; - development of programs reyarding forest management, wildlife habitat, stream improvement and conservation land planni ng . 85 08 29 . Page V-2 19~6 PHELIMINARY BUDGET 1985 ACHIEVEMENTS - Completed flood control remedial measures on Duffin Creek - Completed the replacement of the Goodwood Pumping Station - Continued the operation and development of the flood warning system - Operated and maintained existing erosion and flood control works - Implemented erosion control works on a priority basis in Metropolitan Toronto, Peel, York and Durham, including the Lake Ontario shoreline, Bellamy Road Ravine, and Highland Creek - Continued development of Colonel Samuel Smith, Ajax, and Bluffers Phase II Waterfront Areas. - Continued with the preparation of a master plan for Aquatic Park while managing the interim use program - Increased forestry management programs on Authority owned lands - Increased sediment control programs, in particular urban management and rural on-stream sediment control. - Implemented a new flood warning communications system. - Completed Phase I of preparing Master Drainage Plan for forwarding to our municipalities 1986 PRIORITIES - Continue the operation and development of the flood warning system - Operate and maintain existing erosion and flood control works - Implement erosion control works on il priority basis in Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and York, including the Lake Ontario shoreline, Bellamy Road Ravine, and Highland Creek - Continue development of Colonel Samuel Smith, Ajax, and Bluffers Phase II Waterfront Areas. - Continue with the preparation of a master plan for Aquatic Park while managing the interim use program - Increase forestry management programs on Authority owned lands - Increase sediment control programs, in particular urban management and rural on-stream ~ediment control - Complete the implementaticn of a new flood warnin<] communications system - Commence the dredging of Keating Channel - Continue predevelopment property mallagement in PiCkering/Ajax and at Tommy Thompson Park - Continue to update data acquisition capabilities related to flood forecasting and warning - Continue programs of tree planting and conservation planning and manage the Authority nursery. o I 85 08 29 ~ '" N 0 I ..... '" w Page V-3 1986 PRELIMI~RY UUDGET WATEIl RESOUHCE 1985 1986 UUCG:T SOUHCJ>S ~' E'INMCU-xi 1985 BUDGE'f PROJOC'fro AC'I\JALS PHOOlAM NET PROVI to[; IAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDI 'IUR ES REVENUES EXPENDITURF.5 GRANT lEVY OTItER EXPENDI'l'URES REVENUES EXPENDITURES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Program Mmi nistration 1,056,801 1,056,801 55'),421 480,294 17 , 086 963,390 946,150 Conservation Services 577,526 185,500 392,026 214,539 177,487 628,526 169,925 535,775 181,000 Operation arrl Maintenance - Water Control Structures 286,400 286,400 151,520 128,880 210,000 209,500 Erosion Control 2,551,900 9,500 2,542,400 1,398,320 1,144,080 2,401,354 1,579,000 Flood Control PlannifJ] arrl Ranalia1 Works 988,500 988,500 528,675 409,825 50,000 474,680 390,100 TOTAL 5,461,127 195,000 5,266,127 2,858,475 2,340,566 67,086 4,677,950 169,925 3,660,525 181,000 . 85.08 29 .-. Page V-4 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURCE PROGRAM Program Administratio~ PUR POSE . To provide administrative, planning, biological and engineering staff necessary for implementing 1985 programs. 1986 OIjJEC'fIVES - To carry out the 1906 work programs within the Flood Control, Erosion Control and Planning and Environmental categorio:!s within the fundinlj limi ts j,'INAI~CIAL COMMENTS This is a shared program, 55% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities 1'he Water 1~eme Co-ordinator is funded by a special agreement between the Ministry of Na tural Resources and the Authority whereby the Ministry of Natural Resources will provide 50% of the Co-ordinator's salary and benefits The Flood Control Workshop is funded fully by the participating municipalities. OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Suppli es & Services & Wtlyes Benefits Utilities & Rents TOTAL $ 765,669 218,202 25,000 47,130 1,056,801 - 0 85.00 29 I t-' '.D .... 0 I f-' '" 111 l>age V-5 1986 PRELIMJl.lAR'l I3UDCE'r WA'!'EH RESOUHCE Program Program Administration 1985 1986 BU[u;'!' SOlffiCES OI? FHlAOCING 1985 DUDCl~T PHOJI'Ci'ED AC'1'UJ\[S ACrIVITI NET PROVnCIAL MUNICIPAL EXPE NOI'l'UR ES HEVENlmS EXPENOI'rIJHES mAN'!, LEVY O'l'IlEH EXPENDITURES RbWNUES EXPEtIDI'l'UHES HEVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Salaries 734,183 734,183 403,801 330,382 659,000 659,000 Benefi ts 213,516 213,516 117,434 96,082 193,500 193,000 Travel am other 23,430 23,430 12,886 10,544 20,600 21,000 Wi.! ter 'Illane Co-ordinator 34,172 34,172 17,086 17 , 086 31,150 31,150 E'lood Control \'Iorkshop 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,100 5,000 Flood Control Workshop Fencing 13, 500 13,500 7,425 6,075 Genera! Expenses Technical Maps 9,800 9,800 5,390 4,410 9,500 9,000 Data Processing 7,700 7,700 4,235 3,465 24,540 23,000 P.egula tions 15,000 15,000 8,250 6,750 20,000 5,000 ro!'AL 1,056,801 1,056,801 559,421 480,294 17 , 086 963,390 946,150 . 85.08 2<;, Page V-6 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WA'rER RESOUHCE PROGRAM Conservation Services - Conservation Planning PURPOSE '1'0 provide techniciil advice to private landowners to promote sound land management programs To carry out resource management planning activities for Authod ty lands and technical advice to agencies managing Authority lands in urban areas. 1986 OBJECTIVES - To continue to provide technical advice for reforestation, farm tree and shrub plantings, woodlot management, pond management and stream improvement to private and public landowners. - To provide E S A managell;ent technical advice to private and public landowners. - To prepare resource management plans for Authority owned lands - To provide a program of conservation planning for private landowners FINANCIAL COMMENTS This is a shared program, 55% of the funds be i ng available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the yeneral levy on ~ll participating municipalites ObJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Suppli es & Services & Wages Utilities & Rents TO'rAL $ 149,-386 4,500 8,000 161,886 0 I 85 08.27 ...... \D 0\ 0 I t-' \0 -.I 1986 PHELIMUu\RY BlJDrnT Page V-7 WATER RESOURCE Program: Conservation Services - Conservation P1annill] I I 1985 1986 BU/X1':'r SOllHCES Cl" FIW\.tCINC 1985 DUIn:T PROJE>2'rm ACWAlS AcrIVITY NET PROVItCIAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPENDITlnU:S rnAtlT LEVY OTHER EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPENUITURES Rt.'VENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Conservation P1anniO:J 161,886 161,806 89,037 72,849 144,700 145,000 'l'OTAL 161,886 161,886 89,037 72,849 144,700 145,000 - 85.08 27 , Page V-8 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WA'fER RESOURCE PROGRAM Conservation Services - Storm Water Mdnagemen~ PURPOSE To carry out urban storm water management and master drainage planning studies to minimize the effect of development on erosion and floodi ng 1986 OBJECTIVES To further update and develop the Authority Storm Water Management Program as part of the overall Watershed Plan review being ca r r i ed ou t, particularly in light of the new provincial Urban Drainage Guidelines FI NAUCIAL COMMEN'l'S The Urban/Rural drainage is a generally benefiting program which receives a 55% grant from the Province of Ontario OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS liaterials Salaries Suppli es & Services & Wages Utilities & Rents TO'fAr. - $ 5,000 5,000 10,000 . t:l I 85 08 29 ..... \D CD 0 I ..... \D \Cl Page V-9 1986 PRELIMINAHV BlJI)Ct:T WA'fER RESOUnCI:. Program Conservation Services - Storm Water ~:magement 1905 1986 BU!XiE'l' souncts IF FINAOCING 1985 BUIXiET PROJOC'fm AC'IUALS ACTIVI T'i NET PROVHCIAL MUNICIPAL EXPElIDITURES REVEllUES EXPENDITUHES rnANT LEV'{ OTHER EXPENDI'l'UHES REVENUES EXPENDITURES REVEtlUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Urban/Rural Drainage 10,000 10,000 5,500 4,500 15,000 15,000 TOTAL 10,000 10,000 5,500 4,500 15,000 15.000 - 05.08.29 -.. Page V-IO 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURCE PIWGRAM Conservation Services - Tree Planting/Forest Management PURPOSE To pr.ovide technical assistance to private landowners to promote sound water conservation programs To carry out resource management programs for Authori ty lands and public landowners. 1986 OBJEC'l'IVES - To continue farm tree and shrub plant i ngs - To increase revenues from plant propagation - To increase woodlot and foretit management activities on Authority lands - To increase reforestation programs on private lands FINANCIAL COMMENTS This is a shared program, 55% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies & Services & ~ages Utilities & Rents TOTAL $ 209,425 65,875 49,675 324,975 0 I 85 08 26 N 0 0 0 0 I N 0 t-' 1986 PRFLIMI~RY BUDGET Page V-ll . WA'fER RESOURC~ Program: Conservation Services - Tree Plantirg/Forest Management 19115 1986 BULn:T SOURCES OF FI~OCING 1985 BUom'l' PROJOC'l'ED ACTUALS ACTIVI'lY NET PROVI lC IAL MUUiCIPAL EXPENDI TlJHES REVENUES EXPENDITURES aU\NT LEW O'l'HER EXPENDITUnES REVENUES EXPEND I 'I'URES R~VENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Plant Propagation 173,000 163,000 10,000 5,500 4,500 155,000 147,000 157,000 149,000 Reforestation 35,000 5,000 30,000 16,500 13,500 32,500 5,725 32,500 6,000 Farm Tree & Shrub 7,500 7,500 7,200 7,200 11,000 11,000 Resource Manayement 16,275 16,275 8,951 7,324 16,275 16,275 Forest Management 93,200 10,000 83,200 45,760 37,440 90,000 10,000 95,000 15,000 TOfAL 324,975 185,500 139,475 76,711 62,764 300,975 169,925 311,775 181,000 . 85.08.26 Page V-12 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURCf~ PROGRAM Conservation Services _ Soil Conservation/Sediment Control PURPOSE '1'0 provide technical assistance to private, public and Authority owned lands for sediment control 1986 OBJECTIVES - To increase programs of stream improvement, fencing, tree and shrub plants in rural and urban areas for off-stream and on-stream sediment control - To contribute to the improvement of downstream water quality by reducing erosion and the transportation of other pollutants or ig i natinlJ from upstream sites FINANCIAL COMMENTS 'rhi s is a shared program, 55% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies & Services ~Wages Utilities . & Rents TO'rAL $ 18,895 28,995 11,275 59,165 0 85.08 29 I IV 0 IV 0 I N 0 (.oj Page V-13 1906 PRELIMINARY BU~T WA'rER RESOUHCE Program: Conservation Services - Soil Conservation/Sediment Control 1985 1986 BU~T SOURCES (F FINAOCING 1985 BU!X;ET PROJOCTED AC'l'\JALS ACTIVITY Nt:r PROVIICIAL MUNICIPAL EXPElmI'rURES REVENUES ExPENDI'I'URES CHANT LEVY OTHER EXPENlHTURES REVENUES EXPENDl TURES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Stream Improvement 28,500 28,500 15,675 12,825 64,976 20,000 Urban I Management 25,665 25,665 14,116 11,549 24,675 24,000 Rural Sediment Control -5,000 5,000 2,750 2,250 'l'O'fAL 59,165 59,165 32,541 26,624 89,651 44,000 . 85.08.29 Page V-14 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDG~T W A'U; R RESOURCE PROGRAM Conservation Services - Fish/Wildlife Management PURPOSE '1'0 carry out a program of fish rearing and stocking for selected Authority Conservation Areas and Forest and Wildlife Areas. To carry out a program of fish/wildlife improvement for private and public landowners and on Authority lands. '1'0 assess f i shi ng opportunities in urban alld rural areas of the watershed and target management projects. 19865 OBJECTIVES - To produce approximately 45,000 rainbow trout - To increase fisheries management projects on cold water streams in the rural areas of the Duffins and Humber Watershed. - To carry out a Wildlife Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park FINANCIAl. COMMEN'rS This is a shared program, 50% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies & Services & Wages Utilities & Rents TOTAL $ 7..600 13,650 250 21,500 I 0 I 85 08 29 N 0 of>. 0 I N 0 lJ1 Page ~ 1986 P~ELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURCE Program Conservation Services - FishjWildlife Management 1985 1986 DUOO::'l' SOURCES (l<' FINAICING 1985 BUDGE'r PRQJOC'l'ill AC'I.'UALS ACTIVITI NE'r PROVItCIAL MUNICIPAL I:;XPJ:: NO 1 'l'URES REVENUJ::S EXPI:;NDI'l'URFB rnAlIT LEVY O'rliER EXPENDI'!'URES R~'VENUES EXPElml'!'U~E3 REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Glen llaffy - Fish Reario:j 9,500 9,500 4,750 4,750 9,000 8,500 Fish Management 2,500 2,500 1,250 1,250 61,700 4,000 Wildl i fe Managell~nt 9,500 9,500 4,7~0 4,750 Urban Fisheries Study 7,500 7,500 TOl'AL 21,500 21,500 10,750 10,750 78,200 20,000 . 05,08 29 Page V-16 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURCE PROGRAM Operation & Maintenance/Dams, Channels, Erosion Control Structures PUR POSE To maintain existing erosion and flood control capital works, the flood warning system and the operation of major flood control dams 1986 OBJEC'rIVBS _ To provide regular maintenance for the Authority's flood control, erosion control and shoreline management works ~'I NANCIAL COMMEI~'l'S This is a shared program, 55% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies '" Services '" Wag~ Utilities '" Rents TOTAL $ 91,000 77,510 114,890 286,400 - 0 85 08 29 I IV 0 0\ 0 I N 0 Page V-D -..J 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDCf:T WATER RESOURCE Program operation & Maintenance/~s, Channels, Erosion Control Structures 1985 , 1986 BUOO~T SOURCES UO' FINAOCING 1985 BUDGE'r PROJOCTED ACTUALS ACrIVITI m.'T PROVI II: IAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPENlHTUIlES rnANT LEVY O'l'IIER EXPENDI'l'URF.s REVENUES EXPEND I 'l'URES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ &naIl Darns 54,500 54,500 29,975 24,525 15,000 22,000 Erosion Works 23,000 23,000 12,650 10,350 22,000 24,500 Regular Mainte- nance - Water Control Structures 102,000 102,000 56,100 45,900 97,000 92,000 CIa irev Ule [6m 19,000 19,000 10,450 8,550 18 , 000 18,000 G Ross Lord Dam 37,500 37,500 20,625 16,875 10,000 5,000 Flood WamirrJ Systan 50,400 50,400 27,720 22,680 48,000 48,000 rorAL 286,400 286,400 157,520 128,880 210,000 209,500 - 85.08.29 Page V-IS 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WA'l'ER RESOURCE - PROGRAM Erosion Control PURPOSE To minimize the hazards of erosion to life and property within the valley systems and the Lake Ontario shoreline 1986 OBJECTIVES - 'ro carry out remedial protection works on a priority basis on the major valleys within Metropolitan Toronto. - To carry out remedial measures on a priority basis along the Lake Ontario shoreline. - To carry out remedial works on a priority basis on the major valleys in the Region of Peel - To carry out remedial works on a priority basis on the major valleys in the Region of York. - To continue to update and augment the current erosion inventories and priority lists - To continue remedial works on the Bellamy Road Ravine and the Highland Creek - To carry out major maintenance on the Massey Creek Channel FINANCIAL COMMENTS Highland Creek, Bellamy Road, Metro Erosion Control and the Shoreline Management Projects are Metro Toronto benefiting and receive a 55% grant from the Province of Ontario 'l'he Peel and York erosion control projects are Peel and York benefiting respectively and receive a 55% grant The priorization study, major maintenance, surveys and studies are generally benefiting projects and receive a 55% grant from the Province OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Sa 1 a r i e s Suppli es & Furniture Services Acquisition & Wages Benefi ts Utilities & Equipment & Rents of Real Property To'rAL -- $ 381,400 33,800 921,700 10,200 1,174,800 30,000 2,551,000 0 I 85 08 29 N 0 0) 0 I N 0 'J) l'uge V-19 1986 PHF.L1HHv\HY BUDCET W7\TEI{ HF.SOURCE Program F.rosion Control 1985 1986 BUIX;E'r SOURCFS a:' FHfI\N2ING 1985 BU()Qo~'r PRo..JOC'I'1:D ACl'UAlS ACTIVITY NET PROVlt-CIlIL HU~lIC II'AL EXPENDITURFS REVENUES EXPENDI'IURES GRl\NT LFVY O'rtJER EXPENDITURES REVENUBS EXPENDI'l'URES REVEIJUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hi'Jhlarrl Creek 76,200 76,200 41,910 34,290 73,500 73,000 Be11amyRocrl 1,100,000 1,100,000 605,000 495,000 1,215,000 400,000 Shoreline MJt. 695,000 695,000 3U2,250 312,750 602,000 600,000 Hetro Erosion 502,000 9,500 492,500 270,875 221,625 411,273 411,000 Peel Erosion 30,000 30,000 16,500 13,500 York Erosion 34,700 34,700 19,085 15,615 44,200 40,000 Erosion Si tes Inventory (" Priorization Stooies 42,000 42,000 23,100 18,900 30,0111 30,000 Major Maintenance 60,000 60,000 33,000 27,000 25,363 25,000 Surveys (" Studies 12,000 12,000 6,600 5,400 'r<YrAL 2,551,900 9,500 2,542,400 1,398,320 1,144,080 2,401,354 1,579,000 85 08.29 Page V-20 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATEH RESOURCE PIWGRAM Flood Control Planning and Remedial Measures PURPOSE '1'0 undertake a comprehensive program of flood control designed to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk of hazard to li fe and property, while cognizant of the natural attributes of the valley system 1986 OBJECTIVES - To carry out a Watershed Planning Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed - To carry out engineering studies of flood prone areas - '1'0 continue to upda te topographic mapping in developing areas - To continue to expand and improve flood warning capability - To carry out major maintenance at the York Mills Channel - To commence dredging of the Keating Channel FINANCIAL COMMENTS Surveys and Studies, non-FURP floodplain mapping, and major maintenance are 55% funded by the Province of Ontario and the balance is funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities The FDRP Floodplain Mapping is a generally benefiting project, with ~50,000 from the Federal Government, $40,000 from the Province of Ontario and $10,000 from the general levy on all participating municipalities The K~a t i ng Channel is Metropolitan Toronto benefiting and receives a 55% grant from the Province of Ontario. The Flood Forecasting and Warning is 55% from the Province of Ontario and the balance from the capi ta 1 levy on all participating mu~icipalities. OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies & Furniture Services & Wages Utilities & Equipment & Rents TOTAL $ 15,000 615,000 24..000 334,500 988,500 0 I N 85 08 29 I-' 0 t:l I '" !-J L>"dge V-21 !-J 1986 PRELIMi~RY BUDGET WA'rEH HESOlmCE: prOgram Flood Control Planning and l~~ial Measures 1985 1986 BUfaT SOURCE:S a? Fi~OCING 1985 BUDGET PROJEX::'l'ED ACTUALS ACTIVI'N NE'r PROVI u:: IAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE:S RE.VENlIES EXPENDI'l'URE:S GRANT LEVY O'l'IIE:R EXPENDITURES REWNUES EXPENDITURFS REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Surveys & Studies 143,500 143,500 78,925 64,575 25,000 25,000 Loller Don - Keating 600,000 600,000 330,000 270,000 noodplain MappifY) - FORP 100,000 100,000 40,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 30,000 - Non FrnP 5,000 5,000 2,750 2,250 9,000 9,000 Flood Forecasting & Wdming 60,000 60,000 33,000 27,000 00,000 80,000 Major Maintenance 80,000 80,000 44,000 36,000 14 , 580 15,000 Ajax Rune.:! i al I'<< s 15,000 15,000 pickering R.W 225,000 210,000 Gocdwocd 1,600 1,600 E.t1umber Stream Gc.uge 4 500 4,500 TOrAL 988,500 988,500 528,675 409,825 50,000 474,680 390,100 85.08.29 - Page V-22 1986 PHELIMINI\RY BlJOO>'l' WATER RESOURCE 1985 1986 llUlXJ;:T SOUHCES OF FINI\OCHlG 1985 BUDGET PROJOC'I'ID ACWAlS PRornAM N~'T PROVIlCIAL MuNICIPAL EXPENDI'I'URES RE-VENUES EXPENDI'l'URES rnANT LEVY OTHER EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPENDI'I'URES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ , WaterfI:ont Administration 297,086 297,086 147,043 150,043 253,580 255,000 Lake <Xltario Waterfront Devdopment 1,494,632 100,000 1,394,632 647,316 747,316 909,000 100,000 918,000 100,000 TO'I'AL 1,791,718 "100,000 1,691,718 794,359 897,359 1,162,580 100.000 1,1"13,000 100,000 0 I '" 85.08 29 ..... '" 0 I IV t- w Page V-23 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WA'fER RESOURCE PROGRAM Waterfront Administration PURPOSE To provide administrative, planning, biological and engineering staff necessary for implementing Waterfront projects 1986 OBJECTIVES _ To proceed with design and construction of waterfront areas. - To proceed with planning and approval submissions for future waterfront works FINANCIAL COMMENTS TillS is a ahared program, 50% of the funds being avail~ble from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the general levy on all participating municipalities The Waterfront Workshop is fully funded by participating municipalities. OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies (, Services Ft\(ni ture [,. Wages Benefits Utilities (, Rents (, E<;L~.i pme n t TO'fAL $ 195,100 60,610 4,000 22,376 15,000 297,086 85 08 29 - - - -- Page V-24 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WATER RESOURC~ Pro:jram Waterfront Administrat ion 1985 1906 BUDrnT souncES OF FINAOCING 1985 BUDGET PROJD:::TI:D AC'1'UMS ACTIVITY NE'f PROVHCIAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES RlVl':tIUES EXPEND I TURES GRAN'!' LEVY OTHER EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPEIJDITURES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Salaries 194, 100 194,100 97,050 97,050 177,500 179,000 Benefi ts 60,610 60,610 30,305 30,305 53,500 54,000 Travel 9,976 9,976 4,988 4,988 9,500 9,000 Data Processio:j 3,700 3,700 1,850 1,850 3,000 3,000 General Exfenses 4,700 4,700 2,350 2,350 7,000 7,000 W F Workshop 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 W F PickerilYJ Works 6,000 6,000 3,000 3,000 W F Canmun i- cation 15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 TarAL 297,086 . 297,086 147 043 150,043 253,500 255,000 0 85.08.29 t IV ...... 4>- 0 I IV ..... U1 Page V-25 1986 PRELIMINARY BODC~T WA'rER HESOURCE PROGRAM Waterfront Development PURPOSE The purpose of the Waterfront Plan is to create, on the Lake Ontario shoreline, within the area of the Authority's jurisdiction, a handsome waterfront, balanced in its land uses, wh ich will complement adjacent areas, take cognizance of ex i s t i ng residential development and make available, wherever possible, features which warrant public use. 1986 OBJECTIVES - '1'0 continue the construction of Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Area. - To ,-ontinue the development of the marina site and complete the remainder of Phase I I, Bluffers Park _ To maintain navigation aids at all sites - To continue improvements to the Ajax Waterfront - '1'0 continue the environmental monitoring program _ To prepare a master plan for Aquatic Park and manage an intetim use program _ To dinitiate development of East Point Park to accommodate safe public use _ To undertake channel dredging and shoreline improvements at Ashbridges Bay FINANCIAL COMMENTS This is a shared program, 50% of the funds being available from the Province of Ontario and the balance being funded from the Waterfront Capital Levy on all participating municipalities OBJbCTIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Materials Salaries Supplies & Services Furniture .!< Wages Benefits Utilities & Rents & Equ i pment TOTAL :? 207,680 24,852 436,800 822,300 3,000 1,494,632 . 85 08 29 Page V-26 1986 PRELIMI~RY BUDGET WA'rER RESOURCE Program Waterfront Deve1~ncnt . 1985 1986 13UIX1,'r SOURCES OF FINANCING 1985 BUDGET PROJOCTED AC'I\JALS AC'l' IV I 'l'Y NET PROVnCIAL MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES EXPENOI'l'URES GWIT LEVY O'I'HER EXPENOI'ItJRES Rt-VENUES EXPENOI'l'URES REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sam Smi th 580,000 100,000 480,000 190,000 290,000 500,000 100,000 500,000 100,000 IIW1lber Bay West 15,000 15,000 7,500 7,500 30,000 30,000 Bluffers Park 160,000 160,000 80,000 80,000 65,000 65,000 Astilrid ge 's Bay 281,000 201,000 140,500 140,500 East Point Park 155,000 155,000 77 , 500 77 , 500 Pre-Property Mgt 38,300 38,300 19,150 19,150 25,000 25,000 Ajax Waterfront 60,000 60,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 Env Stooies 70,000 70,000 35,000 35,000 66,000 63,000 . Turuny 'I'hanpson Park 135,332 135,332 67,666 67,666 138,000 150,000 Sundry Si tes 45,000 45,000 Visitor Survey 15,000 15,000 . 'rffi'AL 1,494,632 100,000 1,394,632 647,316 747,316 909,000 100,000 918.000 100,000 0 85 00 29 I N r- '" 0 I N ..... ..... R\l:le IV-9 1986 PRELIMl~~RY BUDGET FlNAICE AND AU-tINIS'rHA'I'lON pr:ogr:am: PI: q:Je r: ty Acquisition, Maintenance & Management 1985 1986 DUDCE'I' SOURC.,;s 01" ),' 1 NAOC I NG 1985 BUDGET PROJECl't::D ACTUALS ACTIVIW NE'I' PROVHCIAL MUNICIPAl.. I EXPJ::NDlTURFS REVENUES EXPENDITURES GRANT LEVY O'rllER EXPEIIDlTURES REVENUES EXPENDlTUR.,;s REVENUES $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Flood Contr:ol Land Acquisition 300,000 300,000 165,000 135,000 200,000 Metr:o Acquisition 3,500,000 3,500,000 1,925,000 1,575,000 Water:fr:ont Haz3r:d Land Acquisition 120,000 120,000 66,000 54,000 108,000 Watedr:ont Operi-Space land Acquisition 300,000 300,000 150,000 150,000 365,000 Legal r..osts Regulation Enfor:cenent 10,000 Water: & Related 'I'axes 265,000 Insw:ance 13,000 Conser:vation & Recr:eation Taxes 40,000 Insur:ance 13,000 'I'm'AI.. 1,014,000 - 85.08.28 ~ 0-218 , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes REPOR'l' #5/85 WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 4-0CTOBER-1985 #5/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre on Friday, 4 October, 1985 The meetJ.ng was called to order at 10 30 a: m PRESENT ~cting Chairman William G McLean Members William Belfontaine James Davidson Lois E Griffin Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna Ronald A P Moran Basil V Orsini Morton M Smith, QC Robert F M Yuill Authority Vice-Chai~man Lois Hancey ABSENT Members Roger J Crowe . Elizabeth Gomes Hon Monte Kwinter Frank J McKechnie Peter E Oyler Norah Stoner Dr Halter M Tovell Helen White MINUTES Res ~84 Moved by cryn Lloyd Seconded by Robert F M Yuill 1'HA T the 'linutes of Meeting #4/85 be approved CARRIED PROGRESS REPORTS Oral presentations were made by staff of works in progress or completed by the Engineering & Development, Water Management, Resource Management and Plan Review Sections DELEGATIONS With the consent of the Board, the following delegation was heard in connection with Agenda Items a (1) Hydroplane Races of June 15-16, 1985, and 8(2) Gull C'Jntrol. Tommy Thompson Park, 1985 Jacqueline Courval, Member of the Steering Committee Friends of the Spit Mr Moran commended Ms Courval for her presentation and supported her position The above presentation dated October 4 1985, is appended as Schedule "A (1)" of these Minutes A ppended as Schedule "A (2)" is copy of letter dated June 9 1985 (Friends of the Spit to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) concerning the boat rac'~s of June 15-16 A letter dated October 2, 1985, from Dr Verna J Higgi:1s, University of Toronto, Department of Botany also in respect of the hydroplane races is appended as Schedule "A (3)" 0-219 -2- SECTION I FOR CONSIDERATION L PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO, 1985-1986: 1986 PROGRAM A staff report was submitted outlining the accomplishments of "Project W C -60 - Erosion Control & Bank Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto", the Interim Water & Related Land Management Erosion Control Project, the 1982-1984 Erosion Project, and the 1985-1986 Erosion Project to date Res #85 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Ronald Moran THAT the Progress Report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1986 Work Program and Current Priorities for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto, as appended as Schedule IIBII of these Minutes, be approved CJl..RRIED 2. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, 1985-1986 1986 PROGRAM A staff report was presented outlining the accomplishments of the Interim Water & Related Land Management Erosion Control Project, the 1982-1984 Erosion Project, and the 1985-1986 Erosion Project to date Res #86 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Bryn LLoyd THAT the Progress Report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1986 Work Program and Current Priorities for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in The Regional Municipality of Peel, as appended as Schedule lIell of these Minutes, be approved . CARRIED 3 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM, 1985-1986: 1986 PROGRAM A staff report was presented outlining the accomplishments of the Interim Water & Related Land Management Erosion Control Project, the 1982-1984 Erosion Project, and the 1985-1986 Erosion Project to da"te Res #87 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the Progress Report be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1986 Work Program & Current Priorities for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilizatiqn in The Regional Municipality of Durham, as appended as Schedule lIDIl of these Minutes, be approved CARRIED 4 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK, 1985-1986 1986 PROGRA M A staff report was presented outlining the accomplishments of the Interim Water & Related Land Management Erosion Control Project, the 1982-1984 Erosion Project, and the 1985-1986 Erosion Project to date --,- 0-220 Res #88 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the Progress Report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the 1986 Work Program and Current Priorities for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilization in The Regional Municipality of York, as appended as Schedule liE" of these Minutes, be approved CARRIED 5. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK, 1985-1986 -Proposed Remedial Work at Rear of #20 Klein's Cresc., Town of Vaughan (Humber River Watershed) A staff report was presented advising that at Meeting #22/84, the Executive Committee approved the revised 1985 Erosion Control Remedial Works Program for The Regional Municipality of York, which included proposed work at the rear of #20 Klein's Crescent in the Town of Vaughan Approval '..;as received at the Board's Meeting #1/85 to retain a geotechnical consultant to determine the causes of the problem and to recommend remedial measures The consultants' report has been received, and, based on their findings, staff is prepared to recommend that corrective measures be taken The total cost for the proposed works is $26 500 00, and the benefiting property will be assessed $4,150 00 and is required to provide a permanent easement over the lands where the works will be carried out or to deed to the Authority title to the valley lands in the vicinity of the failure area Res #89 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control and slope stabilization work be , carried out at the rear of #20 Klein's Crescent, Town of Vaughan (Humber River watershed) , at an estimated cost of $26,500 00, AND FURTHER THAT the benefiting owner contribute a total of $4,150 00 towards the cos t of the works, and provide a permanent easement or give the Authority title to the valley lands in the vicinity of the work area CARRIED 6 KEATING CHANNEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A staff report was presented advising that consideration of the Authority's proposals for dredging and other flood control measures in the vicinity of the mouth of the Don River has now reached the stage, under the Environmental Assessment Act, where the government review has been completed and released for public comment Res #90 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Bill Belfontaine WHEREAS the Government Review of the Authority's proposals with respect to the Keating Channel has now been released for public comment, ."'ND WHEREAS the Review concludes that the Authority's submissions fulfill the requirements of Sub-section 5 (3) of the Act, THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff report with respect to the Government Review of the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment be received, THAT the staff be directed to prepare a Project for the Implementation of Flood Control Measures in the Vicinity of the Keating Channel so that works can proceed as early as possible if the Minister of the Environment approves the undertaking AND FURTHER THAT if further action is deemed advisable by the Authority's solicitor the staff be directed to make appropriate submissions to the Minister of the Environment CARRIED B-221 -4- 7 POTTERY ROAD SNOW DUMP A staff report was presented advising that in preparation for the 1985/1986 season, the Authority has received a request from the City o'f Toronto Department of Public Works to grant approval for the disposal of snow at the Pottery Road site In response to Resolution #171 of Executive Committee Meeting #11/83, the City of Toronto prepared a report outlining their operational and maintenance responsibilities with respect to the snow dump site Authority staff is satisfied that the operation and restoration of the site, as proposed by the City of Toronto, will ensure a properly constructed and maintained snow dump Res #91 Moved by Bill Belfontaine Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT approval be given to the City of Toronto xor the disposal of snow at the Pottery Road site for the 1985-1986 season, AND FURTHER THAT the approval be subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the approval by the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, and to the issuance by the Authority of a permit under Ontario Regulation 170 CARRIED 8 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE USE OF THE GUILD INN As requested by the Board at its Meeting #4/85, a staff report was presented having regard to the report of the Board of Management of the Guild, "Development Plan for the Future Use of The Guild Inn Res #92 Moved by ~Iorton Smith Seconded by Robert Yuill WHEREAS The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of the Board of Management of The Guild Inn report - "Development Plan for the Future Use of The Guild Inn' , as adopted by the Metropolitan Toronto Council on June 25, 1985, . .'\ ND \'iHEREA S the report identifies the MTRCA as the agency responsible for the ~mplementation of the Development Plan for the day use facilities (arboretum, interpretive centre, park ing area, landscaping, day use pavilion/day mooring facility, and interpretive trails along the bluffs), at an estimated cost of $1,384,000 , and the shore-edge treatment (not costed) , AND WHEREAS the Authority staff have evaluated the proposed facilities in relation to the Authority's capital development priorities within the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program and the Shoreline Management Program, including Provincial funding priorities for such facilities, AND WHEREAS Authority staff have reviewed the Authority'S comments with the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, ~HE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (1) The Authority express its general support of the concepts proposed for the shoreline areas and for the principle of passive use of the existing woodlot areas, and further that the Authority offer continuing support in the ongoing planning process through participation in a detailed review of the entire master plan in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department and the consultants retained by the Board of Management of the Guild Inn ( 2) .n.uthority staff participate in the public input process, including the Public Meeting scheduled for October 2nd and keep the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board advised of the results of that process, ( 3) The Board of Management of The Guild Inn be advised that the proposed arboretum should be reviewed with Metropolitan Toronto as such a facility at this location would have a low funding priority for The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority (4 ) The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority continue to ensure public pedestrian access along the shoreline, -5- 0-222 (5) The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority implement shoreline protection works in the area of The Guild Inn in accordance with the priorities established within the Shoreline Management Program and in a form consistent with the concept of shoreline protection as presented in the consultants' report, (6) In accordance with the objectives of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program being the creation of safe harbourage, the day mooring facility as proposed in the Plan be considered as a low priority which does not preclude the long-term consideration of a small craft harbour in that area, (7) Authority staff assistance be available to Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department in implementing the trails and boardwalk through the Guild Forest, as designated by the Authority as an Environmentally Significant Area, AND FURTHER THAT the Authority forward the above comments to Metropolitan Toronto and the Board of Management of The Guild Inn CA RRIED 9 EXTENSION OF FILL REGULATION LINES IN THE CITY OF SCARBOROUGH A staff report was presented advising that at its meeting of August 26, 1985, the City of Scarborough Council passed the following resolution "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council request MTRCA in consultatior: with Scarborugh staff to investigate the possibility of , establishing a fill regulation line on significant ravine land' " Res #93 Moved by Robert iuill Seconded by Morton Smith THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to prepare a report on the feasibili ty of extending the Authori ty' s fill regulation lines to i.nclude significant ravine lands, THAT the feasibility report be based on extending fill regulation lines on significant ravines on a Regional Municipality basis, THAT the report be presented to the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board for review and action, AND FURTHER THAT the City of Scarborough be so advised CARRIED SECTION II FOR INFORHA TION 10 HYDROPLANE RACES OF JUNE 15-16, 1985 As requested by the Board at its Meeting #3/85, a staff report was presented in connection with monitoring of the above-noted event Res #94 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Robert Yuill THAT the staff report entitled "Toronto Hydroplane Races, June 15th and 16th - Environmental Impact Report" be received CARRIED D-223 -6- U. GULL CONTROL TOMMY THOMPSON PARK, 1985 A staff report was presented advising that the gull control program was again successful this year with a 100% reduction in RBG population in the control area, and 40% reduction over the total park Res #95 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Bryn Lloyd THAT the document entitled "Ring-billed Gull Control Programme at Tommy Thompson Park, 1985" be received CARRIED TERMINATION On motion, the meeting ...;as terminated at 11 40 a m , October 4 . W G McLean W E Jones Act~ng Chairman Secretary-Treasurer KC 0-22< SCHEDULE "A(l)' Friends of the Spit EQ Box 467, Station J Toronto, Ontario M4] 4Z2 October 4, 1985 Deputation by Jacqueline Courval, member of the Steering Committee, Friends of the Spit To: The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Toronto and Reg10n Conservation Authority Meeting #5/85 Mr. Chairman, Board Members My name is Jacqueline Courval. I am a member of the Steering Committee of Friends of the Spit. Our organization represents over 1,200 members, who wish to preserve Tommy Thompson Park as a Public Wilderness, and it is the voice of the more than 30,000 citizens and visitors who, every year, go to the Park to cycle, picnic, walk, or pursue other quiet recreational activities. I would like to address you briefly today on item 8 (1) and (2) on the agenda. First, the hydroplane races. In a letter dated July 9 to the Toronto Harbour Commission, copy of which was sent to Mr. J.C. Mather, Water Resources Division, we summarized the damage and nuisance to Spit users and many residents brought by the hydroplane races. You will remember that the MTRCA decided not to oppose the Toronto Harbour Commission holding the races. We were very disturbed that a Ifconservationll agency would allow an event totally incompatible with the uses of a natural park and potentially damaging to a fragile environment. . An extensive area of grasses and wildflowers was mowed, trees and shrubs were cut. The flimsy fence erected by the promoters of the race enabled spectators, cars, and pets to wander out of the viewing area. Fires were lit by spectators (it was a very cold weekend). Loudspeakers strung every few hundred feet started broadcasting music and comentaries more than two hours prior to the races and could be heard well past the races area. This racket, joined to the engine noise when the races started, destroyed the enjoyment of the regular users of the Park. Several were heard complaining bitterly. We are appalled that our Conservation Authority would have approved of such a non-compatible use of a na~ural area. Ironically, the damage, while significant, was not as extensive as it could have been due to the much smaller than anticipated number of spectators. Merely one quarter of the 40,000 ~6 -225 2 spectators showed up to view the races. The races were a commercial flop, and they generated much public hard feelings towards the Toronto Harbour Commission, and towards the MTRCA. Concerning the second item, gull control, we are appalled that the MTRCA allowed the shooting of gulls on the Spit, even for so-called "scientific purposes". There is no excuse for the use of so crude a method. It sets a very dangerous precedent that a Conservation Authority would authorize the use of firearms in an environmentally sensitive area and within a city. While we agree that the large number of these birds, for a short period of the year, is viewed as an annoyance by some people, we are concerned that bowing to pressure from certain quarters leads the Conservation Authority to drastic and inappropriate methods of control. According to scientific sources, the number of gulls on the Spit will dirn1nish naturally as vegetation takes over their favored nesting spots, a process well underway. We sincerely hope that the gull control ~rogram for 1986 will not negate your name of Conservation Authority, and that no further incompatible uses of Tommy Thompson Park will be approved by the MTRCA. Thank you. , - 0-226 SCHEDULE ""'(2)" Friends of the Spit EQ Box 467, Station] Toronto, Ontario M414Z2 J'une 9, 1985 Mr. Ian Brown (c99exec85136 :4) General Manager Toronto Harbour Commissioners 60 Harbour Street Toronto, Ontario MSJ lB7 Dear Mr. Brown: Several members of our organization were present both days, June 15 and 16, du ring the powerboat races held on the water adjacent to Tommy Thompson Park. This letter summarizes the i r findings. First, the general consensus is that a 1a rg e numbe r of the assurances given by the THC in your letter of April 15, 1985 to the City of Toronto Executive Committee were not i fulfilled. Noise "...there will be no impact on residential areas as there are none nearby. " In fact, on both day.,s, the noise carried as far as Kingston Road and beyond Lee Avenue. Levels were so high as to make normal conversation impossible. This went on through most of Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Furthermore, the no is e coming from loudspeakers strung along the neck of the Spit was deafening and could be heard well past the end of the races viewing area. The loudspeakers began to broadcast music and commentaries more than two hou rs bef ore the start of the races. . . . 2 - )-227' Page 2 Crowd control and containment The promoter of the races had promised a solid chain-link fence around the viewing area. In fact, a flimsy, flexible plastic fence was erected. It was easy to lift a section of the fence to go out of the "restricted area". Several cars and spectators on foot were observed doing so. In addition, several police motorcycles were racing at high speed up and down the Spit and cars and vans other than ambulances, police, and MTRCA vehicles were allowed to drive and park up into the headland. Site clean-up Site clean-up was not completed until more than a week after the event. On Monday, June 24, toilets, assorted debris, and fence posts had yet to be removed. Access for users Access to the Spit for users went smoothly, with few IInon users" slipping through the net. The screening process, led by a S/S Wren qf the Toronto Harbour Police aided by a MTRCA official, was conducted with courtesy and congeniality. They did not have an easy job as many users voiced their discontent. Your letter had indicated that "User group members will be issued passes for accessll. It is fortunate that this one assurance was not fulfilled since a majority of users are not members of any "groupll. Friends of the Spit had categorically refused to get passes, which had been offered as close to a week before the races, because this would have excluded the general public which has just as much right to use the Spit as any "user groupU and for which it is attempting to preserve this unique recreational facility. Furthermore, access to the old bicycle trail along the lake, which enables users of the Martin Goodman trail to avoid going through traffic on Unwin Avenue, was curtailed for the whole weekend. Environmental damage This concern, expressed strongly by our organization and other user groups during meetings with your staff, was handily omitted in your letter. . .. 3 ~ 0-228 Page 3 Oamage is extensive and covers a large area. To prepare the Site, the promoters mowed shrubs, bushes, wildflowers, trees, and tall grass on a very large area reaching well into the neck of the Spit. This area of vegetation had taken years to get established and was sheltering many species of wildlife. Fires lit by spectators added to the damage already done. The promoters of the races had baitea the THC with the promise of "some 40,000 people" attending "substantial tourism activity" generated, and "international media coverage". In fact, according to media estimates attendance was between 4,000 and 5,000 on each of the two days -- despite extensive advertising on TV and in the newspapers; several refreshment stand operators were seen leaving the site for lack of business; and few "international" licence plates were spotted by our observers. In exchange for very meager benefits for the city of Toronto, the THC has antagonized a large number of residents and destroyed part of a unique environment belonging to all its citizens. This has further eroded its credibility as a responsible organization. Friends of the Spit is not against hydroplane races, nor any other type of popular event. They are enjoyed by a large number of people in a city that offers a vast choice of recreational activities. Tommy Thompson Park is one of these choices. It is a unique site for that segment of the population who enjoys "passive" recreation in a car-free and noise-free natural setting. Depriving them of tpis enjoyment is not acting respo~sibly. Other, more appropriate sites were available for hydroplane racing. Yours truly, . ~ ohn Carley Lee Gold Co-chairperson Co-chairperson c Chairman and Commissioners, THC Mr. J.C. Mather, Oirector, Water Resource Division, MTRCA City of Toronto Executive Committee - 0-229 SCHEDULE "A (3) II botany UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY TORONTO. ONT MSS1A1 October 2, 1935 Hr. W. G. McLean 1Pl~@~UWlEfDJ Chairman, Water ~ Related Land Management Advisory Board Metropol itan Toronto and Region Conservation Authori ty S Shor~ham Dri~e OCT ., 1985 ~ North (ork, Ontario t:. H3N 1 54 M. T. R. C. A. Dear Mr. McLean: Re : HYdroplane races in the outer harbour, June 15 and 16, pas Enclos~d is mv report on the ~~fects of the hydroplane races in June, 1185. A brief summary of the report tollows. The ~ffect of the hYdroplane races on the common tern co I ony on an ,'sl and adjacent to the race site appeared to be ot a temporary nature onl/. These temporary disturbances might have had a lasting effect it the races had been more frequent. Fortunately, due to poor organization, the long intervals between races resul ted in long periods between disturbances so that the terns were never off their nests for ~ery long. Also the red~ced size ot the race course on the 16th remov~d the races trom the area of the island and so turther reduced the , etHc t on the terns. It is impossible to pr~dict th~ Hhc t tha t the races ;'Ili I~ht have had if they had 1 ived up to the promi ses ot the promoter. Regular visitors to th~ Spit on thlt we~Kend were most disturbed bv the I damage to the IJegehtion 'partic'Jlarll b/ the cutting and/or trimmIng ot =mall trees along th~ shore) and bv th~ incredible noise levels. It should be noted, that tor t~ose ot us on the 3pit, the inc~ssant babbl ing ovo?r the speaker s, stem I was almost worse than the noise ot the boats themselves. '(our!. ; i ncere 1'1, - - Verna J. Higgins . . . )-230 Report .2!l !b!. effect .2! the hydroplane "Grand Prix" of ~ 12. and lli 1985 .2!!. wildlife !!l!!. ve~etation ~ Tommv Thompson Park (the Soit) Introduction : The introduction of hydroplane racing in the outer harbour adjacent to the Spit was predicted to have various effects on both the colonial nesting birds and the vegetation. This report outlines our approach to monitoring the situation during the two days of the races and concentrates on the effect on common terns nesting on an island adjacent to the race course. Comments on damage to the vegetation are based on brief observations since a more extensive study would have required many manhours at a time when most field botanists are otherwise occupied. Method : The planned approach was to observe the common terns on the largest of the two islands at the entrance to the innermost bay from a well known observation point just back of the "sheds". This location allows an unrestricted view of the island from a sitting position. Unfortunately, MTRCA, despite promises of normal use of the Spit by regular users, designated this popular birding point as off limits so the observations were made from a much less desirable point by standing and observing the terns through a 15 power telescope. It was obvious that common terns were nesting on the island as several could be seen sitting on nests although most nests were not visible. It appeared that the second member of most pairs was sitting along the beach and could be counted. The procedure used to quantitate disturbances was to count the ~ number of sitting terns at 5 or 10 minute intervals for periods of 35 to 70 minutes prior to and during the races. The appropriate timing of these periods was made difficult by the late start of the races on both days. Results . Data for several count periods is given graphically in Figure 1. Graphs A and B of counts during the morning of the 15th were intended to serve as "baseline data" but disturbances by a seaplane resulted in the terns frequently flying up from the island. The period of least disturbances was from 2:00p.m. to 2:30p.m. (graph C) while everyone waited for the late start of the race. Once the races began on the 15th, the data (graph C) resembles that of the morning as the race boats on passing the island caused the terns to go up momentarily. The terns settled back only to go up again as the boats made the . 0-231 >,. next lap. Fortunately for the birds (but not the audience) the time between races was so long that these disturbances were relatively short lived. On the 16th, the fog resulted in a much reduced race course which did not go near the island. Some major disturbance resulted from spectators in boats moving close to the island in an effort to see the race course (graph D). These disturbances were potentially more damaging than the races themselves but most of these boats moved away when it was realized that the view was so poor. Discussion : Previous to the hydroplane races, there was some discussion about whether the island studied still had a viable tern colony. Just previous to the races, the Canadian Wildlife Service reported about 37 nests on that island. It was obvious from telescope observations of the island through July that at least some of these nests were successful. The hydroplane "Grand Prix" did not live up to the promoters promises as the audience was less than 25% of that expected and on the first day, the lack of organization resulted in long delays between races. Both of these factors probably decreased the potential for damage to the tern colony. In addition, the foggy conditions on the 16th further reduced the disturbances to the colony as the race course had to be changed. Based on the observations described above, it seems unlikely that was any lasting effect of the races on the tern colony; however , these observations suggest that if the races had fulfilled the promoters promises the constant disturbance might have had an effect. To those people v1siting the Spit during ~~e races, the two most upsetting features of the races were the loud and variable noise (both the commentator on the speaker system and the boats) and the damage done to vegetation by the "grooming". The mowing of meadows at the base of the headland and the trimming of trees and shrubs along the shore were particularly regretted by those regular visitors who follow the blooming of wild flowers and the nesting of ~~e song birds in these areas. One visitor pointed out that mowing in mid-June prevents the early blooming species from reseeding themselves and the late bloomers would not get a chance to bloom or set seed, as a result there might be a permanent change in the vegetation of these areas. Verna J. Higgins aotany Department University of Toronto . . "'U~II. S 011"" as- 'D-23~ ~\ GU~t: 1 -. ~. -- S4 A, lo.oa-{t:'35' ~UMe IS - ( S'A ~l.~..,c 1\l ~iA) .\0 '0 - . , e S'4 e. \\ ,,~. 11.00 J (J~Q 15" - Q (SCA1=2l"P,H~ IN ~R') '2 ~ .40 ....l ~ H :34 2 0 1.0 u <: 14 .-. 1= - ~ --c . C. -ali~IN1.h ~G. /i!~i 1 VI ;., ~ ! R~(., 2 -f.R;'S PltU"R. ,,.. SeA"- :: ,l. ~ .:<'" Q- 3 \,jJ ~/ r- \'[ !J. 30 0 I:.t %0 IJJ o:J C. ;: QQ - 3 20? M. S l.J N ~ I~- t. 10 - ~ - - :1 "'" ... ..D 3':0 - LoI. (.j 0 p, M .;rv\oJ~ f~ - "+~l -....... ;C /1 I "0 - I . 10 I' ~ lio~.- j',j~N~ <..If' Ol.J~ 1"0 6~f<.i""otn~ 2:,,,,1"'S .- H~,,. il:'"R\l~ i,JIJ I:Jl.Jc i"a :;f3='-1"~f"IJl.S as! =-'S).f~JeMAN .. ~ I . . , , , . , . , , . -- .. u_ ...... L.-. ~,., 0-231 SCHEDULE liB" EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1986 PROGRAM AS PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1985-1986 i ~ THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AUGUST, 1985 )-234 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1986 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to outline the progress of the Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project for Metropolitan Toronto~ which is designed to carry out the following: (a) Major erosion control and slope stabilization works conducted on a priority basis for watersheds draining in excess of 1,300 hectares. In view of the large number of sites requiring erosion control and bank stabilization work throughout Metropolitan Toronto, major remedial work is undertaken on a priority basis. Using the original priority ratings listed in the MacLaren report of 1970 as a starting point, the rate of progress and deterioration of these sites is assessed annually and ranked accordingly. The priorities within this pool change continually in response to the dynamics of the erosion process at each site, and therefore we strive to ameliorate the list with a steady influx of technical data on site conditions The current top priorities are reflected in the major remedial work program for 1986 and the 'Pool of Priority Sites' which are found in respective sections of this report. The current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1986 to acco~~odate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. 1986 is the second jear of the 1985 - 1986 Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto. This project has budgete~ $502,000.00 for the 1986 program. I 0-235 PROGRESS REPORT The following is a list at which major or minor remedial work was carried out between the inception of Project W.C.-60 - 'Erosion Control and Bank Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto' in September, 1974, through the Interim Water and Related Land Management Project 1977-1981, the 1982-1984 Erosion and Slope Stabilization Project, and including the 1985-1986 Erosion Project. LOCATION WATERSHEO WO RK YEAR MAJOR REMEDIAL WOlU(S 90 Forestgrove Drive East Oon River 1974 20-30 Islay Court Humber River 1974 39-41 Storer Dr~ve Humber River 1974-1975 99-103 Burbank Orive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-).975 Hi Mount Orive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975 8-10 King Maple Place Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975 113 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1975 14-22 Archway Crescent Humber River 1975 6 Wooden Heights Humber Riv.er 1975 45 Riverbank Orive and Vicinity Mimico Creek 1975 32-38 Bonnyview Orive Mimico Creek 1975-1976 37-43 Lakeland Orive West Humber 1976 Yvonne Public School Black Creek 1976 30-56 Grovetree Road West Humber 1976 95-97 Portico Drive East Branch 1976 Highland Creek 197-205 Sweeney Drive East Oon River 1976 24 Stonegate Road Humber River 1976-1977 24-36 Westleigh Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1976-1977 158-168 & 190-212 Three Valleys Dr. East Don River 1976-1977 6-14 Sulkara Court East Oon River 1978 Don Valley Drive Oon River 1978 50-58 Stanwood Crescent Humber River 1978-1979 Enfield/Sunset/Jellicoe Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1979 17-53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979 10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980 35 Canyon Avenue Oon River 1979 31-39 Rivercove Orive Mimico Creek 1980 25-31 Alamosa Orive Oon River 1980 Don Valley Parkway & Lawrence Don River 1980 10-14 Bruce Farm Drive Don River 1980-1981 39-47 Presley Avenue Don River 1980-1981 Grenview Boulevard Mimico Creek 1981 Rainbow Creek Parkway Development Mimico Creek 1981 9 & 11 Sulkara Court Don River 1981 Denison Road Vicinity Humber River 1981 146-168 Humbervale Blvd. & Mimico Creek 1982 835 Royal York Road 45-55 Wynford Heights Crescent Don River 1982-1983 12-30 Beacourt Road Mimico Creek 1983 Delroy Drive & Berl Ave. Vicinity Mimico Creek 1983 Raymore Drive Humber River 1984 Moorevale Park Don River 1984 100-104 Gwendolen Crescent Don River 1984 Duncan Mills Road Oon River In Progress Riverside Crescent Humber River In Progress Fairglen & Weston Road Humber River In Progress )-236 LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS 520 Markham Road Vicinity (Cedarbrook Retirement Home) Highland Creek 1975 84-89 Greenbrook Drive Black Creek 1975 Kirkbradden Road Mimico Creek 1975 West Hill Collegiate Highland Creek 1975 Shoreham Court Black Creek 1975 27-31 Ladysbridge Drive West Branch 1975-1976 Highland Creek N.W. of 56 Grovetree Road West Humber River 1975-1976 37-43 Mayall Avenue Black Creek 1976 79 Clearview Heights Black Creek 1976 S.W. of Shoreham Drive Bridge Black Creek 1976 Driftwood Court Black Creek 1976 75 Decarie Circle Mimico Creek 1976 4 Woodhaven Heights Humber River 1977 73 Van Dusen Boulevard Mimico Creek 1977 Donalda Club (8th Fwy.) Don River 1978 Westleigh Crescent Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1978 Scarlett Woods Golf Club Humber River 1978 22-26 Dunning Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1978 Kennedy Road Shopping Mall Don River 1978 Sheppard and Leslie Nursery Don River 1978 Leslie Street at Sheppard Rouge River 1978 Meadowvale Road Rouge River 1978 Zoo '(Z-15) Rouge River 1978 Orchard Crescent Mimico Creek 1978 Forest Valley Dam Camp Don River 1978 Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek 1979 Restwell Crescent Don River 1979 Deanewood Crescent Vicinity Mimico Creek 1979 Dawes Road - 2 Sites Don River 1979 Twyn River Bridge Rouge River 1979 Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979 Beechgrove Drive - II Highland Creek 1980 Jason and Riverda1e Humber River 1980 Warden & St. Clair - 2 sites Don River 1980 Zoo -II Rouge River 1980 Glendon College Don River 1980 Scarlett Road & Eglinton Humber River 1980 Wilket Creek Don River 1980 Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1980 Sunnybrook Park Don River 1981 Donalda Golf Club Don River 1981 Glendon College Don River 1981 Bonnyview Drive II Mimico Creek 1981 West Side of Markham Rd. (W. Branch) Highland Creek 1981 Alderbrook Drive Don River 1981 Hest Dean Park (2 sites) Mimico Creek 1982 Royal York Road Mimico Creek 1982 Waulron Street Etobicoke Creek 1982 Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1982 Upwood Greenbelt Vicinity Black Creek 1982 Summary Major Works - 45 Minor Works - 50 Total Expenditure - $5,700,000.00 D-237 1986 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO The following table lists the proposed work program for 1986 and the associated costs, however please be advised that the work program will be subject to the Provincial Rankings carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any budget revisions or changes to the work program will be forwarded to the Board for approval early in 1986. ACTIVITY ESTIMATED COST Riverside Drive $ 15,000 Rainbow Creek Parkway $ 85,000 Neilson Drive $ 60,000 Stanwood Crescent $ 80,000 Finch and Sewell Road $ 95,000 Alder Road $ 96,000 Chipping Road $ 25,000 Forest Path $ 46,000 $502,000 NOTE: Costs include expected revenue. '"" I N w POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-METRO TORONTO 00 'rECHNICAL LOCA'l'ION WA,!'ERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS 8-10 Ladyshot Cres. Humber River North York 1 Problem: Slope failure (fill material) Structures Affected; Two Residences Height of Bank: 14m Length of Bank: 36m 93-113 Weir Cres. Highland Ck Scarborough 2 * Problem: Slope failure and riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One Residence, One Pool & 9 private properties Height of Bank: 35m Length of Bank: 105m Rainbow Creek Don River North York 3 Problem: Toe erosion Parkway (Newtonbrook Structures Affected; Creek) Townhouse complex Height of Bank: 6m Length of Bank: 50m 14 Neilson Drive Etobicoke Etobicoke 4 Problem: Slope failure and Creek riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One high-rise apartment One pool Height of Bank: 10m Length of Bank: 32m 12-22 Stanwood Humber North York 5 Problem: Slope failure Crescent River (fill material) Structures Affected: - Six Residences Height of Bank: 21m Length of Bank: 42m . POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-METRO TORONTO TECHNICAL LOCATION \'lATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS Sewell Road at Rouge Scarborough 6 Problem: Slope failure and Finch Avenue River riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One roadway Height of Bank: 14m Length of Bank: 88m Road opposite Don River East York 7 Problem: Slope failure #8 Alder Road (Massey Structures Affected: Creek) One roadway and services Height of Bank: 20m Length of Bank: 16m 1025 Scarlett Road Humber Etobicoke 8* Problem: Slope failure due to River weathering of shale and riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 15m Length of Bank: 150m Chipping Road Don River North York 9 Problem: Toe erosion Pedestrian Bridge Structures Affected: Pedestrian Bridge and maintenance road Height of Bank: 22m Length of Bank: 35m 14 Forest Path Humber Etobicoke 10 Problem: Slope failure and Court River riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One Residence, One Pool Height of Bank: 9m Length of Bank: 32m t1 I N l>J v I N .j:>. POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-METRO TORONTO 0 TECHNICAL LOCA'l'ION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORI'l'Y COHMENTS 6 Saddletree Drive Don River North York 11 Problem: Toe erosion and (German Mills potential slope failure Creek) (fill material) Structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 14m Length of Bank: 30m 48-50 Barkwin Drive Humber Etobicoke 12 Problem: Slope failure River (fill material) Structures Affected: Two residences, two pools Height of Bank: 25m Length of Bank: 30m 221 Martin Grove Rd. Mimico Etobicoke 13 Problem: Slope failure and Creek riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 12m Length of Bank: 24m 19-23 Carmel Court Don River North York 14 Problem: Toe erosion and (German potential slope failure Mills Ck.) Structures Affected: 3 private properties Height of Bank: 8m Length of Bank: 150m North York Don River North York 15 Problem: Slope failure and General Hospital riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One roadway Height of Bank: 9m Length of Bank: 30m POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-METRO TORONTO TECHNICAL LOCA'l'ION HATERSHED fvlUNICI PALITY PRIORI'l'Y COMMENTS Colonel Danforth Trail Highland Scarborough 16 Problem: Slope failure and Bonacres Creek Structures Affected: One roadway Height of Bank: 23m Length of Bank: 73m 4174 Dundas Street W. Humber Etobicoke 17 Problem: Slope failure due River to shale weathering Structures Affected: One office building Height of Bank: 24m Length of Bank: 80m Mouth of Highland Highland Scarborough 18 Problem: Slope failure and Creek Creek riverbank erosion Structrures Affected: Railroad bridge abutment Height of Bank: 6m Length of Bank: 19m 91 Forest Grove Dr. Don River North York 19 Problem: Slope failure and riverbank erosion structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 8m Length of Bank: 23m Rowntree Mills Park I-lumber North York 20 Problem: Toe erosion River Structures Affected: Parking lot, Fence and park pathway Height of Bank: 13m Length of Bank: 95m t1 I N ,,,. ~ , I r-.J .j:>. N POOL OF EROSION PRIORI'rY SI'fES 1986-METRO TORONTO 'l'ECHNICAL LOCATION HATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS 161 Riverside Drive Humber Toronto 21 Problem: Slope failure and River riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One roadway Height of Bank: 13m Length of Bank: 41m * Sites considered for remedial work in previous years, but for various reasons have been deferred indefinitely (these sites have been included for your information and will be reconsidered for remedial work upon the resolution of outstanding issues). 0-243 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN SCHEDULE "e" THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1986 PROGRAM AS PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1985-1986 ~ THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AUGUST, 1985 )-244 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1986 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Given the number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Region of Peel, major remedial work is undertaken on a priority basis. The original priority ratings listed in the Erosion Inventory and priorities Study of 1977 were used as a starting point in assessing the rate of progress and deterioration of erosion sites. A 'Pool of Erosion Sites' was prepared ~rom this study and is continually updated with new sites experiencing erosion problems. The technial priorities within this pool are reviewed on a regular basis to reflect the dynamics of the erosion processes at each specific site. The annual work program, which was formulated on a priority basis using the 1986 'Pool of Erosion Sites', and the sites bearing high priority ratings are listed in the respective sections of this report. It should be noted that in the Region of Peel, the municipal share of the costs of erosion control program are passed on to the local municipalities. As a result, the erosion priority pool is given with relative priorities on a regional basis and divided to coincide with the three local municipalities within the Region of Peel, namely, the Town of Caledon, the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga. 1986 is the second year of the 1985-1986 Project for Erasion Control and Slope Stabilization in the Regional Municip~lity of Peel. The budget for the 1986 Work Program is $30,000.00. 0-245 PROGRESS REPORT The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land Management Project through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project and including the 1985-1986 Erosion Project. LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR 138 King Street Vicinity - Bolton Humber River 1979 (Caledon) Sherway Drive, (Mississauga) Etobicoke Creek 1979 Wildwood Park, (Mississauga) Mimico Creek 1979 Mill Street, (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1980 pony trail Orive & Steepbank Cres. Etobicoke Creek 1980-1981 (Mississauga) 10 Beamish, Wildfield (Brampton) West Humber River 1980 (Lindsay Creek) Centennial Road - Bolton Humber River 1981 (Caledon) Legion Street near Oerry Road Mimico Creek 1982 (Mississauga) Charolais Blvd., (Brampton Etobicoke Creek 1982 Glasgow Road (Caledon) Humber River 1983 93 Scott Street (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1984 - J-246 1986 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL The following table lists the proposed work program for 1986 and the associated costs, however please be advised that the work program will be subject to the Provincial Rankings carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any budget revisions or changes to the work program will be forwarded to the Board for approval early in 1986. ITEM ESTIMATED COST DUNDAS STREET EAST AT $30,000.00 ETOBICOKE CREEK TOTAL $30,000.00 NOTE: Costs include expected reve~ue. \ POOL OF EROS ION PRIOHITY SI'liES 1906-p~EL TECHNICAL LOCA'l'ION \-lA'rEHSlIED t-IUNICI PALI'1'Y PRIOIU'l'Y COHHEN'rS Albert and Humber River Caledon 1* Problem: Riverbank erosion John Street Structures Affected: Eight residences Height of Dank: 2.5m Length of Dank: 100m 2130 Dundas Street West Etobicoke t-1ississauga 2 Problem: Slope failure and Creek river bank erosion Structures Affected: Business parking lots Height of Dank: 10m Length of Dank: 80m 44 Hickman Street Humber River Caledon 3 Problem: River erosion Structure Affected: One residence Height of Bank: 2m Length of Dank: 75m 1726 Lincolnshire Dlvd. Etobicoke Mississauga 4 Problem: Slope failure Creek Structures Affected: One residence Height of Dank: 20m Length of Bank: 30m 6469 Netherhart Road Etobicoke Mississauga 5 Problem: Slope failure and Creek riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Storage area behind industrial bldg. Height of Bank: 12m Length of Dank: 4001 \'111-142 Deamish Court West Humber Brampton 5 Problem: Slope failure and River riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Private property Height of Dank: 6m .Sites considered for remedial work in previous years, Length of Bank: 20m but for various reasons have been deferred indefinitely (these sites have been included for your information and will be t1 reconsidered for remedial work upon the resolution of outstanding issues). I N J:>. ....1 POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-PEEL (CALEDON) I N .j:>. co TECHNICAL LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS * Riverbank erosion Albert and Humber River Caledon 1 Problem: John Streets Structures Affected: Eight residences Height of Bank: 2.5m Lenght of Bank: 100m 44 Hickman Street Humber River Caledon 2 Problem: River erosion Structure Affected: One residence Height of Bank: 2m Length of Bank: 75m * Sites considered for remedial work in previous years, but for various reasons have been deferred indefinitely (these sites have been included for your information and will be reconsidered for remedial work upon the resolution of outstanding issues. POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-PEEL (DRAMPTON) 'l'ECIINICAI.. LOCA'rION WATERSIlED NlINICIPALITY PRIORI'rY COMMENTS WlI-142 Deamish Court West Humber Dra01pton 1 Problem: Slope failure and Hiver riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Private property Height of Bank: 601 Length of Dank: 20m , t1 I N .l'~ POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-PEEL (MISSISSAUGA) I I'J U1 0 TECHNICAL LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS 2130 Dundas street West Etobicoke Mississauga 1 Prob~em: Slope failure and Creek river bank erosion structures Affected: Business parking lots Height of Bank: 10m Length of Bank: 80m 1726 Lincolnshire Blvd. Etobicoke Mississauga 2 Problem: Slope failure Creek Structures Affected: One residence Height of Bank: 20m Length of Bank: 30m 6469 Netherhart Road Etobicoke Mississauga 3 Problem: Slope failure Creek and riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Storage area behind industrial building Height of Bank: 12m Length of Bank: 40m 0-25l EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN SCHEDULE "Oil THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1986 PROGRAM AS PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1985-1986 I THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AUGUST, 1985 )-252 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1986 PROGRAM INTROOUCTION Given the number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Region of Durham, major remedial work is undertaken on a priority basis. The original priority ratings listed in the Erosion Inventory and Priorities Study of 1977 were used as a starting point in assessing the rate of progress and deterioration of erosion sites. A 'Pool of Erosion Sites' was prepared from this study and is continually updated with new sites experiencing erosion problems. The technial priorities within this pool are reviewed on a regular basis to reflect the dynamics of the erosion processes at each specific site. The annual work program, which was formulated on a priority basis using the 1986 'Pool of Erosion Sites', and the sites bearing high priority ratings are listed in the respective sections of this report. 1986 is the second year of the 1985-1986 Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in the Regional Municipality of Durham. The budget for the 1986 Work Program is $10,000.00. 0-253 PROGRESS REPORT The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land Management project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project, and including the 1985-1986 Erosion Project LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR 16 Elizabeth Street, Ajax Ouffin Creek 1979 558 Pine Ridge Rd, Pickering Rouge River 1979 Hockey Ranch, Pickering Ouffin Creek 1980 Woodgrange Avenue, Pickering Rouge River 1981 Altona Road, Pickering Petticoat Creek 1981 Sideroad 30 (Whitevale) Duffin Creek 1982 )-254 1986 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM The following table lists the proposed work program for 1966 and the associated costs, however please be advised that the work program will be subject to the Provincial Rankings carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any budget revisions or changes to the work program will be forwarded to the Board for approval early in 1986. ACTIVITY ESTIMATED COST Altona Road - R5 $10,000.00 TOTAL $10,000.00 , POOL OR EROSION PRIORI'l'Y SITES 1906-DURlIAM 'rECHNICAL LOCATION WATERS lIED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS Altona Road - R-5 Petticoat Creek pickering 1 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One Roadway Height of Bank: L5m Length of Bank: 30m 1840 Altona Road Petticoat Creek pickering 2 Problem: Riverbank erosion structures Affected: One roadway Height of Bank: 1.5m Length of Bank: 30 m Brock Road at Duffin Creek pickering 3 Problem: Riverbank erosion Finch Avenue Structures Affected: One shed Height of Bank: 1m Length of Bank: 58m Valley Farm Road Duffin Creek pickering 4 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Farm building Height of Bank: 2m Length of Bank: 89m Rotherglen Road Duffi.n Creek Ajax 5 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Author.... ity owned land Height of Bank: 2m Length of Bank: 133m 1436 Highbush 'l'rail petticoat Creek pickering 6 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Garage Height of Bank: 6m Length of Bank: 16m t1 I N lJ1 '" D-256 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN SCHEDULE liE" THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1986 PROGRAM AS PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1985-1986 ~ THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AUGUST, 1985 )-257 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1985 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Given the number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Region of York, major remedial work is undertaken on a priority basis. The original priority ratings listed in the Erosion Inventory and Priorities Study of 1977 were used as a starting point in assessing the rate of progress and deterioration of erosion sites. A 'Pool of Erosion Sites' was prepared from this study and is continually updated with new sites experiencing erosion problems. The technial priorities within this pool are reviewed on a regular basis to reflect the dynamics of the erosion processes at each specific site. The annual work program, which was formulated on a priority basis using the 1986 'Pool of Erosion Sites', and the sites bearing high priority ratings are listed in the respective sections of this report. 1986 is the second year of the 1985-1986 Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in the Regional Municipality of York. The budget for the 1986 Work Program is $34,700.00. I 0-258 PROGRESS REPORT The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land Management project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project, and including the 1985-1986 Erosion Project. 7374 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979 7440 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979 (Rainbow Creek) 8254 pine Valley Drive, woodbridge Humber River 1979-1980 14th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979-1980 19th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979 King Township and Humber River 1979 Town of Caledon (Cold Creek) Cedar Grove Community Centre Rouge River 1980 146 Riverside Orive, Woodbridge Humber River 1980 Postwood Lane, Markham Don River 1980 Pine Grove Vicinity Humber River 1980 North Oon Sewage Treatment Plant Don River 1981 Kennedy Road West, Markham Don River 1981 Nobleton, Lot 5, Conc.8 (Cole Farm) Humber River 1982 5760 Kirby Sideroad Humber River 1982-1983 I Buttonville Rouge River 1984 Klein's Crescent Humber River In Progress - )- 2 5 9 1986 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK The following table lists the proposed work program for 1986 and the associated costs, however please be advised that the work program will be subject to the Provincial Rankings carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any budget revisions or changes to the work program will be forwarded to the Board for approval early in 1986. ITEM ESTIMATED COST R.R. #3, Woodbridge 20,000.00 Mill Street 14,000.00 TOTAL $34,700.00 NOTE: Costs include expected revenue. , POOL OR EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-YOI~ TECHNICAL LOCATION \'JA'l'EHS1IED t-1UNICI PALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS Mill Road Humber River King 1 Problem: Slope failure and riverbank erosion Structure Affected: One residence Height of Bank: 12m Length of Bank: 12m RR #3, Woodbridge Humber River Vaughan 2 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One pool, one tennis court Height of Bank: 4m Length of Bank: 110m I.B.M Golf Course Rouge River Markham 3 Problem: Slope failure and riverbank erosion Structures Affected: Private property Height of Bank: 15m Length of Bank: 105m 16 Ravencliffe Road Don River Markham 4 Problem: Slope failure Structures Affected: One Residence, one pool Height of Bank: 18m Length of Bank: 10.5m 20 Deanbank East Don Markham 5 Problem: Toe erosion and River slumping of slope Structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 13m Length of Bank: 40m 8272 McCowan Road Rouge River Markham 6 Problem: Riverbank erosion Structures Affected: One residence, one shed Height of Bank: 4m t1 Length of Bank: 14m I N 0-. I N cr, I-' POOL OR EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1986-YORK TECHNICAL LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY PRIORITY COMMENTS 9854 Hwy. 27, Humber River Vaughan 7 Problem: Riverbank erosion Kleinburg Structure Affected: One residence Height of Bank: 2m Lenght of Bank 37m 9961 Warden Avenue Rouge River Markham 8 Problem: Slop failure at Major Mackenzie Structures Affected: One Drive residence Heighot of Bank: 3m Length of Bank: 75m 22 Framingham Drive Don River Markham 9 Problem: Undercutting of slope due to seepage and surface runoff Structures Affected: One Residence Height of Bank: 20m Length of Bank: 40m Fiddlehead Farm Humber River King 10 Problem: Toe erosion and slumping Structures Affected: Private Property Height of Bank: 10m Length of Bank: 30m ~ 0-262 , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes REPORT #6/85 - VATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 8-NOVEMBER-1985 16/85 -- The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre on Friday, 8 November, 1985, commencing at 10 15 a.m. PRESENT Acting Chairman William G. McLean Members Roger J Crowe Elizabeth Gomes Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna Ronald A.P Moran Morton M. Smith, QC Dr. Walter M Tovell Helen White Authority Vice-Chairman Lois Hancey ABSENT . Members Bill Belfontaine Jim Davidson Lois E Griffin Frank J McKechnie Basil V. Orsini Peter E Oyler Norah Stoner Robert F M. Yuill MINUTES Res #96 Moved by Bryn Lloyd Seconded by Ronald Moran THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/85 be approved CARRIED DELEGATIONS Mrs Victoria Carley made an oral presentation concerning Item 5 herein, having regard to the Tommy Thompson Park 1985 Interim Use Program. SECTION I FOR CONSIDERATION l. PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL, DON RIVER: 1986-1989 A staff report was presented advising that, as directed by Resolution #90 of Meeting #5/85, the above-noted project is presented for approval since it is anticipated that decision on a review of the project under the Environmental Assessment Act will be received from the Minister of the Environment in the near future Res #97 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Helen White THE B?ARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project for the Dredging of the Keating Channel, Don R1ver 1986-1989, as appended as Schedule "A" of these M1nuces, be approved, subject to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, 0-263 -2- AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken (a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth in the Project; (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 55% of the cost thereof; (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested; (d) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Transport Canada be requested to enter into an agreement with The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, providing for equal funding by each participant as set out in the Project; (e) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents. CARRIED 2. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO: 1987-1991 A staff report was presented advising that the current Projects for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto and for Shoreline Management both expire at the end of 1986 The activities undertaken as part of both these proje~ts are very similar, and sites requiring remedial works are ranked against each other as part of the Provincial priority ranking system To streamline the approval process, and to provide as much flexibility as possible in annual remedial works programs, it is proposed that the erosion control activities in the valley systems and along the' Waterfront within Metropolitan Toronto be combined into one project The above-noted Project has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee on Parks & Conservation (comprised of senior staff of Metropolitan Toronto and the M T R C A ),and has been prepared in accordance with multi-year forecasts as submitted to Metropolitan Toronto Metro's Management Services Department may require that the Project be submitted in two components so that the capital allocations for Shoreline Management and Valley Erosion Control can be separated If so requested, Authority staff will make the appropriate changes, which will not affect the program or the annual funding allocation Res #98 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (as appended as Schedule "B" of these Minutes), proposing annual funding of $1,000,000. for shoreline management activities, and $500,000 for valley erosion control activities, be approved, AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken (a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth within the Project, (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 55% of the cost thereof, (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested, (d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents CARRIED -3- D-264 3. MTRCA MAPPING EXTENSION PROGRAM, 1986 _&_ FLOOD DAMAGE ANALYSIS STUDY, 1986 -Projects under the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program A staff report was presented advising that the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP), formed in 1978 and scheduled for an agreement extension in 1985, has two main objectives: (a) to identify flood risk areas and reduce flood damage and risk to life by regulating new development in these areas; (b) to find feasible ways of reducing future flood damage to existing development. Funding of projects to achieve these objectives is available through the Program at a cost-sharing arrangement of 50-40-10 Federal grant-Provincial grant-municipal levy respectively. Projects are ranked on a Provincial priority basis. - -- Res. #99 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by: Bryn Lloyd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project for the MTRCA Mapping Extension Program, 1986, and the Project for Flood Damage Analysis Study, 1986 ( as appended as Schedules "C" and "D" of these Minutes), to be carried out through the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program, be approved, AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken .. ( a) The Government of Canada be requested to approve the projects and a grant of 50% of the cost thereof, (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the projects and a grant of 40% of tne cost thereof, (cl The municipal portion of the cost of the projects, comprising 10% of the total, be raised through the General Levy on all member municipalities, and that the staff be directed to review the projects with representatives of the member municipalities as part of the budget review process, (d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the projects, including the execution of any documents CARRIED 4. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CONCEPT PLAN MASTER PLANNING ZONES: PHASE 1 REPORT -City of Toronto Comments A staff report was presented advising that at Meeting #4/85 of the Board, comments received from the Task Force members on the above matter were reported on, noting that no comments had been received from the City of Toronto representative Res #100 Moved by Lois Hancey Seconded by Ronald Moran WHEREAS the Authority had requested Task Force representative comments on the Tommy Thompson Park - Master Planning Zones Phase 1 Report by mid-August, 1985, AND WHEREAS the Authority is in receipt of Neighbourhoods Committee Report on the above report, as amended and adopted by City of Toronto Council, which includes nine (9 ) recommendations related to waterfront planning and, more specifically, Tommy Thompson Park, 0-265 -4- AND WHEREAS the Board, at its Meeting #4/85, adopted recommendations on the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones Phase 1 Report, which will be considered as an information item at the November 29, 1985, meeting of the Authority; THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: ( a) Clause 31 embodied in Report No. 17 of the Neighbourhoods Committee, as amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held on October 11, 1985, be received and included as an additional response to the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan - Master Planning Zones: Phase 1 report, (b) Staff be directed to prepare a report on City Council's recommendations for consideration by the Authority; (c) Staff be directed t9 meet with City of Toronto representatives to discuss their concerns as part of the report preparation, ( d) This Staff report and Council's recommendations be forwarded to the Executive Committee and considered as an added item at its Meeting #14/85, (e) Staff be directed to appear at any public hearing which is called under the Planning Act by the City of Toronto to present any evidence required as to Authority jurisdiction on the planning of the Park lands CARRIED. SECTION II FOR INFORMATION 5. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK -Interim Use Program A staff report was presented having regard to the 1985 Interim Use Program at the above-noted site Res. #101 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Dr Walter Tovell THAT the staff report of October 13, 1985, on the Tommy Thompson Park Interim Use Program be received, AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare the 1986 Interim Report for consideration at the Interim Users Meeting of November 14, 1985, and subsequent approval by the Board at its meeting in December CARRIED Mr Smith commended the staff on the excellent work carried out on the Spit 6. DECEMBER MEETING A staff report was presented stating that although no meetings of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board are scheduled after this date, several important items, including the following, will require consideration by the Board and the Authority before the end or the year -5- D-266 (a) 1986 Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park, (b) Erosion Control Projects in Peel, York, and Durham for the period 1987-1991, (c) Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program 1987-1991, (d) Up-dated Goals and Objectives of the Watershed Plan. It was agreed that an additional meeting of the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board be held on December 6, 1985, for consideration of items requiring approval before the end of 1985 (The necessary items from the agenda of said meeting will be forwarded to the Executive Committee with the agenda for its Meeting #15, to be held December 13, 1985, and will be considered by the Authority on December 20). - -- CARRIED TERMINATION .. On motion, the meeting was terminated at 11 30 a.m , November 8 W G McLean W E Jones Acting Chairman Secretary-Treasurer KC D-267 SCHEDULE "A" PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL - DON RIVER 1986-1989 - -- - OCTOBER 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 0-268 - 1 - I INTRODUCTION The Authority has endeavoured to participate in the dredging of the Keating Channel at the mouth of the Don River since 1979. The dredging is required to preserve navigable depths in the north east corner of the inner harbour and to maintain the capacity of the channel for passage of flood flows. The Authority adopted a Project to fund its share of the work in 1979. The 1979 Project was never fully approved. Approval by the Minister of Natural Resources was withheld pending review of the Project under the Environmental Assessment Act A second project was adopted by the Authority in 1984 in anticipation that the Environmental Assessment process would be completed in 1984 in time for dredging to be undertaken in 1984 and 1985. It was determined that additional information was required for the Environmental Assessment and as a result the second Project was not considered by Metropolitan Toronto or the Province of Ontario. The review process has been lengthy but it is expected that approval will be received early in 1986 This Project outlines the proposed dredging program for the period 1986 to 1989, describes the anticipated expenditures and sets out the proposed funding requirements , 0-269 - 2 - I I PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by the Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O. 1980, Chap. 85 as amended to establish and undertake in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in ac.cordance with the Flood Control Program of the Watershed Plan. The purpose of this project is to meet one of the defined objectives of the Flood Control Program which is TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM FOR FLOOD CONTROL, ON A PRIORITY BASIS, IN DEFINED FLOOD DAMAGE CENTRES Through this project, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will provide part of the funding for a four year project required to dredge the Keating Channel at the mouth of the Don River The dredging .. is required to maintain the northeast corner of the harbour for shipping, to minimize the potential flood hazard and reduce pollution of the Inner Harbour This project will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act D-270 - 3 - III BACKGROUND Toronto Harbour was naturally formed some 8,000 years ago by a sand spit created by material eroded from the Scarborough Bluffs. This harbour initially attracted development to the area and resulted in the establishment of the Town of York, later the City of Toronto. Since that time, development of the harbour has paralleled that of the city itself. During the 19th century, natural and man-made influences combined to alter the shape of the spit and the outlet configuration of the Don River. Filling activities on the sand spit, the opening of the Eastern Gap, and the gradual shifting westward of the Don River's principal outlet from Ashbridges Bay to the Inner Harbour all combined to alter the shape and flow regime of the harbour - -- Ashbridges Bay was originally a marshy area receiving the entire flow of the - -- Don Rher By the late 19th century, the bay was receiving little flow from the Don River, but was increasingly contaminated by sewage inflows Concern for public health led to the initiation of filling of the bay Action was also taken between 1890 and 1910 to straighten the Lower Don River and divert it permanently into an east-west collector channel known at Keating Cut This action resulted from public concern over siltation and flooding in the Lower Don River area, and was carried out under the authority of the Don River Improvement Act of 1886 The formation of the THC in 1911 led to the active development of the eastern harbour area The developments included the following - The construction of the Keating Channel, involving the enlargement of Keating Cut and its termination at the present right-angle bend at Lakeshore Road Construction began in 1914, and was completed by 1922 - Filling of Ashbridges Bay to create 650 acres of industrial land, associated with excavation of the Ship Channel and Turning Basin Construction was completed by 1922 - Regular dredging in the Keating Channel was initiated in 1920 Operations typically began in April and continued into the fall The Lower Don River has a history of occasional flooding, although the magnitude of damages has not been large P ri or to 1921, ice jams frequently formed at the old CNR Bridge, but the removal of this structure reduced the severity and frequency of those flood events which were aggravated by ice jams Hi storical accounts available from the early 19th century indicate that floods causing significant damage or disruption of services in the watershed have occurred in about 20 of the years since 1800. Of these floods, th~ most important were those of 1850, 1878 and 1954 The latter flood, caused by Hurricane Hazel, was not as severe in the Don River watershed as in the neighbouring Humber Basin 0-271 - 4 - Until 1974, the Keating Channel was dredged as required to navigation depths by the THC However, major dredging in the channel stopped in 1975 when a readily accessible disposal site was no longer available. Navigational dredging has, however, continued downstream from the Cherry Street bridge when required to maintain shipping access to the area. From 1975 until the present, silt accumulated in the Lower Don River, Keating Channel and the Inner Harbour to the point where concern was expressed regarding the potential flood hazard resulting from reduced channel capacity; the ability for continued navigational use of the north-east corner of the harbour, and the environmental implications of potentially contaminated sediments dispersing further into the Inner Harbour In 1980 the,Keating Channel Environmental Assessment was initiated to undertake a complete review of the problems associated with the ongoing accumulation of sediment and to explore a range of alternative measures to deal with the prOblems if necessary The Assessment confirmed that there were major costs associated with the loss of navigable depths and the potential flood damages resulting from reduced channel capacity The Assessment further iden~ified that the sediment could be safely dredged and relocated to a disposal faCility at Tommy Thompson Park. The details of the proposal are contained in the , Keating Channel Environmental Assessment dated March 1983 as prepared by Acres Consulting Services Ltd. The proposals are further elaborated in an Addendum to the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment dated September 1984 as prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 0-272 - 5 - IV LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION (1) Project Proponents The involvement of the" MTRCA in the proposed dredging project necessitated review of the undertaking in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act For the purpose of the submission under the Act, the MTRCA was therefore identified as the project proponent However, the dredging is required for navigational purposes as well and therefore the proponent group consists of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Transport Canada and the MTRCA all participating in the dredging on an equal share basis. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners are sole proponents of the dredgeate disposal facil,ty and are constructing the facility at their cost. Transport Canada and the MTRCA are required to participate in only those costs associated with modifications to the disposal-fa~lity resulting from review of the proposal under the Environmental Assessment Act Following receipt of appropriate approvals for the project, the three parties will enter into a formal agreement ( i 1) Project Area , The general area of the dredging and disposal locations is shown on Figure 1 The limits of the proposed dredging area are as indicated on Figure 2 The MTRCA will participate in the costs of dredging those areas lying generally east of the east side of the Parliament Street slip and extending upstream as far as the bend in the channel at Lake Shore Boulevard East The specific limits of the disposal location are shown on Figure 3 The MTRCA will participate in the costs associated with the alternative access route and the closing of Cell 3 as set out in the Addendum to the Environmental Assessment and as may be required in the approval under the Environmental Assessment Act The costs associated with the construction and armouring of the endikement including the final armouring of Points A through M are the responsibility of the THC (iii) Dredging Program The dredging will be undertaken by forces under the supervision of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners The material will be dredged by the T H C Derrick and loaded into bottom dumping scows The scows will be towed by tug to the disposal facility N J -.- LESLIE STREET SPIT TORONTO INNER HARBOUR CE~ ~ '} -CELL No.2 ENDIKEHBHT AIlEA CELL No 3 0 '00 lOGO - ~ ""AU c& (p Ihe mel.opobl.... IUlOOIO a..d '89'00 COlIsof\talion au.hollly tJ I PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL - DON RIVER '" FI GURE I. -..J w 1987 -1990 D-274 III A 1'10" ~:~,.\OW ..~l"" ....... '..::;... Co''''''''''''''. ft." .....- "t.....cH(II' Legend 9' ~ Dredging limiTs . '''HI 152 --- - " _C.F1GP - TI! 4 '" 'P .,. .... 0 .". ." .,,.......0. " ISL.,4 NO "oe' WAR O' :." ~ 29 ."" ..., 'III ,.- .L"C" , ~9Jlr< 0" +<"j /. ...,....... j' EoffWty w"....e1 1,"'O."ld .....''''I.r. -L..~ _____ PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL FIGURE 2. - DON RIVER 1987 -1990 / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / ~ / ~ ~ / ~v l.J ~~ ~o v c- LAKe ON TAR I 0 1!l86 ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT TO DISPOSAL fACILITY. (/ REFERENCES: TORONTO ItAR80llR CO....IS$lOItEIl' HCItItIUL 1(f) /lEPOH. HOII., ItU kEATING CIIANNH EHV'"0"..EHTAL USESSUEHT flu. HI I ('-. rd' V Iho melrOpo lIan loronlo Bn fOOlon conservalion aUlhorilY 0 200 400 I --- -." "UREi t:l I PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL - DON RIVER '" FI GURE 3. --.I 1986 -1989 U1 D-276 - 6 - It is estimated that approximately 125,000 cubic metres of material can be dredged annually over a 7 month season It is further estimated that it will take 3 5 to 4 0 years to return the north-east corner of the Harbour and the Keating Channel to its pre 1974 condition Therea fter, approximately 40,000 cubic metres of material wi 11 accumulate annually thereby requiring ongoing maintenance dredging ( i v 1 Disposal Program It is proposed that immediately following receipt of all required approvals the construction of the new entrance channel into Cell No 3 will commence Following construction of that channel, the existing entrance to Cell No 3 will be closed by placement of fill material Placement of dredged material from the project area would then continue within Cell No 2 At such time as Cell No 2 reaches capacity with respect to placement of material by bottom dumped scow, material may be re-handled hydraulically from Cell No 2 to Cell No 1 Alternatively the capacity of Cell No 3 may start to be utilized These decisions will be made as the project progresses based on analyses of environmental consideration, cost implications, and numerous other planning and construction considerations (v 1 Monitoring Program Specific components of a monitoring program related to all aspects of dredging, disposal and containment have not been outlined in detail The MTRCA proposes to develop such a program as part of this project and in . conjunction with the other proponent groups and review agencies The decision under the Environmental Assessment Act may specify certain monitoring requirements that must be met as a condition of the approval 0-277 .7. V COSTS AND FINANCING The total cost of the dredging and disposal operations over "the period 1986-1989. as outlined briefly herein and in more detail as part of the submissions under the Environmental Assessment Act. is estimated to be $6.000.000. in 1985 dollars. Additional costs associated with the hydraulic transfer of dredged material. to increase the total capacity of the disposal facility. may be proposed in future years and if required will be addressed in a future Project. In addition. the costs associated with construction of the dikes upstream of Lake Shore Boulevard East. as proposed in the Keating Channel Environme~tal Assessment. are not included within this Project with the exception of the costs associated with the engineering and other studies required to finalize the design and cost estimates of the dikes. Construction of the dikes will be proposed as a separate Project. It is estimated that the total project cost will be incurred over a four year period The costs are to be shared equally among the three partners and therefore the annual costs are estimated to be as follows ANNUAL COSTS Dredging Related Expenditures Cost for each Year Total Cost Participant 1986 1,800,000 600,000 1987 1,200,000 400,000 1988 1,500,000 500,000 1989 1,500,000 500,000 Total 6,000,000 2,000,000 In addition to the dredging related costs, the MTRCA has been directed by MNR to include the final design of the dikes upstream of Lake Shore Boulevard within the project costs The 1986 expenditures for the Authori ty wi 11 therefore be increased by $75,000 00 The Authority will fund the project on the following basis Province of Ontario 55% Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 45% (as benefiting municipality) . D-278 - 8 - Over the 4 year period of the project the Authority's funding will be as follows Annual Authority Funding Metropolftan Province Toronto of Ontario Year Portion Portion Totals -.--- - -_. - 1986 303,750 371.250 675.000 1987 180.000 220.000 400,000 1988 225.000 275.000 500.000 1989 225,000 275.000 500,000 TOTALS 933,750 1.141,250 2,075,000 The costs associated with this Project include administration, land acquisition, legal and survey fees. construction costs, site supervision, environmental monitoring, and all labour, materials and equipment costs associated with the work 0-279 SCHEDULE -S- PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1987-1991 OCTOBER 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 0-280 - 1 - CONTENTS OF BRIEF -- PURPOSE BACKGROUND AND POLICIES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING APPROVALS 0-281 - 2 - PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1970, Chap. 78, as amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and mana~ement of natural resources in accordance with that portion of the Erosion Control Program of the Watershed Plan which addresses a remedial erosion control works program. The project covers a five year period, from 1987 to 1991 The goal of the Authority through this Project is to .minimize the hazards of life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shorelines, while cognizant of the natural attributes of the valley and lakefront settings. within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto To achieve its goal, the Authority has defined the following objectives 1) To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis for public and private lands where lives and property are endangered by erosion i1) To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands where significant amounts of land and vegetation are being lost and/or adjacent waterways may be adversely affected by the erosion i i 1) To design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an integrated management system for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, will enable publiC access adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible and will be conducive to maintenance h) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property v) To secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the open space systems D-282 - 3 - vi) To protect and enhance natural vegetation and preserve the natural valley and shoreline character wherever feasible. vii) To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation. viii) To secure commitments for funding of erosion control measures from the Province of Ontario and the Member Municipalities as identified in the Authority's multi-year erosion control projects ix) To investigate and secure additional funding from other levels of government for selected erosion control activities. x) To provide erosion control services on private lands where the owners are willing to pay the entire cost. D-283 - 4 - BACKGROUND AND POLICIES BACKGROUND In compliance with the Shoreline Management and the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs in the Authority's Watershed Plan which was approved in 1980, the Authority has been carrying our remedfal works on the Lake Ontario shoreline and the designated watercourses within Metropolitan Toronto. A recent review of the Watershed plan recognized the need to combine these two programs which have fdentical objectives and funding sources under an overall Erosion Program. Therefore for the purposes of this Project the shoreline erosion sites and river valley erosion sites will be considered under the one Program. --- Prior to the approval of the Watershed Plan. the Authority had been responsible for the implementation of the Waterfront plan for the Metropolitan Toronto region since 1970 Shoreline management measures were a component of that responsibility and were addressed in two Five Year Projects. 1972-1976 and 1977-1981 Shoreline management works were undertaken in each municipality along the waterfront involving total expenditures of approximately $3,130,000 to the end of 1983 An . additional $1,440.000 has been spent in the first two years of the 1984-1986 project and $730,000 is budgeted for 1986. The Authority has also been responsible for the implementation of a remedial erosion control works program on the designated watercourses in Metropolitan Toronto since 1974 Erosion control remedial works were initially carried out under the five year .W C 60 - Erosion Control and Bank Stabilization Project in Metropolitan Toronto" and continued under the "Interim Water and Related Land Management Project 1977-1981" and the more recent .Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Projects 1982-1984 and 1985-1986" Forty-five major and fifty minor erosion sites on the designated watercourses in Metropolitan Toronto have been addressed to date involving a total expenditure of approximately $5.860,000 D-284 - 5 - POLICIES ------- The policies and operational criteria of the Authority governing erosion control remedial works are as foJlows (a) Remedial works will be carried out on those watercourses which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares and the Lake Ontario shoreline excluding the north shore of the inner harbour between Ontario Place and Leslie Street. (b) For the purposes of erosion protection works, design blocks shall be established and works undertaken on a design block basis. Design blocks shall be of a size to be technically and economically feasible. - -- (c) Erosion protection will be installed on a technical pri ority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction access and property acquisition. Pri oriti es shall be based on technical cri teri a including, but not necessarily limited, to the following .. - distance from top of bank to structure - rate of slope retreat - extent of groundwater seepage - height and steepness of slope - vegetative cover, type and extent - evidence of previous movement - condition of toe of slope ( d) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual basis (e) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authority shall require title to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a suitable financial contribution from the benefiting owner(s) (f) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of cost/benefit, with acquisition cost being used as a principal determining factor and where acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works ( g) Design criteria for erosion protection works on the designated watercourses are dependent upon the nature of each specific problem Generally, two types of problems exist The first and 0-285 - 6 - less common type, involves a bank or valley wall i nstabil i ty in which slumping or major rotational failure is involved due to inherent soil conditions or overloading of the bank. The more common type of problem involves the river in coincidence with the valley wall. Wherever possible, erosion control work shall be designed to: - accommodate the 100 year flood for the 'coincident case' - accommodate the 10 year flow, in all other cases as a minimim, based on the ultimate development of the watershed - permit channel overtoppi ng with mi nima1 danger to the remedial work - -- - decrease the velocity of the stream by flattening the hydraulic gradient and minimizing the flow energy - by incorporating meanders and/or controlled drop structures (h) The major emphasis in shoreline erosion sites will be to control erosion due to wave action and will be des~gned in consideration of - maximum expected lake levels - peak storm conditions Consideration will be given to bank stabi)ization techniques to be combined with toe protection in areas where additional protection is required to retain slope angles at steeper than natural angles. ( i ) Existing waterfront pUblic lands provide valuable recreational opportunities and, in many cases, serve as buffer zones between the shoreline and private lands Therefore, the balance between funding allocated for protection of public and private lands is an important relationship which should be approved annually by the Authority (j) The Authority will assist in developing technology and distributing information which will aid property owners in limiting the erosion of the bank after the toe protection is installed (k) In the design of all protection works, the Authority shall be cognizant of the natural surroundings and shall endeavour to provide ancillary benefits, where appropriate ( 1 ) Works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and addressed in the "Class Environmental Assessment for Water Control S tructu re~;" D-286 - 7 - LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION -- - LOCATION -- This project addresses itself to (1) those watercourses within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares. (i 1) those shoreline areas contained within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto excluding the north shore of the inner harbour between Ontario Place and Leslie Street. ( i i f) where it will be the policy of the Authority to carry out erosion - -.- control works. On watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares the provision of such works wi 11 be the responsibility of the municipality. Exceptions to this may occur where it is determined by the Authority and the municipality that speCific watercourses, or sections thereof, due to their physical characteristics, warrant inclu~ion within the Authority's responsibilities Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses generally draining in excess of 1300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in erosion control works under this project Following is a list of watercourses or portions thereof which are generally in excess of 1300 hectares Etobicoke Creek - (east bank) Mimico Creek \ Humber River - Main Branch - West Branch - Black Creek - Emery Creek Don River - Main Branch - West Branch - East Branch - Wil ket Creek - Newtonbrook Creek - Rosedale Ravine - Massey Creek - German Mills Creek - Dufferin Creek Highland Ck - Main Branch - East Branch - West Branch - Malvern Creek - Centennial Creek Rouge River - Main Branch - Little Rouge - Morningside Tributary 0-287 - 8 - Erosion control works are to be carried out on the Metropolitan Toronto shoreline from the mouth of Etobicoke Creek (Marie Curtis Park) in the 'west to the mouth of the Rouge River in the east, excluding the north shore of the inner harbour, between Ontario Place and Leslie Street as shown in Figure 1 As in the past, the most serious hazards resulting from shoreline erosion in the Authority's area of jurisdiction are located along the Scarborough Bluffs in the City of Scarborough and therefore it is anticipated that the majority of the shoreline protection works will be carried out in this sector through the continuation of remedial works already in progress at such sites as South Marine Drive, Lakehurst and Fallingbrook or through new initiatives at a number of the sites listed in Table 1 The outer shoreline of Toronto Island in the City of Toronto, wi 11 continue to be monitored and works proposed when the need arises The proposed works are expected to include a shoreline revetment, groynes and beach nourishment In the City of Etobicoke the extent of residential development combined with the physical characteristics of the shoreline have resulted in extensive successful efforts by individual property owners to protect the. shorel ine on a lot by lot basi s Few sed ous erosion or flooding hazards exist in the City and the Authority's role has, therefore, primarily centred on protection of publicly owned land , such as small parks This role is expected to continue, although specific sites have not been identified at this time Privately owned lands are also eligible for shoreline protection by the Authority provided that operational criteria established in the Erosion Control Program can be met DESCRIPTION In view of the number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ana in order to fairly assess which site s should be considered for work, for any given work year, the Authority carried out its remedial works program on a technical priority basis Therefore the sites which appear on our erosion inventory list and which are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for remedial works first ^ The Authority currently maintains information on active erosion sites on those watercourses in Metropolitan Toronto draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares and along the designated shoreline areas From this information, the Authority has formulated a "Pool of Erosion Priority Sites" (see Table 1) for the purpose of developing its remedi al works program Cl I N m (D lfGENl' - ORAIHIHG WA'lfICOURSfSOO HfC TARES fNEAAlLY I) ... . ~R GRfATUt I SHDll(L1H( DESIGNATIO T AH[AS W,UU.GE WEN CONTROL FIG 1 EROSION AREAS . ..... PROJECT ~'II -:: KilOl"lIrtr", 0 ~ and region ' olilan 10'onlO ~ Ihe metrop Ihonly /(7",;7 conservallon au \(// 0-289 TABLE 1 POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO * LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY South Marine Drive Lake Ontario Scarborough Fallingbrook Drive " " Lakehurst Crescent " " Kingsbury Crescent " " Crescentwood Road " .. Wynnview Court " II Guild Inn II II Fishleigh Drive II II Guildwood Parkway II .. Sylvan Drive " " Meadowcliffe Drive " II Grey Abbey Trail/East Point II II Chesterton Shores II II 93-133 Weir Crescent Highland Creek Scarb~rough 14 Forest Path Court Humber River Etobicoke 91 Forest Grove Drive Don River North York Rowntree Mills Park Adjacent to Aviemore Drive Humber River North York 161 Riverside Drive Humber River York 48-50 Barkwin Drive Humber River Etobicoke Sewell Road at Finch Rouge River Scarborough Van Dusen Boulevard Mimico Creek Etobicoke Serena Gundy Park Don River North York Eccleston Drive Don River North York Celeste Drive Highland Creek Scarborough 3967 Lawrence Avenue Highland Creek Scarborough 18-20 Skipton Court Humber River North York Fernwood Gardens Don River East York 8-12 Leland Avenue Mimico Creek Etobicoke Gwendolen Park Tennis Crts Don River North York 4173 Dundas Street Humber River Etobicoke West Mall Crescent Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke Verobeach Boulevard Humber River North York 86-88 Holmcrest Trail Highland Creek Scarborough Opposite 232 Martin Grove Mimico Creek Etobicoke Eccleston Drive (CNR) Don River North York 539 Rouge Hills Drive Rouge River Scarborough 221 Martin Grove Mimico Creek Etobicoke Galaxy Boulevard Mimico Creek Etobicoke Queensway Hospital Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke * Subject to annual review D-290 - 9 - In preparing for the erosion protection work program, continued monitoring and updating of the data base is important in order to keep abreast of changing site conditions Because erosion is dy n am i c , priorities can change from year to year and sometimes even after a single storm The process of reviewing and updating priorities must be continued not only to make the system equitable but also to adjust annual funding requirements In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered potential effect to structures, vall ey wa 11 / shoreline conditions, river and/or wave action The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated with the other two factors Determining the potential effect on structures involves a number of parameters including the rate of erosion, distance to structures and the number, size and type of structure(s) affected Valley wall or shoreline conditions considered include, the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics and the soil type and composition River or wave action, as a factor, considers the present river/lakeshore alignment as well as the potential cutting action Minor remedial works will also be considered for those areas where significant amounts of land and or vegetation is being lost and where no structures are in immediate danger on both pu b 1 i c and private lands Through this component of the project the Authority can maintain and provide protection to valuable open space, parklands, ESA's and further provide a . 'stitch in time' approach to many areas with the result that expensive remedial works may not be required in the future Funds for this aspect of our remedial wo rk s project would not exceed twentj percent of our approved annual funding The nature of the remedial works at specific site along the designated watercourses will depend on the degree of protection needed to protect the structure and therefore could vary from armouring of the riverbank at the toe of the slope to major slope rehabilitation, or a portion thereof Along the waterfront, shoreline remedial measu res are required to re d u c e the rate at which valuable shoreline property i s lost To date, armoured revetments, groynes and beaches have been used to provide protection from the effects of lake action Where further remedial action is required, slope stabilization measures would be carried out in the form of buttressing from the base or top filling with select material Extensive planting, seeding and drainage measures would generally be incorporated into the works Examples of a typical erosion problem and a typical remedi al works solution are shown in Figure 2, 3 and 4 These figures also serve to graphically ill ustrate some of the preceding criteria D-291 - 10 - The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion control works utilizing the "p 001 of Erosion Priority Sites" and conservation of land sites, to the limits of the approved annual funding allocation and in accordance with the criteria developed for such work Specific sites will be reviewed on an annual basis and, to permit response to changes in priorities, work will not be projected beyond a one year period In any year, protecti on wi 11 be provided to those sites in highest priority which satisfy the criteria established to the limit of the S1,500,OOO identified as the annual funding required within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Annual funding for the various components of the Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project is proposed on the following basis Designated Watercourses ~lajor Remedial Works $ 400,000 ~Iinor Remedial Works S 100,000 Sub Total S 500,000 Designated Shoreline Management Areas , ~Iajor Remedial Works S 700,000 t1i nor Remedi a 1 Works $ 100,000 Acquisition S 200,000 Sub rota 1 $1,000,000 TOTAL $1,500,000 ---------- ---------- t:l I N '" N TILTING _"fCUD AND fo<<lUiGftlfD ITAUC'UAf .. PfACHlD w..nA'A8Lf - $EfPAGf --. .----- ...,.ftl\llOlJ$ SOIL UPOSfO SUlPf IShtt' (,otloo I lXPDUD 'ARlO SLOPl tAl. . o.a, [,..... I ACTIV( RlV(tl I- i R'''(A ! , , , I I ~ the metropolitan loronlO and rooion TYPICAL EROSION PROBLEM FIG: 2 conservOlion authority . , I ! I i : i Rfl/(c.l'A'fD IIII' RAI' IoIlWOUIIIIIG lOG-YEAR fLOW GABIOIlS AIlWOURIIlG KO ~ the metropolitan t con sOlVation auth~~~~to and raoion TYPICAL SOLUTION FIG.' 0 I '" >D ... SAFE STRUCTURE CREST INTERCEPTOR DRAIN (PERFORATED PIPE IN SELECTED GRANULAR FILL OR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE) CONFIGURATION OF SLOPE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCT OF TOE PROTECTION ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM SELF-STABILIZED SLOPE SLOPE INTERCEPTOR DRAIN GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE _____ __.!l._ r POSSIBLE FUTURE TALUS COMPACTED RANDOM FILL -- ---- ------------- -- ---- '. CONTINUOUS FILTER ZONE DESI GN TO IMPERVIOUS SOIL HIGH WATER LAKE LEVEL ---- ---- - ------------- ------------ ---- - ---- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- --- --- - -- ------- ---------- - ----- PROTECTIVE TOE ~ hI'. TYPICAL SOLUTION FIG 4 V t e metropo Itan toronto ana region , conservation authonty \ 0-295 - 11 - COSTS AND FINANCING The expenditures required to implement this project are based on the best information currently available for works to be undertaken. The costs stated shall be understood to include, legal and survey fees, land acquisition, engineering and geotechnical studies, site supervision and all materials, labour, equipment, etc associated with the construction. The proposed allocation of funding for these works on an annual basis for the Five Year Project is as follows Costs 5 YEAR PROJECT YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL TOTAL $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,500,000 Financing The total cost of the Five Year Project is $7,500,000 and the yearly costs wi 11 be funded as follows Total Annual Cost - $1,500,000 Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Share - $ 675,000 Province of Ontario Share - $ 825,000 The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is designated as the benefiting municipality 0-296 - 12 - APPROVALS (1) AUTHO R!TY (2 ) THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (3 ) THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO (4 ) THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD 0-297 SCHEDULE "C" A PROJECT UNDER THE CANADA/ONTARIO FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE MTRCA MAPPING EXTENSION PROGRAM 1986 . OCTOBER, 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA~ION AUTHORITY 0-298 -2- CONTENTS OF BRIEF - - PURPOSE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING . APPROVALS -3- 0-299 PURPOSE On March 31, 1978, Canada and Ontario signed an agreement to carry out a Flood Damage Reduction program. An amending agreement which will enable the Program to continue over the next few years is expected to be signed late in 1985. These Flood Damage Reduction Program is based on the premise that the best way to avoid the mounting toll of flood damage is to regulate development within the flood plain. Basically there are two main Program objectives: (1) identify flood risk areas, reduce flood damage and risk to life by regulating new development in these areas, and (2 ) find feasible ways of reducing future flood damage to existing development Funding of projects to achieve these Objectives is available through the Program at a cost sharing arrangement of 50-40-10, federal grant - provincial grant - municipal levy, respectively Projects are ranked on a provincial priority basis I The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has received approval under the program to carry out a 1986 project entitled "MTRCA Mapping Extension program" The purpose of this project is to obtain 1:2000 scale topographic mapping for those watercourses regulated under ontario Regulation 170, but for which no comprehensive flood hazard information exists The mapping is the first step in the identification of flood risk areas and is used by the Authority in the administration of its Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations. The mapping also provides the information used by the Authority, provincial agencies and member municipalities in their comments through the Ontario Planning Act 0-300 -4- LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - - A floodplain mapping program for watercourses draining in excess of 1300 hectares was carried out under the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program in 1977 through 1979. Consequently, this project addresses itself to the headwater areas of the MTRCA jurisdiction, generally being those watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in mapping under this project. In view of the large number of watercourses requiring floodplain mapping, the Authority will carry out its Mapping Extension Program in various stages on a site priority basis The 1986 project will be to obtain 1:2000 scale, topographic mapping of the valley systems only Engineering studies will be carried out at a later date as funding permits The funding approved under the Flood Damage Reduction Program will not be sufficient to map the entire headwater area; therefore; the Authority has deveioped a priority ranking system based on municipal boundaries and will carry out the mapping program accordingly The priority ranking of the member municipalities is based on the rate of development being experienced in each (see Table 1) This approach was adopted in light of our objective to regulate new development from occurring within flood prone areas Those municipalities that are experiencing the fastest rate of growth are those where the pressure to have mapping and floodplain information is the greatest The project will therefore involve the mapping of watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares on a municipal priority basis up to the approved level of funding -5- 0-301 COSTS AND FINANCING The cost to complete this project is based on the level of funding approved by the Steering Committee of the Flood Damage Reduction Program Therefore, $70,000.00 is proposed for the 1986 project, and will be funded as follows: FEDERAL GRANT: $35,000.00 PROVINCIAL GRANT $28,000 00 MUNICIPAL LEVY $7,000.00 $70,000.00 . 0-302 -6- APPROVALS (1) AUTHORITY (2 ) PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (3 ) GOVERNMENT OF CANADA i i i I , I ! i I -7- 0-303 TABLE 1 PRIORITY LISTING OF MUNICIPALITIES MTRCA MAPPING EXTENSION PROGRAM 1 Town of Markham 2 Town of Vaughan 3 Town of Richmond Hill 4 City of Brampton 5 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville 6 Town of Caledon 7 Township of King 8 Town of Ajax 9 Town or Pickering 10 CitJ of Mississauga 11 Metropolitan Toronto 12 Townships of Adjala and Mono t:l I w 0 I ~ . I It.5~~ tlQ."ItJllJb ... W~~e.1l. COU E.S!:o ~""tJ bl>tJlO.lU>,IA,.'I \.. \I""(""1A.~IO.S. I~oo 0"'"" DIl~I"'ltJO FIG.l. -..Jk'E.(c..ou~ €6S -n\/l,'" 4 ..... SE..01 Foe. E.lZ."'1.. \..; ~---r Ki..... ~ 6E-N QE-~ 0 \9€l1o P120 tvSloN ~C:::l~A.M IMo 1\u-rP-. ~ nd logion (l..Pf'llJb E-'l.1 e- lilan 10'onlO a mCLAH Ihe mOlropo Ihonly consorvallon au \ 0-305 SCHEDULE "D" A PROJECT UNDER THE CANADA/ONTARIO FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR A FLOOD DAMAGE ANALYSIS STUDY 1986 OCTOBER, 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 0-306 -2- CONTENTS OF BRIEF PURPOSE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING APPROVALS D-307 -3- PURPOSE On March 31, 1978, Canada and Ontario signed an agreement to carry out a Flood Damage Reduction Program. An amending agreement which will enable the Program to continue over the next few years is expected to be signed in 1985 The Flood Damage Reduction Program is based on the premise that the best way to avoid the mounting toll of flood damage is to regulate development within the floodplain Basically, there are two main Program objectives. (1 ) identify flood risk areas, reduce flood damage and risk to life by regulating new development in these areas, and (2 ) find feasible ways of reducing future flood damage to existing development. The Flood Damage Reduction Program provides funding to carry out flood related projects at a cost sharing arrangement of 50-40-10, federal grant, provincial grant, municipal levy respectively In particular, an "Other Measures Component" has been established to address those studies and/or works related to e~isting flood prone areas The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has requested funding through the "Other Measures Component" to carry out a Flood Damage Analysis Study for the 233 flood susceptible sites within its jurisdiction Flood damage information for the 233 flood susceptible sites will provide important information for the following Authority activities: (1) Flood Control Remedial Works Program cost-benefit analysis development of a priority r-anking system for remedial works selection of flood protection alternatives (2 ) Floodplain Management Policies identify costs associated with policies related to stormwater management, compatible floodplain uses, infilling etc development of new and/or revised floodplain policies (3 ) Flood warning System cost-benefit of equipment purchases development of a priority ranking system for flood warning programs . 0-308 -4- LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION In 1983-84, the Authority completed an inhouse inventory of Flood Susceptible Sites The Authority's 1979 floodplain mapping information was used as the data base for the inventory In addition to the 34 Flood Damage Centres that had previously been identified, inventory data is now available for 199 Flood Vulnerable Areas These sites are located throughout the nine watersheds within the Authority's jurisdiction Figure 1 provides a general overview of the site locations The Flood Damage Analysis Study will provide the Authority with projected flood damages at various flood stage intervals To assist in the cost assessment of flooding, three recent Ministry of Natural Resources reports will be utilized These technical reports were prepared for the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources and are entitled Flood Damages Volume 1 - A Review of Estimation Techniques Volume 2 - Guidelines for Estimation Residential Depth-Damage Curve Development Study An engineering consultant firm will be retained to carry out the Flood Damage Analysis Study 0-309 -5- COSTS AND FINANCING The cost to complete this Project is $40,000,00 and is to be funded through the "Other Measures component" of the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program as follows: Federal Grant - $20,000 00 Provincial Grant - $16,000.00 Municipal Levy - $4,000.00 $40,000 00 0-310 -6- APPROVALS ( 1 ) Authority ( 2) Province of Ontario (3 ) Government of Canada 7ZZ DEVELD'IIUT ZONE . flOOD o.a.lIAQl cUTIln 0 fLOOD VULNUAlLE AREAS 0.''';' 0 0 4_ I . I . W . , . f-' 0 , Ill........ f-' (~he opof nd. WATERSHED PLAN FLOOD SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS FIG 1 (}j7 1 m.". '''1'1 10101'110. leg.on conMtVallon aulhOlIlV FLOOD CONTROL PROORAW ~ D-312 , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes REPORT #7/85 WATER & RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 6-DECEMBER-1985 #7/85 The Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board met at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre on Friday. 6 December, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 10 00 a m PRESENT Acting Chairman William G McLean Members William Be1fontaine Roger J Crowe James Davidson Elizabeth Gomes Lois E Griffin Bryn Lloyd Rocco Maragna Ronald A P Moran Morton M Smith, QC Dr Walter M Tove11 Helen White Authority Chairman William T Foster Authority Vice-Chairman Lois Hancey ABSENT Members Frank J McKechnie Basil V Orsini Peter E Oyler Norah Stoner Robert F M Yuill MINUTES Res #102 Moved by Ronald Moran Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/85 be approved CARRIED SECTION I FOR CONSIDERATION l. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1987-1991 A staff report was presented advising that technical and funding approvals of the Authority's continuing waterfront development activities have been initiated through the adoption of S-year development projects by the .l\u thori ty , the member municipalities, and the Ministry of Natural Resources Separate projects covering the periods 1972-1976, 1977-1981, and 1982-1986 have all been approved at appropriate times in the past by all required levels of government A new five-year development project for the period 1987-1991 has now been prepared for cor.sideration of the Authority, the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and the Region of Jurham and the Province of Ontario 0-313 -2- Res #103 Moved by Helen White Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Project 1987-1991, as appended as Schedule IIAII of these Minutes, proposing annual funding of 53,000,000 for continuation of acquisition of land and development of waterfront recreational facilities within Metropolitan Toronto and the Region of Durham, be approved, THAT The Regional Municipality of Durham's share of the cost be increased by 525,000 , that this change be discussed with appropriate officials of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and that the total FJroject cost be subsequently amended to $3,100,000 , AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken ( a) The Municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and the Region of Durham be requested to approve the Project and the annual levies set forth therein - (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 50% of the cost thereof, (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested (dl When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents CARRIED 2 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1987-1991 A staff report was presented advising that the current project expires at the end of 1986, and to cont~nue to meet the erosion control remedial work objectives of the Watershed Plan, it is proposed to initiate a five-year ?roject Res #104 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project fer Erosion Control & Slope Stabllization in The Regional ~Iunicipali ty or Peel, as ap?ended as Schedule liS" of these Minutes, proposing annual funding of $ 30 000 00 for valley erosion control :lctivities be approved AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken (a) The Regional Municipali ty' of Peel be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth within the Project (b) The Government of the Province of OntarlO be =eql..ested to approve the Project and a gr3.nt of 55% of the cos t thereof ( c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act approval of the Ontario ~unicipal Board be req~ested (d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents CARRIED -3- 0-314 3. PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1987-1991 A staff report was presented advising that the current project expires at the end of 1986, and to continue to meet the erosion control remedial work objectives of the Watershed Plan, it is proposed to initiate a five-year project Res #105 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilization in The Regional Municipality of York, as appended as Schedule "CD of these Minutes, proposing annual funding of $30,000 00 for valley erosion control activities, be approved, AND ~URTHER THAT the following action be taken (a) The Regional Municipality of York be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth within the Project, (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 55% 3~ ~he cost thereof, (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of of the Ontario Municipal Board be req~ested, (d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project, including the execution or any documents CARRIED 4 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1987-1991 A staff report was preseQted advising that the current projects for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilization in The Regional Municipality of Durham, and for Shoreline Management, both expire at the end of 1986 The activities under- taken as part of both these projects are very similar, and sites requiring remedial works are ranked against each other as part of the provincial priority ranking system To streamline the approval process, and to provide as much flexibility as possible in annual remedial works programs, it is now proposed that the erosion cont~ol activities on the designated watercourses and along the waterfront within The Regional Municipality of Durham be combined into one Project Res #106 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the Project for Erosion Control & Slope Stabilization in The Regional Mun~c~pality of Durha~, as appended as Schedule "D" of these :hnutes, propcsing annual funding of S5, 000 00 for shoreline management activities and S15,000 00 for valley erosion control activities, be approved AND ~URTHER THAT the following action be taken, (a) The Regional Municipality of Durham be designated as the benefiting municipality on the basis set forth within the project, (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project and a grant of 55% of the cost thereof (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested, (d) When approved the appropriate Authority officia~s be authorized to take whatever action is required ~n connection with the Project, including the execution of any documents CARRIED D-3l5 -4- 5. EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION WORK AT REAR OF #180 Duncan Mill Road -Project for Erosion Control in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Erosion control and slope stabilization works were recommended for the above- noted site by Meeting #1/85 of the Board, at an estimated cost of $140,000 00 The proposed remedial work was to include a minor re-location, with appropriate armouring, of the river channel away from the toe of the valley slope and re-building of the slope Work began in mid-August and was nearing completion on October 23, 1985, when the slope failed again Golder Associates Ltd , a geotechnical engineering firm already working on site for the owners of the building concerning another matter, were retained for further investigation of the site The original, almost-completed remedial work, combined with some emergenc~ interim measures carried out after the October 23rd failure, has expended the funds allocated for this site The total estimated cost of the work, including engineering, is as follows 1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation $ 11,200 00 - - 2 Engineering Services during construction $ 6,000 00 3 Excavation of new channel S 15,000 00 4 Rip Rap channel including drop structure S 33,000 00 5 Installation of internal drainage systems S 22,000 00 6 Clean-out of old r~ver bed and backfill with granular material (slide area) S 17,000 00 7 Backfill of old river channels $ 5,000 00 8 Placemen" and compaction of approximately 20,000 yards of selec"ed fill S 30,000 00 9 Restoration $ 7,000 00 10 Revegetation and turf establishment S 6,000 00 11 Contingencies approximately 10% S 13,000 00 TOTAL $165,200 00 Res #107 Moved by Morton Smith Seconded by Rocco Maragna THAT the staff report be received AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT erosion control and slooe stabilization work be carried out at the rear of #180 Duncan Mill Road, City of North York, at an estimated cost of $165,200 00 AND FURTHER THAT the necessa=y funds be re-allocated to the Metropolitan Toronto erosion control Projecr for this work CARPIED 6 PROPOSED PRIVATE LEGISLATION FOR THE CITY OF SCARBOROUGH TO PROTECT RAVINES Res #108 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes WHEREAS the Authority is in receipt or a draft of proposed private legislation to provide the Corporation of the City of Scarborough with legislative authority to enact b~-laws respecting the cutting of trees and the dumping of fill into certain ravine lands AND WHEREAS staff of the Authority have discussed the proposed legislation with Scarborough staff and reviewed the implication to the Authority's fill regulation lines and regulations THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (1) The Authority is supportive of the proposed Private Legislation to provide the Corporation of the Cit~ of Scarborough with legislative authority to enact by-laws respecting the cutting of trees and the dumping of fill into certain ravine lands -5- B-316 (2 ) The Authority requests that the provisions in an enacting by-law under Section 2 ( 2 ) of the proposed legislation (placing of fill ) be restricted to those areas outside the present or future ar e as covered by the Authority's fill regulation lines (3 ) Section 4(f} be amended to read as follows (f) The maintenance activities by the Corporation or any department or agency thereof, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, or any department or agency thereof, and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, comprising the development and maintenance of utilities and services, roads and bridges, flood and erosion control facilities, walkways, bicycle paths, fences, retaining walls, steps, and lighting (4 ) The Authority requests an oPPQrtunity to review any draft by-law passed under this proposed private legislation prior to Council enactment, (5 ) The Authority recommendations be forwarded to the Law Department of the City of Scarborough CARRIl::D 7. FISHERIES RESOURCES EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT A JOB CREATION PROJECT FOR YOUTH Res #109 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes WHEREAS the Authority received funding from the federal Government in October. 1985 under the fisheries Resources Employment Development Prog:-am for an urban fishi:1.g project at Humber Bay East, AND WHEREAS Authority staff have proposed a feasibility study of urban fishing for Metropolitan Toronto, TAEREfORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Authority staff be directed to carry out, in conjunction with The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto - Parks & Property Department and the Ministry of Natural Resources. a study on an urban f~shery C.a.RRIED 8 STAFF COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF SCARBOROUGH REPORT BIOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCARBOROUGH SPORT FISHERY Res #110 Moved by Nalter Tovell Seconded by Elizabeth Gomes \~HEREAS the Authority is in receipt of the "Biological. Economic and Social Anal ysis of the Scarborough Sport fishery". prepared by the City of Scarborough - Economic Development Department, AND WHEREAS the Scarborough Board of Control and Counci.l ha.s requested The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Ccnservation Authority's comments, AND WHEREAS Authority staff have reviewed the report and ~ts recommendations considering the Authority's Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program and fisheries programs THEREfORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (ll The City of Scarborough report on the "Biological. Economic, and Social Analysis of the Scarborough Sport fisherj". including the Authority staff comments on the report recommendations, be received, (2 ) 7he report recommendations be considered by staff in the review of implementation programs associated with the Lake Ontar~o Waterfront Development Program AND fURTHER THAT the above comments be forwarded to the City of Scarborough. the Ministry of Natural ReSOurces, and Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department CARRIED 0-317 -6- 9. WATERFRONT PARK USERS' SURVEY Res #111 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by Helen White WHEREA S the Authority received approval and funding to undertake a "Waterfront Park Users' Survey" in 1985, AND WHEREAS Authority staff undertook a park users' survey of Marie Curtis, Humber Bay, and Bluffers Parks, including a random telephone and door-to- door survey in the region AND WHEREAS staff have prepared a report and presented their main study conclusions for the Board's consideration, THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT 1 The 1985 "Waterfront Park Users' Survey" report be received, 2 The res ul ts of the report be utilized by staff in the implementation of the waterfront program and projects, 3 The report be forwarded to Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department for their information CARRIED 10 TOMMY THOMPSON CONCEPT PLAN MASTER PLANNING ZONES PHASE 1 REPORT -City of Toronto Comments Res #112 Moved by Rocco Maragna Seconded by William Belfontaine WHEREAS The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority has received Neighbourhoods Committee Report on Tommy Thompson Park Phase I Report, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on October 22, 1985 AND WHEREAS the Authority was designated by the Government of the Province of Ontario as the agency responsible for preparing a Master Plan for Tommy Thompson Park AND WHEREAS staff were directed to prepare a report on City Council's recommendations, AND WHEREAS staff have reviewed the report and recommendations, and prepared comments for the Board's consideration THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (1) The Authority consider further means of obtaining Ci ty of Toronto ill put for the Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan while maintaining the current plan approval process which has been established with Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry of CJatural Resources, (2 ) Authority staff explore ways of ensuring full and consistent notice of future public meetings on Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan (3) Staff continue its review of the function of the Task Force and make recommendations to the Board on its future role and modifications thereto (4 ) Staff continue to ensure that the Authority's interests are maintained on all matters proposed by the City through the Central Waterfront official policies. and implementing zoning by-law AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report ( as amended to clarify the Authority's position with respect to commun~ty club leases on the north shore) and recommendations be forwarded to the Metropolitan Toronto Parks & Property Department and the City of Toronto Planning Department CARRIED -7- 0-318 11. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK -1986 Interim Management Program At Meeting #6/85 of the Board, staff was directed to prepare the 1986 Interim Report for consideration at the Interim Users Meeting of November 14, 1985, and subsequent approval by the Board at its December meeting Res #113 Moved by Helen Whi te Seconded by Morton Smith THAT the staff report of December 6, 1985, on the Tommy Thompson Park 1986 Interim Management Program be received, AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff proceed to negotiate a license agreement for 1986 with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, THAT staff proceed to negotiate with the City of Toronto and its agent, the Toronto Transit Commission, for provision of bus service at Tommy Thompson P.ark for 1986, THAT staff proceed to negotiate a formal agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners regarding maintenance, liability, and other such items deemed necessary for the 1986 program, THAT staff report back to the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board regarding the recommendations for 1986 transportation service, AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority staff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the interim management program, including the execution of any documents and agreements CARRIED 12 TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS -Outer Harbour Public Marina Res #114 Moved by Walter Tovell Seconded by Helen White THAT the staff report, as appended as Schedule liE" of these Minutes, be received AND ~HEREAS The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority staff have received an information kit and the consultants' recommendation to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners for a marina in the Outer Harbour, AND WHEREAS the recommended marina concept is to be developed on land adjacent to Tommy Thompson Park, AND WHEREAS The Toronto Harbour Commissioners at the public information meeting, solicited comments, AND WHEREAS Authority staff have reviewed the prellminary information without the opportunity to review the complete Phase 1 - Feasibility Study report THEREFORE THE BO~RD RECOMME~DS THAT (1) The Authority request the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to clarify and investigate further, (1) the areas of the marina open to the public, (11 ) the adequacy of winter storage, private vehicle parking, and feasibili ty of winter storage operation, (111) the types of commercial facilities anticipated in the ~arina Centre, (2 ) The Authority request the THe to provide clarification on a public pathway link to the Martin Goodman Trail ( 3) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners modify the marina design to ensure that the landfilling operation does not encroach on '1TRCA propertj, 0-319 -8- (4 ) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners investigate the feasibility of providing a marina access point closer to Unwin Avenue and Leslie Street, and that consideration be given to marina access via the future industrial park road system, (5 ) The Authority request a copy of the Phase 1 - Feasibility Study from The Toronto Harbour Commissioners to facilitate formal Authority response AND FURTHER THAT the Authority forward the above comments to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners CARRIED Motion Moved by Roger Crowe Seconded by Lois Griffin WHEREA S at the Toronto Harbour Commission Outer Harbour Marina public information session on November 13, 1985, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' representatives at that meeting stated that the vehicle access to the proposed marina can be provided via Unwin Avenue through the proposed industrial park and not via the Spit, THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be instructed to hold discussions with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and their representatives with the view of establishing that any vehicle access to any proposed marina be via Unwin Avenue through the proposed industrial park and not via the Spit THE MOTION WAS -------------------------------------------------______ NOT CARRIED SECTION II NO ITEMS TERMINATION On motion, the meeting was terminated at 12 55 P m , December 6 W G McLean W E Jones Act~ng Chairman Secretary-Treasurer KC D-320 SCHEDULE "A" LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1987-1991 ( . THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY r~KE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1987-1991 NOVEMBER 1985 1 TABLE O~ CONTENTS Page No 1 INTRODUCTION 2 2 PURPOSE O~ PROJECT 3 3 PROGRA!-I RATIONALE 4 4 SPECI~IC IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES 6 4 1 ETOBICOKE SECTOR 6 411 Marie Curtis Park 6 4.1 2 Colonel Samuel Smith Park 8 413 Humber Bay Waterfront Area 10 4 2 CITY O~ TORONTO SECTOR 12 4.2 1 Western Beaches 12 4.2 2 Tommy Thompson Park 14 423 Ashbridge's Bay 17 4 3 SCARBOROUGH SECTOR 19 431 Bluffers West 19 432 Bluffers Park 21 433 Guild Inn 23 434 East Point Park 25 4 4 PICKERING/AJAX SECTOR 27 4 4 1 Pettic9at Creek Conservation Area 27 4 .. 2 ~renchman's Bay 29 443 Duffin Creek Waterfront Area 31 .. 4 4 Ajax Waterfront Area 32 4 5 ~ISHERIES ENHANCEMENT 33 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 34 5 COSTS AND FINA~CING 35 5 1 COSTS 35 5 2 FINANCING 35 6 APPROVALS 36 -2- LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1987-1991 1. INTRODUCTION The 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Project is a proposal to implement portions of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program. The Progra~ was established in 1980 as part of the Watershed Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority The Program established that multi-year Projects would be prepared for the purpose of approval and funding of detailed implementation objectives This Project, therefore, outlines the status of planning and approvals and presents a schedule of activities to be undertaken at the various sites over the Project period 1987-l991 This Project is the mechanism by which the MTRCA requests the Minister's approval under Section 24 of The Conservation Authorities Act for some components of the proposed activities This document is also submitted to the Authority's member municipalities co solicit approval of the implementation objectives and commitment to the annual levies and multi-year funding requirements The Project also serves as the supporting document for Ontario Municipal Board appro~al for multi-year capital expenditures ~ -3- 2. PURPOSE OF PROJECT The purpose of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise its powers under The Conservation Authorities Act, R S 0 1980 as amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to conserve, restore, develop and manage the natural resources of the waterfront in accordance with The Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program of the Watershed Plan The period of the Project is five years, from 1987-1991 inclusive The goal of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Develo9ment Program is "TO CREATE: A HANDSOME IvATERFRONT, BALANCED IN ITS LAND USES, WHICH WILL CmlPLEMENT ADJACENT AREAS, TAKING COGNIZANCE: OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING ACCESSIBLE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, FEATURES WHICH WARRANT PUBLIC USE " Approval of this Project includes provisions to enable the necessary studies and research required to prepare Master Plans and Environmental Assessment reports for proposed undertakings -4- 3. PROG~~ RATIONALE The Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program was based on the "Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area" prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board in 1967 The Plan provided for two key directions ( i 1 development of suitable public access to the waterfront, and ( i i 1 the provision of water-oriented recreational opportunities The water-oriented recreational opportunities are considered to include boating, fishing, swimming, open space uses in conjunction with the waterfront, and , the preservation of significant natural and historical areas along the waterfront. The recent "Metropolitan Toronto waterfront Boating Demand Study update" indicated that there continues to exist a greater demand for boating facilities across tne waterfront than sUPl;lly By the year end of this Project demand will exist for an additional 2000 wet-berths beyond the 1984 level of 4820 in the MTRCA sector . The continued expansion of the sports fisheries in Lake Ontario as discussed in the boating study will provide continued demand for docking space and public launching ramps across the waterfront In conjunction with the sport fisheries, new efforts are being focussed b~ the Authority with the sUl;ll;lort of Federal Funding to undertake a feasibility study for Urban Fishing and iml;lrove the urban fishing activity at our waterfront I;larks for all sectors of the I;lol;lulation The demand and public enjoyment of the waterfront areas develol;led under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Program continues to increase as public access is available and facilities are coml;lleted The Authority's park users survey in 1985, confirmed significant increases in public use of the 'Haterfront facilities e g Bluffers Park and Tommy Thompson Park Description The Authority has been resl;lonsible for iml;llementation of the Waterfront Plan for Metrol;lolitan Toronto and region since 1970 .~ Ten Year Plan and three Five Year Projects were successfully implemented over the period to 1986 The accomplishments to date, involving expenditures of over 550,000.000 include six new waterfront parks and acquisition of 2722 acres of waterfront land lIajor small craft harbours and signif icant recreational ol;len ~I;lace areas have been created along the waterfront from -5- Etobicoke to .!l.j ax Shoreline management measures have been implemented in each sector of the waterfront and extensive environmental monitoring of various sites has been undertaken A detailed summary of progress is contained in the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program of the vJatershed Plan and for the period 1982-1986 within the following description of the implementation objectives for each site - -6- 4. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES The implementation objectives related to planning, acquisition and development are presented for the Project period 1987-1991 and where appropriate, indications of objectives to be accomplished beyond that period are given 4 1 ETOBICOKE SECTOR The first ten year and the subsequent 5 years of Authority developlllent of the Etobicoke waterfront produced major new facilities at Humber Bay and provided the initiation of a new waterfront focal point for the City The 1987-1991 Project proposes minor activities at Marie Curtis Park, completion of the Humber Bay complex and new initiatives in conjunction with the ~1otel Strip and completion of the Colonel Samuel Smith Park 4 1 1 Marie Curtis Park Planning Status The Master Plan for the Marie C~rtis Park Waterfront Area was prepared in 1972 : however, funding was not available for implementation until 1981 Due to the delay in ireplementation and changing requirements for the Park, a new master p~an was completed by Metropolitan Toronto as the basis for the development of the park A!?9rOval St3tu~ The Authority does not intend to proceed with any major park development at Marie Curtis with the landfilling component of the origi~al master plan deferred beyond the term of this project The Marie Curtis Park proposals with anticipated expenditures of less than the indexed dollar limit for Environmental Assessment requirements are exempt and eligible for Section 2~ approval by the Minister of Natural Resources Development Status As set out in the 1982-1986 project, the following park development has been com91eted but implementation has been by Metropolitan Toronto rather than r.1TRCA Landscaping; Pathways; Lighting: .- Parking and roadway improvements -7- Land Acquisition Status The lands comprising the existing park are in the title of the Authority It is proposed to add to the present land base by obtaining =ertain lands presently in the ownership of Canada Post (formerly Canadian Arsenals) The lands in question contain an attractive woodlot immediately to the west of the existing park The Authority is also in the process of seeking boundary clarification with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority at the extreme westerly edge of the park Implementation Objectives With the major components of the park development complete, the further development of the park is expected to include the following elements as outlined on Figure 2 Acquisition of the Canada Post property; Completion of the pathway linkage to the Lakefront Promenade Park (Credit Valley Conservation Authority) Prooosed Timing The acquisition of the Canada Post property during the project period will depend on funding 3vailability The pathway linkage will be dependant upon satisfactory negotiations between the MTRCA and Credit Valley Conservation Authority The proposed works are expected to be complete by 1991 -8- 4.1 2 Colonel Samuel Smith Park - Planning Status A comprehensive Master Plan was prepared for this site in 1978 and still forms the framework for implementation Detailed designs are required for the boating facilities and swimming lake ADproval Status The Master Plan for Colonel Samuel Smith received extensive review during the Environmental Assessment Hearing in the spring of 1980. This process culminated with a recommendation from the Hea~ing-Board in Decemb~r 1980 to build the park. The final decision on the Environmental AsseS3ment by the Minister of the Environment also supported the park's construction The Master Plan had previously been approved in principle, subject to Environmental Assessment considerations by Etobicoke, Metro and the Ministry of Natural Resources Technical approvals of detailed construction plans have been obtained for certain deve~opment components from the Borough of Etobicoke and the Ministry of Natural Resources in accordance with established procedures The Colonel Samuel Smith component of the 1987-1991 Project is eligible for Section 24 approval by the Minister of Natural Resources Development Status The landfilling operation was initiated in the spring of 1983 and by the end of 1985, the earth core will be in place for approximately 75% of the eastern side of the landform Armouring of Hardpoint 2 was complete and was underway tOr 6ardpoint 3 An annual environmental monitoring program (a condition of the Environmental Assessment Act approval) was initiated in 1981 and will continue through the construction phase of the project L3nd Acquisition Status The Authority has obtained title to certain lands from Metropolitan Toronto and obtained ea.sement agreements with the Ministry of Government Ser'/ices and Humber College The title to Provincial Crown lands is in process as of 1985 Lands adjacent to Sam Smith Park owned by the Ministry of Government Services are part of a recent Acquisition Project for Metropolitan Toronto which has received Minister's approval and approval by ~1etropolitan ~oronto Council -9- Implementation Objectives The completion of Samuel Smith Park is proposed to be a major component of the 1987-1991 project including the servicing, boating facilities and landscaping It is also anticipated that during the project, the Authority will be reviewing the feasibility of the artificial swimming pool and environmental gardens The acquisition of the Hospital Lands will necessitate a master plan revision to integrate those lands with the present approved park master plan A decision on the area to be assigned for Humber College programs will also be made Current boating demand and the Authority's waiting list indicate full occupancy of the mooring area when available Proposed Timing Development timing for the Colonel Samuel Smith Park is subject to numerous influences, the most dominant of which is rate of supply of fill material Current estimates place the length of the remaining landfilling period at 3 years The landfilling started in the spring of 1983 and, therefore, is not expected to be completed until the middle of the 1987-1991 Project Construction of the access road was undertaken in 1982 in preparation for the start of landfilling The servicing, boating facility and landscaping will be completed by the end of 1991 -10- 4 1 3 Humber Bay Waterfront Area . Planninq Status The Master Plan for this site has been in I?lace since 1975 and develol?ment has I?roceeded ral?idly in accordance with that Plan The detailed I?lanning by the Boating Federation and its member clubs was coml?leted by 1982 Al?l?roval has been given by Etobicoke to Beaul?ort Vi 11age (an adjacent condominium development prol?osal) with the condition ~hat the shoreline link be transferred to the .a.uthority The Authority is also working with Etobicoke on the Motel Stril? I?lanning study which includes a I?otential small craft narbour Al?l?roval by Etobicoke Council is not anticipated until 1986 Ot early 1987 Aporoval Status Original ~laster Plan approvals were obtained over the period 1972 to 1975 for various components of the Area developments Technical approvals by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the City of Etobicoke will be . requ ired for various components of the developments proposed by the Authority It is anticipated that portions of the works I?ro~osed by the Master Plan amendment which are subject to Environmental Assess~ent Act considerations will involve expenditures of less than $1,000,000 and therefore are expected to be exempt under the current regulations The works proposed within this Project, therefore, qualify for approval by the Minister o~ Natural Resources under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act If an amendment is proposed for the Palace Pier ~larina concel?t, that develo~ment will be subject to the Class Assessment or full ~nvironmental Assessment depending on the dollar value Develooment Status humber Bay East and West are substantially complete The boat clubs are wel~ establiShed with clubhouses and approval to expand to a total cf 700 wet berths frem the existing capacity of approximately 550 Land Ac~uisition Status Certain lands along Lake Shore Boulevard were purchased in the early stages of planning and development to provide a base for landf111.ing Transfer of title to the Authority of Provincial Crown lands containing the landfilled areas is complete Completion of the shoreline links to the east and west cf Humber Bay will require acquisition of some private -11- lands, as well as Provincial Crown lands Dedication of privately owned - shoreline lands to MTRCA will be sought as part of redevelopment proposals to facilitate completion of the shoreline links to other public waterfront parks such as Palace Pier Additional acquisitions of Provincial Crown Land will be required to facilitate the proposed Palace Pier Marina Implementation Objectives The majority of the Master Plan components have been completed within the 1982-1986 projects. The planning and development program may also include the following components for the 1987-1991 project period -, -- Humber Bay Hest (Figure 4 ) extension of pathway construct washrooms expand parking final armouring (Hardpoint 4) navigation aids footbridge initiate shoreline pathway to west of park Humber Say East (Figure 5 ) continue acquisition of shoreline link - Humber Bay East to ivestern Seaches initiate Palace Pier Marina subject to Master Plan Amendment Proposed Timinc The completion of Authority involvement in the existing Ht,;mber Bay ,;rea is proposed to be an early accomplishment of the 1987-1991 Project The establishment of the shoreline links to the east and west will, however, take several years and may require a time frame beyond 1991 to complete The development by the boating clubs of their leased lands '..ill continue through the term of this Project , Acquisition of the p=-ovincial waterlot 1:0 facil i tate the initiation of the small craft harbour protection off the Palace Pier will be completed by 1989 with construction extend~ng into the next 5 year project -12- 4 2 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR - The first fifteen years of Authority development of the portion of the City of Toronto waterfront under Authority jurisdiction produced major new facilities at Ashbridges Bay, as well as major planning initiatives for Tommy Thompson Park and the Western Beaches It is proposed that implementation of the initial stages of further development of these key waterfront sites will be major components of the 1987-1991 project. 4 2 1 Western Beaches Planninq Status The Authori ty prepared a r.1aster Plan for -ttlis area in 1975, however, implementation was delayed due to insufficient funding and failure to reach agreement with the City of Toronto on certain Master Plan details and land title transfer Site plans were developed in 1979 in preparation for detailed design and implementation No progress has been made to date Approval Status The Master Plan has been approved at all levels The City of Toronto has given aPl?roval in principle, with the issues concerning contro~ of the leases with the Boulevard Club and Toronto Sailing and Canoe Club, as well as development of the beach between these Clubs, to be reso.l ved Implementation of the proposed schedule of improvements should qual ify for exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act because the development proposed within this Project involves expenditures less than $1,000,000 Development Stat\Js The Authority in 1984 completed the hydraulic improvements at the mouth of the Humber River as ou~lined in the 1932-1986 Project The work was funded under a special agreement between Metrol?olitan Toronto and ~WE for water quality iml?rovements Land Accuisition Status Implementation of the Authority's plan involves lands presently owned by Metrol?olitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Off ieial requests for transfer of these lands has been made and agreement has been reached with Metropolitan Toronto Transfer of City of Toronto lands is pending resolution of the 11aster Plan issues identified above as well as ol?erational considerations involving ~et=opolitan Toronto -13- Implementation Objectives The major planning and development objectives of the 1987-1991 Project at the Western Beaches include the following - resolution of remaining Master Plan issues - transfer of title of required lands to r.1TRCA - construction of the following dredging and shoreline improvements pathways and landscaping - -- day mooring The above list rel?resents the first stage of l?roposed iml?rovements The Watershed Plan identifies other iml?rovements that could be made in subsequent Projects ProDosed Timing The timing of development del?ends primarily on resolution of the Master Plan, land ownership, and ol?erational control issues The first stage of the Authority's development l?rogram could be undertaken starting in 1988 if all al?l?rovals were obtained Develol?ment would continue throughout the :;Jedod of this Project to be followed by the second stage of iilll?rovements in the subsequent Project -14- 4 2 2 Tommy Thompson Pa~k Planning Status In August, 1973, the provincial Cabinet gave the Authority ( i ) the mandate to coordinate recreation ~lanning in the Central Waterfront Area; and , ( i i) the responsibility of being the Province's agent with regard to the proposed Aquatic Park and the ~reparation of a master plan - - The Authority prepared a conce~tual Master Plan for this area in .1.975 !1owever, numerous changes both natural and man-made led to the establishment of a new concept plan ~rocess in January, 1983 as a com[,)onent of the 1982-1986 Project The Authority released its Phase 1 re[,)ort in June, 1985 with com~letion of the conce~t plan [,)rocess expected in 1986 This site also is contained within the Central Waterfront planning area of the City of Toronto In early 1986, Counc il will probably ~ass certain ;;>olicies and regulations which the Authority is in disagreement The Authority will be ~ursuing ~odifications to those planning documents to ensure com~liance with the new Tommy Thompson Park Concept Plan Approval Status The Authority has been designated as the agent for the Province in the l,)lanning, interim management and iml,)lementation of Tommy Thom~son Park The Authority reached agreement with Metropolitan Toronto in 1985 for the Authority to ~ai.ntain the interim management l,)rogram for a period of u~ to five years The concel,)t [,)lan for To~~y Thompson Park may r.equ i re approval under the Environmental Assessment Act This site is, therefore, not eligible for Section 24, ap~roval at this time, with the exception of approval to cont:inue the interim management program and studies, etc requ ired to complete the concept ~lan preparation .Ii, further request for Section 24 approval and additional funding for im~lementation will be made u90n completion of the concept ~lan and necessary approvals -15- Develo~ment Status The Toronto Harbour Commissioners are continuing to com~lete the landfill program in accordance with the final configuration as set out in the Outer Harbour Headland Annual Operating Plan It is expected that the landfill program will continue beyond the period of this project The Keating Channel project ~roposes a cut through Embayment 'C' into Cell 3 for the purposes of an improved scow route and better confinement of the dredged material The endikement cells will be required for dredgeate disposal beyond the year 2000 The Authority is also operating an interim management program to control the gull po~ulation and allow public use 0 f the par~ on weekends between Harch and November Land Acquisition Status The following is a summary of the transactions that have been completed for Tommy Thompson PaJ:"k and the Outer Harbour An area under lease from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Toronto Harbour Comjrnissioners for (al completion and maintenance of the shoreline alignment and armouring protection and (b) constructing, operating and maintaining an endikement area for disposal of dredgeate The term of the lease is for 10 yeaJ:"s from May 1983 with a further 10 year renewal option An area transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Metro~olitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (effective date - May 17, 1984) An area known as the Outer Harbour transferred from the l-linistry of Natural Resources to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (May, 1984) The transfer of a small parcel of land to the City of Toronto from the THC to allow for the extension of Leslie Street south of Unwin Avenue to the MTRCA pJ:"operty boundary as a public road allowance Re fer to Figure 7 The Authority has also entered into an agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners related to the right-of-access over each others property The long term intent of the Province is to transfer the lands presently under lease to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to the Authority -16- Implementation Objectives The major objectives of the 1987-1991 Project with respect to Tommy Thompson Park are . completion of the Concept Plan; . continuation of the interim nanagement program until the concept 91an is approved and implemented; . initiation of concept plan implementation for the basic services and other components of the plan Proposed Timing Due to the nature of the site and the number of agencies, groups and individuals involved, it is impossible to accurately predict the timing of planning and development of this site However, the Authority anticipates completion of the Concept Plan in 1986 The first stages of development may not occur until 1988 -17- 4 2 3 Ashbridge's 8a,! Planning Status The Master Plan for Ashbridges 8ay Waterfront Area has been in place since 1972 The development of the Area was substantially complete by 1977 when the park was opened The Master Plan for the North Ashbridges 8ay Boating Community was prepared in 1979, which provided for a revitalization of the boating organizations in the north end of Coatsworth Cut No new planning initiatives are antic~pated for this area, al though minor design activities with respect to landscape improvements in the entrance area and adjacent to the 80ating Ccmmunity will be required Detailed design and construction drawings for a new changehouse to serve Woodbine 8each may be required Approval Status As noted above, the existing Master Plan was approved by all levels of government The scope of additional proposed works is in keeping with the existing Master Plan and satisfies the cost criteria fot" exemption under The Environmental Assessment Act regulations The proposed '..orys are, cherefot"e, eligible fot" Section 24 atlproval by the Ministry of Natut"al Resources Development Status The park has been completed and agreements in place fot" the North Ashbridges Bay clubs and the Ashbc1dges Bay Yacht Club In 1985, the Authori ty initiated a beach restoration program as tlart of the initiatives of the .Metro liater Pollution Committee Coatsworth Cut dredging is also undertaken as required to maintain navigation depths Land Acquisition Status .;11 lanes required for the Ashbridges Bay Waterfront Area are in the title of the Authority Lands were obtained from Metropolitan Toronto, Toe-onto Harbour Commissioners and the City of TOt"onto -18- Implementation Objectives The Authority proposes relatively minor works at the Ashbridges 8ay Waterfront Area in the 1987-1991 Project, to consist of . completion of the beach filling and grading1 . completion of entrance improvements and channel dredging - Coatsworth Cut (See Fig 8) Proposed -;:imi ng The landscaping improvements will be implemented in the first two years of the Project, while the replacement of the beach house will proceed when deemed appropriate in conjunction with the City of Toronto Parks Department -l9- .. 3 SCARBOROUGH SECTOR The first fifteen years of Authority development of the shoreline in the City of Scarborough resulted in the development of major new recreational facilities in Bluffers Park, as well as the acquisition of significant waterfront open space areas including the Guild Inn and East Point Park The 1987-1991 Waterfront Project proposes additions to the Bluffers Park complex, as well as major new initiatives at East Point Park 4 3 1 Bluffers West Planninq Status A conceptual plan has been prepared for this area as part of earlier waterfront work and was updated to Master Plan status as a component of the 1982-1986 Project A portion of the area is well wooded and abuts the lovely grounds of Rosetta McClain Gardens The other component of the Area is comprised of portions of the grounds of the Scarborough Filtracion Plant The Authority prepared a plan for the Scarborough Filtration Plant and Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department developed a plan for Rosetta McLain Gardens and the Authority's lands to the west Develotlment Status Du ring the period of the 1982-1986 Watet"front Project, Metro901itan Toronto prepared a mastet" plan and commenced improvements to Rosetta McClain Gardens including access and parking washroom and servicing landscaping pathways and lookouts arboretJm The Authority demolished the old Scarborough Filtration Plant building and improved the site for public open space uses Approval Status The works proposed at this site '"ill involve eXLJenditures of less than Sl,OOO,OOO and are anticipated to be exempt from Environmental Assessment Act approval and eligible for a9proval by the 11inister of ~atural Resources under Section 2.. of the Conservation Authorities Act -20- Land Acquisition Status Most of the lands associated with the proposed park are already in the title of the Authority, including the lands containing Rosetta McClain Gardens The Filtration Plant lands have been transferred to the Authority from Metropolitan Toronto. Imolementation Objectives The major objectives of the 1987-1991 Waterfront Project for the Bluffet"s West Area are as follows . shoreline protection of the property as outlined on Figure 9 to be completed under the Erosion Control Qroject Proposed Timing The proposed worK would be undertaken in accordance with the shoreline protection schedule outlined in the Metro Erosion Project -21- 4 3 2 Bluffers Park Planning Status The Bluffers Park Master Plan has been in place since 1972 with an Amendment to the Plan being made in 1975 The Amendment dealt with the size and configuration of the second phase of the site, which includes the existing small craft harbour A further Amendment has been completed to provide for a marina to be developed along the western side of the harbour Approval Status The Haster Plan as amended in 1975 was a9proved by all levels of government The site has been under developemnt since 1970 and, therefore, is exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act approval process The proposed implementation objectives are, therefore, eligible for Section 24 approval by the 11inister of Natural resources Development Status . During the 1982-1986 Project, the Authority has consolidated tit).e to the land base, completed the landscaping, pathways, interior shorelines, lighting, navigation aids, servicing, road and parking areas. and continued coordination of the boating club development The demand for boating and the seasonal demand by the sports fishing tlublic combined with the general use of the area has taxed the present facilities to the 1 im it Land Acquisition Status The Authority acquired a land base from the City of Scarborough as a base of operations for the landfilling program In addi.tion, privately owned lands were purchased by the Authority both east and west of Brimley Road The lands occupied by the landfilled areas haJe been transferred to the Authority from the Province Title to lands in the second Dhase of the development is split between the Authority and the Federal Crown as a consequence of Federal assistance in armouring the breakwater The Federal Crown holds title to the protected water areas of the harbour as well as the armoured structures constructed by the Federal government Lands occupied by the boating clubs and the marina operator are subject to three-9arty leases including Metropolitan Toronto and the Au thori ty The lands to be developed on top of the bluffs to the west of Brimley Road are already in the title of the ,A.u thori ty -22- Implementation Objectives The major implementation objectives of the 1987-1991 Project at the Bluffers Waterfront area are construction of the beach house development of a 400 slip marina and accessory uses by the private sector expansion of the parking area completion of access improvements and parking to Bluffers Toplands subject to master plan preparation complete landscaping and trails on Toplands construct a pedestrian route through the Brimley Ravine (See figure 10) . Proposed Timinc The ongoing development of the Bluffers Waterfront Area is anticipated to span the full period of this project The development of the marina w~ll be completed in 1987 The development of the Toplands and pedestrian access will likely occur in the 1990-1991 period of the project .- -23- 4 3 3 Guild Inn Planning Status The Guild Inn and surrounding lands were purchased by the Authority in 1978 The area includes an 86 acre parcel of land and fifteen (15 ) associated buildings In June 1983, the Provincial government established the Board of Management of The Guild with a mandate to operate the property known as the Guild Inn and to cause a study to be conducted to consider and make recommendations in respect of (a) the best and most appropriate future uses of The Guild and the uses of the lands immediately adjoining theret01 and - -- (b) the best and most ap9ropriate future organization and management structure of The Guild Approval Status In 1985, the Board of Management released its "Development Plan for the Future Use of the Guild Inn" , which identified the Authority as being responsible for the ,ublic Day Use Facilities (arboretum, day-use pavilion, interpt"etive trails along the bluffs and shore-edge protection and treatment) Implementation respons ib i li ty is under discussion between the Board of Management, ~letro and the NTRC.il,. The works proposed by this project will involve expenditures below the Environmental Assessment Act dollar value and therefore qualify for appt"oval by the Minister of Natural Resources under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act Dev~looment Status The Board of Managenent of The Guild Inn have undertaken certain operational im9rovements to the Inn itself Metropolitan Toronto has improved the 9ublic parking lot along Guildwood Parkway adjacent to th-e shoreline access t"oad In addition, basic shot"eline protection is in place along the frontage of the Gu ild Inn Land Acauisition Status All lands required for development of the area are in the title of the Authority Public open space links along ':he shoreline to other park areas, such as South 1-larine Drive and East Po i n t Park, are being made possible as a result of shoreline acquisition for construction of protec-tive works -24- Implementation Objectives The major objectives proposed for The Guild Inn as part of the 1987-199l Project are as follows finalization of the Development Plan and responsibilities of implementation by the AuthoritY1 final shoreline protection1 development of shoreline pathway system1 development of interpretive trails along the Bluffs Proposed Timing The timing of the proposed works will be subject to agreement between the Boat"d of Management, Metr0901itan Toronto and the Authority on the final development plan and implementation The shoreline protection works will b~ completed in accordance with the Erosion Control Project . Development of the 9athway system is scheduled for 1990 or 1991 -25- 4 3.4 East Point Park Planning Status The Master Plan for the East Point Park Waterfront Area was prepared in 1972 and was subsequently approved at all appropriate levels The implementation of the plan was delayed significantly due to funding restrictions and, as a result, a Master Plan Review and site plan preparation was undertaken in 1979 to update and refine the proposals Although minor changes in the proposed program resulted from the Review, the primary accomplishment of the wot'k was the preparation of detailed site plans for implementation The only remaining step in the planning of the Area is preparation of construction drawings for some components of the proposed work The Borough of Scarborough is actively involved in the planning process for this Area A plao for park access is to be finalized and subject to recommendations of the Scarborough Transportation Corridor Study In addition, the plan provides for a sports field complex in the westerly end of the park, which is to be devel0ged by Scarborough or Metropolitan Toronto This issue requires agreement between Metro and Scarborough on the feasibility of locating a r.lajor sports complex at this site Approval Status The Master Plan has been appt"oved by Scarbot"ough, Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry of Natural Resources The t'eview of the 11aster Plan in 1979 did not result in significant changes, and therefore, no further ~laster Plan approvals wet'e required Technical approval by Scarborough and the Hinistry of Natural Resources will be required for various aspects of the work prior to implementation Snvironmental Assessment consideration of the proposals for this site will be in two stages It is proposed that development of the mainland portion of the ~ark will proceed in the first stage and that the construction of the small craft harbour portion will 9roceed as a second stage of construction beyond the limits of this project Devel09ment of the exis':.ing land base proposed within this Project is anticipated to involve expenditures less than Sl,OOO,OOO indexed from 1977 and therefore is anticipated to be exempt fror.l approval under The Environmental Assessment Ace The small craft harbour component is subject to The Environmental Assessment Act under the present regulation It is, therefore, anticipated that the first stage of development of the East Point Park Waterfront Area during the period 1987-l991 will be exempt from The Environmental Assessment .:l,.ct Therefore, the works proposed under this Project for the East Point Park area are eligible for approval by the ~linister of Natural Resources under Section 24 of The Conservation Authorities A.ct .- -26- Development Status The Authority has undertaken with the assistance of special employment funds from the Federal government, minor improvements to Copperfield Road The drainage system for the Easterly Filtration Plant backwater and parking lot base improvements at the Beechgrove Avenue entrance to the site No other development activities are expected to be funded in 1986 Land Acquisition Status The lands required for the first stage of the park development are in the title of the Conservation Authority or Metropolitan Toronto Implementation of the small craft harbout" will involve obtaining a water lot from the Provincial Crown Portions of the lands to the east and west of the park which are owned by Metropolitan Toronto will also ~e ava ilable for passive use The lands referred to are buffer lands around the Easterly Filtration Plant site and the Highland Creek Hater Pollution Control Plant Shoreline links to the Scarborough park area at Grey Abbey Trail and to the Met=opolitan Toronto park system in Highland Creek can also be achieved without further acquisition Implementation Objectives The ~ajor objeotives of the 1987-1991 Project for the Ea.st Point Park Ivaterfront Area include (See Figure 13) road access and parking areas landscaping servicing and washrooms trout pond and model boat pond picnic area sensitive vegetation area protection and interpretation pathways and lookouts resoluti':m of responsibility for and construction of spot"ts fields review of the long ter~ need for the small craft harbour Proposed Timing It is anticipated that the development of the existing land base comprising Stage I of the park will proceed throughout the geriod of the Project with completion anticipated within the term of a subsequent .- Project -27- 4 4 PICKERING/AJAX SECTOR - The first ten years of Authority waterfront development in this sector concentrated on acquisition of substantial sections of the shoreline The potential for future use of shoreline areas for recreational purposes has been dramatically improved as a result of Authority initiatives The Petticoat Creek Conservation Area, which was completed in 1975, was the first in a series of parks to be developed on a land base that has been secured or is identified for acquisition by the Authority The 1987-1991 Project proposes a continuation of acquisition in key remaining areas while also providing for the continued development of lands acquired along the waterfront in the Town of Ajax - -- 4 4 1 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Plannina Status The Mastet" Plan for this At"ea has been in place since 1972 The major part of development has been completed, with only the South Rosebank area and the Fairport Beach area remaining The only outstanding planning activities relate to site plans and design drawings for the remaining development, which will not be undertaken until the acquisition of private lands has been completed .~pproval St3tus The required Master Plan a~provals have been obtained The proposed activities over the period of this Project involve completion of relatively minot" components of a majot" undertaking which has been in progress since 1972 It is, therefore, anticipated that approval under the Environmental Assessment Act will not be required The implementation objectives are, therefore, eligible for ~Iinistry of t<3. tural Resources approval under Section 24 of the Conservation Authori ties Act Land Acquisition Status The Authority holds title to the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area lands, as well as various parcels in the South Rosebank area and the Fair~ort Beach area The maj ori ty of the remainder of the land is in private ownership consisting primarily of single family residential lots Certain municipally owned lands principally involving road allowances must also be acquired to facilitate completion of the 9roposed park developments -26- Implementation Objectives - The 1987-1991 Project proposes to continue the acquisition of lands in the South Rosebank area and the Fairport Beach area as the lands become available and within the limitations of available funding (See Figure l5) Proposed Timing The acquisition of land is ex?ected to continue throughout the period of the Project subject to the availability of funding and to properties being offered for purchase -29- 4 4 2 Frenchman's Bay - Planning Status The Authority does not have an approved Master Plan for- the entire Frenchman's Bay Area due, in part, to the uncertainties with respect to acquisition of the Bay and the development proceeding around the Bay The Town of Pickering produced a secondary plan which has placed the Authority's lands in a holding category pending resolution of the future uses The preparation of a r.1aster Plan for the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Area is an important objective of the 1987-1991 Project Approval Status The Master Plan to be prepared as part of this Project will require approval by the Town of Pickering and the Ministry of Natural Resources The Master Plan may also require approval under The Environmental .~ssessment Act The acquisition proposals are exempt from The Environmental Assessment Act and, therefore, are eligible for approval by the Minister of Natural Resources Land Acquisition Status The Authority has acquired various parcels around the Bay The Bay i tse if is privately owned, and while public ownership is a long term objective, the eiming of acquisition is dependent upon numerous factors beyond Authority control Implementation Objectives It is 9roposed that acquisition in the vicinity of Frenchman's Bay continue throughout the 1987-1991 project with priority being given to the southwest corner of the Bay as well as the spits In addition, it is proposed. that negotiations to acquire the entire Say be continued and that, at such time as suitable purchase arrangements have been finalized, the Authority will request funding additional to this Project A 11aster Plan for the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Area is also proposed as an objective to be accomplished during the Project period including the resolution with Pickering on the holding status of the Authority's lands The Authority is pt"eparing to coordinate the review of and potential solutions to the harbour entrance difficulties with the appropriate agencies and interested parties -30- Proposed Timing Acquisition of ~arcels along the spits and in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the Bay will continue throughout the term of the Project as properties become available and within the limitations of available funding ~s noted previously, the timing of potential acquisition of the entire Bay is indefinite The Master Planning 9rocess is anticipated to occur early in the Project. -31- 4 4 3 Duffin Creek Waterfront Area Planninq Status The Authority has not prepared a detailed Master Plan for this area The general concept in the Waterfront Program identifies the use of this area as a protected marsh, valley hiking trails, wildlife observation and fish habitat and beach development at the Creek mouth Interest has been received from Ducks Unlimited for some habitat modifications A9proval Status Prior to development of the site, a master plan would have to be prepared for approval by the Region of Durham and the Towns of Pickering and Ajax as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources Davelooment St~tus No specific efforts by the Authority have been undertaken with the exception of interim property management for public open space uses Land Acquisition Status The majod ty of land is held by the Authority Small additional parcels may be obtained from the Province of Ontario in relation to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Imple~entation Objectives The major objectives of the 1987-1991 Project for the Duffin Creek Ivaterfront Area include the following continue acquisition of lands adjacent to the marsh and the shoreline initiate a concept ?lan and management plan depending on schedule of acquisition within the project limits -32- 4.4.4 Ajax Wate~ft"ont ~rea Planning Status The Authority has prepared a detailed Master Plan for this area with the exception of Carruthers CreeK marsh. Implementation of the Master Plan will be continued as a component of the 1987-1991 Project. Conceptual plans for a marina at the foot of Harwood Avenue have existed for many years but it is unlikely that a private sector developer will proceed with the project. - Approval Status I ~ -- The Town of Ajax has approved the Master Plan. The completion of the Master Plan components is anticipated to have a total cost of less than $1,000,000 and therefore the proposals are ahticipated to b~ exempt from the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act The proposed work is therefore eligible for approval by the Minister of Natural Resources. Land Acquisition Scatus The ftajority of land required for development of the Ajax Waterfront is in the title of the Autho~ity, with the exception of certain privately owned parcels in the Pickering Beach area and at the south end of Harwood Avenue. Host of the area between the Duffin Creek and Pickering Beach Road has been turned over to Ajax for operations and maintenance under a management agreement ....ith ~lTRCA. Implementation Obiectives The major objectives of the 1987-1991 Project for the Ajax Waterfront Area include the follo....ing Ajax Waterfront Area (Figure 18A) . continue program of landscape improvements . completion of path....ays and lookouts. . Ajax Waterfront Area ( Figure 18B) . continue acquisi~ion of properties as funds permit.. -33- 4 5 FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT In the 1982-1986 Project the Authority concentrated its efforts in habitat enhancement at Bluffers Park The Authority also continued its monitoring of fish species in locations across the waterfront at river entrance locations, East Point Park and Colonel Samuel Smith Park With the increasing interest in the Lake Ontario Sports Fishing and the support of the Authority in developing an urban fisheries program, the 1987-1991 project will concentrate on habitat improvements at Colonel Samuel Smith Park and development of an urban fisheries program The 1987-1991 Project will concentrate on reviewing management! enhancement proposals from Operation Doorstep Angling and initiating enhancements that coincide with urban fishing objectives and Ministry of Natural Resources fisheries management priorities Continued monitoring at Colonel Samuel Smith Park and East Point Park in relation to the Environmental Assessment Act will occur The proposed works will be less than Sl,OOO,OOO indexed from 1977 and therefore are exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act and therefore eligible for approval by the ~Iinister of Natural Resources ~ -34- 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING The environmental monitoring program, as part of the Authority's ongoing commitment to the preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities of the waterfront, will include - monitoring new sites prior to COmmencement of construction to establish background conditions - monitoring projects under construction or recently completed to identify and minimize any short term impacts - monitoring of any p~t~~tial long term impacts relating particularly to sedimentation and its effects on the biological community This information will be particularly useful in the fisheries enhancement and shoreline management aspects of the Authority's work The Authority's waterfront environmnetal monitoring 9rogram has been in place since 1975 and has proven to be a valuable comQonent of the waterfront work As the period of record and amount of data increases, the value of the program in identifying long term trends becomes more apparent The Authority's environmental interests have been expanded with the involvement in the TAHMS Committee and carrying out beach improvement \-Iorks for the Metro Toronto Pollution Committee It is intended to maintain the Authority's activity in water quality along the Lake Ontario waterfront and undertake where feasible, corrective measures -35- 5. COSTS AND FINANCING 5 1 COSTS Implementation of the 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Project is estimated to require expenditures of $3,000,000 annually for a total cost of $15,000,000 over the term of the Project The costs associated with this Project include administration, land acquisition, legal and survey fees, design fees, devel09ment costs, demolition and property restoration, interest and pre-devel09ment property maintenance 5 2 E'I NANC I NG A review of the Authority's operations by Metropolitan Toronto in 1984 resulted in a change in the funding formula for waterfront development projects The municipal share of the funding will now be paid entirely by Metropolitan Toronto and the Region of Durham This t"eplaces the previous formu13 whereby Metro and Durham paid 95% of the municipal ~ortion based on equalized assessment and the other member municipalities paid the remaining 5% also based on equalized assessment Under the new formula, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will match the proposed expenditures by the Regional Municipality of Durham for projects in Durham Metropolitan Toronto will pay the entire municipal portion for works within Metro The Province of Ontario is requested to provide a grant of 50% of the cost of the work in both municipalities Based on a total annual expenditure of S3,000,000 and assuming that $200,000 of that total was for works in Durham, then the annual funding schedule would be as follows Province of Ontario $1,500,000 11unicipality of Metropolitan Toronto Sl,450,000 Region of Durham $ 50,000 Total $3,000,000 The actual annual level of funding will vary from year to year based on the agreed annual allocations by each funding agency -36- 6. APPROVALS - - - . , r..HU Ofl\1i ,,0,,10 ,I)'" I I "{ft."" 1~~..{\O"" . t:11<Oro~~0,,~E" / 1 (/ I ]) ,\~t:u\O" ' ~( , '71 ( "r.L~E' ,1),,,01<\1 ~ ;, I fI ....~ Cl<E1~\:\\".'\O" '. ! ,t Clry / il r, fl. \ I -'"' ~ w', 'x, f7' "OBJi;'f j' ~(\ 4G1tl r @ eJry OF r' · 1---..:! ....JI h'\ ~ 1 " / . / -. :J'" "I / '., ., t - - I . - ~.7 / ~ l ' ,\ . - I . ,- ~ . ,,' ~ \- ]"'" ~ ': .~ ',:II/I!/, WI "~~. ~ ~ Ii' . J. I /', /,,"~ I . , i //1/ /'Jl I.. ' _ / MARIE CURTIS ~1J!j1/ HUMBER BAY e.,':::"~:Iom ~ / 2( Purll,lng Picnic Area -- ~h~~I~,/urWc:;~~l.o,n (jool LQun..:hm(j Swinnung Ococh Oay MnotinJ, ~I~~~~()~':'ea ~~~~IBo, - S.llIUhlfl'.1 ~Qch COLONEL SAMUEL llXlkoul Wading Pool POI.UII,jI SMITH Poth'MO)'l Plu)ground ~:~~~~ ~~~u 5~~~o~~~r~~(In'.1 ~h~~~"Ylt~l. WUdllllJ Pool A,lltl(Jol ~"llnming fOCIII'. O,W Soilir'Q stll!lter ~:~~r.I~Ulld g~: ~~~~llnQ fbluR9 rr:~::~'iS r-Olhllll1)'~ St:Q.~mal ~o()rillq Scu'joRal MuoflOIl ParlllR'.1 Oo~ Mooring 0,. SOIling Tennis Courh Por.ing Baal launching TORONTO ISLAND Woshroom Picnic Areo Swimming Beach Snocll. Bor PloY\lroulld Chilngl Hew>> looll.oul Wading Puul Seu~not Mooring Ory Suilin\l 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront AQUA TIC PARK Development Program FIG.1a I I I '--1--- -----'-... TOWN OF PICKERING ! " tOWN OF , \ 4J4X ouG\\ ; ~eO~ ,~. i 'I . Cr>- ~"--7 .., \ \ S I _or ~ ~ "'(i Of / I' ( ! ( '\ '\ C\ if -",.f " ,,/ I i \) / \ . ,.; .../ "'~' . I' . - ~ I \ PETTICOAT I .';. ;J ,-,J ..'1.1" ;. ,t.!. P. 'i \ ,--- LOWER CREEK fRENCHMANS , .7 -; r / J )&!;"':~'!f";' ~ ROUGE Purll.ng BAY PtCfHC Arl;) t I - f I II ( l::J ----- . Parkin.; PQlh",orl ~:I~':.Ym" beoc'" . J ? l' ! t!~P.J ~I i' ,1 ~ GUlLO INN --........... · Wasll,ollm W"ahrc.llml S.IIIlUJI'hJ Sh,lIer Fllhing i' .. I ~ P'I'h'lll'a~$ It~Qcll ChOllgu HQuM Do) MaOfllUj ,I! A,I //4/',' y ~/ ,oum """... "" "'''' hihiuq r,oy "oO'lng Pa'hwors SWlmmlnQ SeQ!>onal WOOfing It -,_ J \\' ~ CUOIA- MARINE f1o." Ga...n, Po,"" aliloeh 0,.. SOlhng POliing AJAX .. f"'~. . ~ SYlVAfJ DRIVE WashrOom/Shllllter Snock 001 WQ$h,oom WATERFRONT ~/ I JI'i !J{Jl } r \; Pl.lfkl,.g Puth....uy'\ Ch(JnoJ.boLl~e 001 Me.or U.'1iI . Swunming l:Seocb Potklng : ti ........... I/f/'l/I ~ ~ Plllillla)'1. BOGt lQunchiol) Picnic A,ea WO$hfOOm . ) %' iIi, '_/ BLUfFERS 5~~"":':~nn~oo,,",, :::er~OY~anll. ~~l~~:,n'~OUt~uch : j I 1/-- SCARBOROUGH P k' PICIlIC 4.'''Q P,,'h...oyl . . . W~Q ~Ih~. i,/)J~__---- 8LUFFERS HEIGtlTS Do,,1 LOOIChlll'.l Loo"uu~ lool.OIJI : _// WEST PARK ~i~r:(O~f~..O ",." .,.. / POI kll\~ l oo"ou I WQ:.tuwm pg,.ing f'alh..-a)'. PicniC Area PicniC Arcu Sll!usonol NOOtilll) ~~I~:rJ~fden$ B:rrn::i:~in8ct:Ch f...hill'.l . Chonlle ttau:.8 . 0" Sui1tlllJ . "'uluu C.enlrc . . . AfE)"fto : IiEclOIl Pot.'T4/i' . 'I CONSER~OI?ONro : 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront ~r'ON 4NO : 4UrttOftlTy: Cf~rIl4t. . CONSE t.4J(E 11"4 ria", 4~~r41lIa Ii !lOCI 'poo 2,000 IIOlllTr Development Program ~s 6.000 ~~o .., FIG.1b METROPOLITAN TOROHO AND REGION COOSEHVA TION AlJTlIORITV .. , ---" .; / :. , , .. , .- " [B] < , I '''''''" ........ H:U..C.J\, ~PU:rf 0 "'" - - <ul .." ..., eaJ~Wl~ "ALl .. fUT rg....] 0 "" ...., "'" ----- M:U.C.~. ~a:r "'41 .. wUIlO .....V '880 ~AIt't ~ the metropolitan \j)tonto end r.llion WATERSHED PLAN LAKE ONTARIO WATERfRONT MARIE CURTIS W.A. FIG. 2 conwrv.tion euthority DEVELOPMENT PROGRAU - l I j -. I I I - '---- --- _.- '\ ..-.--..... , .- . COI-tPLeYs f'A~ t:>elaoME!-lT --- --- --- e.'i 1'\0,1 , --- . N:ttl\J\e.E t\~rf#\l. LA>>t>$ RitoM / __0'_.'__-.- -..... ~ of o>>~ f.\Nb l\Ka.1\) t-Vls'tEe.. PLAW ~'\ lBJ --- --.-.----....-.. - , , ~..;. - - ~ . L...._.... - . WAY ISIO ~ h por - WATERSHED PLAN COLONEL FIG. 3 (p I 0 mono. IllIn l()ronlo and region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT SAMUEL SMITH W.A. _ con~'''ellon aulhoflly DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM " I /.. 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program Object ives : [8J ---- El(t~b P~TI\WAY . ~ PLt\Ce l'JA'oJ\<4IlTlOtJ t\\b~ :....= .. .. _ _. CONST~\ WASHlIpoM 0 CC\J5"l~T fQ1T u\tl4e. L. _ .... ~ E.)(PAND PAA~t-lCl _._ W ..... 1\l\1"\l\'"lC ~~~e. P"il)\WA'I ....y ,Q80 ,~~ pLJ\C.e Flt-JAL l't~HOO~ ~ WATERSHED PLAN /.17 Ih.m.tropolilanlo,onloand'.llion LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT HUMBER BAY WEST W.A. FIG 4 <.. 'l con..."'.uoo aUlho"ly DEVELOPMENT PROGHAM I : // ~ r~, ~//\/ .~ /,l'/ / / 1987-1991 Lake Ontario / I Waterfront Program . / / Object ives: - i J oltUT,^Te PALACe. !'IEC.. ltl~lN4 ~e..lec.T -ro ~-rER PwJ /" ~"ENt> "'~T o c.ouTltNE ~1l\:)ITloN OF lEi] Q\oe5-UHc. j.JNK - \.M16Ee. ~'/ ~~-r To WeTSW ~J:S ....= - .. ".!o ~ . ~ - .. -.- "AY '.80 ~ - WATERSHED PLAN (;;:;' lhe melro~"\a/' 10/onlO alld legion LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT HUMBER BAY EAST W.A FIG. 5 COOHlVlIUQIl aulhoflly OEVELOPWENT PROGRAW -'- - . 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program \ , '\ / '\ [BJ LEGEND _.- A41t.....b' P,.jKI ......." ~.a - - - - fP [alt'tAt ,...11.. ~.- . - - ....... l$80 '4U "'.....411 'i ...... ~ he - WATERSHED PLAN 1 mOlropoh~n 10.0010 and .egion LAKE ONTARIO WATERfRONT WESTERN BEACHES W.A. FIG 6A' _ con5orvalion aulhOtily DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM -_. . / 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program --C [[~ LEGEND Lo..A - - -,- _._ AMtNth, ',e.e'l ......, ...... - - .. - ~ ~...,"" PI...... ....y.uo .., ......... p....... ~ he ~- nd' WATERSHED PLAN a I m.IrO_ .Ian IClonIO. reglOll LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT WESTERN BEACHES W.A FIG.6B coo...,v.loon aulhorllY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ,"'" ,. / ,,/:), (.^:- /. ( / .____________~ /// "V~I I ". AI /........ // \. . ,- - ...."( ~ ' TERN . .j" ;. ISLAND , \~ , // , I , '\ ' -T. , "t.. , ,~ ., , --..--'\' / ~-', T.H.C. ~' ~. : 'LANDS '\ "t ',~19-30 ho ~\ , OUTER - "- '\ , ..... , HARBOUR \ .\.- , \~~.~ , ~ . '" ." ( . ' J .. _~__v , /~~\ ,j -- ........ MIR C A '~,/\ ,'~ ........ . . .. ~ '. i; ~ \i q ........ LANDS - TOMMY THOMPSON " \. '".' " ........ PARK \ .'t. / j. ............ 24727 hO* _~ ......, ...."....- ..............---- 1987-1991 lake Ontario Waterfront Program elT'" OF 10RotHO "INCLUDES ROAD ALLOWANCE - 4-61 ho .INCLUDES ROAD ALLOWANCE - 5.04 ho (TOTAL ACTUAL t.4.T R.C.A. LAND AREA IS 70.57 hol " Object ives. . co",pune C.o~CEP'T PLAN ( I . 1t.Jrt'Il\~ ~ PLAt! I....PLE t-\atT A"TIotJ "'1.(c- o"".04RlO . COtSlINUE. 1~'E~\'" I-\4NPsc.E.MEwT \ltJTlL CONCEl'T fLAt<J IWI'~Et> I:\Nb l!(\ltEkEtJTEb WATERSHED PLAN ~ the meuopoli..n torooto end region UKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT TOMMY THOMPSON PARK FIG. 7 conMrvetlOll .ulhoflty OEVELOPUENT PROGRAM - -- \ . ... ~~"~o~- jt \' ~. oil ~~c'~'hO"'r\=_.~mr-"'T' ccC~C' ~.~---C1'lr"'i);~~ JJgc,;F.jl'i , ug ~ . ,\ - 0----. ~ ,- p ~ I . ,- H "]' r "" ___.__ __~ / ' l. "il ~ ti . . / ___ . .~_____.~_.. J B -..J I . IH~ u~ :/ " ,>- ....;'" . e. [, - ~, \l- )1 ;'1 ~ I l. \ \ \ ~~. tf -.. ~ ~ ~ I , .~" ,~../ 1 i !! -- - - 1)1 \ ~ U 0 \ ~s I' "1 ~ Uj\ll~ I ' ~ \ J ; I . ,,~ i\ ~ 1 ~ U l \. ~ ' ./ / ' c.=- /'i .. I ."=~c_ , " ,- ... , g at ~ l ~ .. ~ 1 ~ ~T '" - -.../" i" I -~_.~. -~,--.--.._,~ ~ ~ M ' ! l ~ - ijij~~~~ ~ otfrJorL krtt-dJM :=: ~ "~'~r' .,cc- ,~I. i ~....~ ~ =.=~~~-- " 7-...."...~~~-=~~~r"'-.:- t(J~ ~ 'e:- .... 17 1987-1991 lake Ontario Waterfront Program Object ives: ~7.:1 co~PL~'TE. ~EfwCl\ FllLI~ 1\t4t> qllJltllNq J ""'~ ;'~'I COkPt.&TE tsNT~tJce Ik"WJE-He~ _____ ~PLe'TB CH~t<ltJEL.. t>e..i:-t>G.ltJ4 IN (.().\"TSt\,JOjq'i CUT I / [El] .- - - - - .... -.- - - - -.- MAV liiao WATERSHED PLAN ~ the metropoliUln loronto and region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONl' ASHBRIDGE"S BAY W A FIG. 8 _ con"",alioo authorilY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM --- --- .J "to e.E. f'~"'("ECt1O ~ICIW 110O 51\Ot8-llie ONDJ:.(t '{\\t!- --- ():)~fll.ElEtl ~J~ FIG. 9 "'" -- 0 300 ...- WEST W A. tiCAL.( .. fEET 200 U) 0 WAY laao o PLAN BLUFFERS ~ "wElHU WATERSHE WATERFRONT E ONTARIO PROGRAM to and region LA~E\lELOP"ENT politan lDron tha matro. authority conurvallon I . ,n", 1".' ,t. "m.,,''',,~!J .,,~"... I N"" ),~ /.,~ /1 r-(;..~J/ =-)r-;::i:>]- -(-~-~~~-"~~~ui~~r- :. " I ,. \. ',"'1." ~ ~ . 11 I ',,- IUV"l} ~rpll .. Ill.. J. ,I Jl: (.; ,_ .:t. L ;.' ~~/I .f'l/~Q ? ..'.LJ Q 'I Q f'.J '.B "c.. . U 'I IY/.) (0. ~tr ~ fji' 0 ....IT ~- "T : ~"JJ'IC;!".'I"u',r '" II. '''-S:I/i.,'-> ....">91...^~ .114 ~:.?jj j'~':'A~9 j'I., ! , .." "7.' ./>-,,1/: /10 ',II "! II u,..__....... "'-_. ry.. ("> v'" .~~ !y'/!:-..<Y' .r:rj/.f -10 ~I/;) iiI. :Ju v) . l.......'i {.I..;:' .r~~.7("';,;'" cJ'q//..,~... i; ti-Q .,~t;.. ~~' , ..., 'J' ;-V ':to f.r / j' ;:~), /.~ //..."l.~ /'1..... ':J //.', "l" I ..... t. (," ~' -'1 ... ... 1/ IV 'I . 'I,~ 'II '. / ~;. .S' .... ~ 5": b....'1i'. ,,?A' ~f//~ 711.1' \ 'f -,' ~ \ . 'I.lo' f' II.J' 'r rY <. <> I. f I ' J !y? 'J ,,~(~. <t I~ .v)r\ 7/, oo(J ..t'~.~; ~ I; I /....... . . S' <'4,/t!j J1 l) ,1/ '?'l.t1. ':/ ,', I, 'I'. PJ/) J Y < y c J .-:- ./If,'{ J' i' J'~(&' 1i'1 ,~ or / ',"" ~ 3'" ~ tv,/' J'I.f fl' ;~.. ~J,,:~;) ~l~/,: ( "f I...... " I, l l '%/., ;/ rP ,~. f' rlo <.,,"~, I .} l' .f I.. . .." v ~ /~ ....: .Y.!s' ,y t, ~~ .f~'1 . ~ t . .::::.y l'" .. ~. Q>J~; .' '. , l I f :ji!:~' ...' f . ,~...:;' 3" ~r ~,Q _. 1\ )..:' I i IH:::... :iEiyif' ~ I .~ ~ J ( ,': ~.5' ..yo;,Q ~~~'... )l 'f,_. I .~:::;::::::: - 'JZ:"!iiili!t:." )' / .t' ~ ..~ :if;''!'''" \1';; .9:> .~i~ . ~ I '" ,:,U:::ii:;:::i;:u,::tI:!i!:::'''. I, "I ' .:J./o q.:) I,-~t- o.~\..1.b;) <r: 'I' .# ':~:i" "iiUflfltiifi;!i!!iijjU:;::.:'. # (- ''J ,"~,->>> ")\'\~ '4.~Q I...f" ~, '/ ;; JI::::iij., ,:iil:I:/!:!!::::::::"~' .;", '" (-" I'~ '0 -~ " iii!ii:iiIUiilii;iiiliiiiiiii:" ,'/ \" ,j" d~ J ~.,\ '\ I)~ I ;' , 4 ,::!::i::i::1jf:i::::i::i:::;:' .; 1 f ~.r") Y:'! .j' I ,,:., / "li.J~ 1'- C',(l . k I' ,;::::::::::::,,;'::::::::::'.; / .l .' J' '01 ) I .,~ - ~ t ~' , . Ie '~, ffi!iiiiiliiiiHiiiiili!ilill';.i!" ,it, ~ ~ ..' / IfJl ~i' /' :::;: 4' /, ,\ I - ~". :::::ii:::!j:i;'ist:::.:i., / / ,. '-\ ~+' f',j' .), -,' '('t C/' /~>l / / -1-,t,.'I!iifi!iiiiMffliii'" 1'1 I r, ~ \ C I,.'..... 'V{'t:JC -,'" ( ?... ~l' I -..,. __' "1:, .... I' t :;i~!~.~ ~ \ / ~\ l....)/ .... ;:/ / J $ l ( . .' . ,'" 1 ".. .~, -_ / ,-) l-\:~.. -.: (( " >> __._._, I N I) 'ih, 1 -----_ I _ I "..,J'~i"~~' I( ,I. r~.~ 1 I I '" ,.l) -- '1'\.1 'e --'01 I I - \- f..f'':~ "II '(fl,1 i.',? 1/ ~ ' 'I ..- - 'J I - ,\ ...~. -; .... J " ~_ ........./ J ~~~ ~ I' J I...J~~ \..',.' ~ " - "'''\ -l:~:\, I, ~J ~ -~fu~,/~ ~ ____ _ .,..__ Il,.) t- '\t. ...:.~_.. l:,y' :.______J_':....J .'~ or ----~-. \-.'.... - .--.-,....-.--.--- -~-- .:.-- - ~-~,-.-~~~. ,,/.. ~J- - ~ ._.~\r -- --- -~~~Q2" 1987-1991 Lake Ontario )) _, ~""'" "~I ~ 1 \ J '~. ;,.--""'-:- Waterfront.,!~ ~-'-:o''''' /li. ,':!"~ \r~ l;,Ii 7 --- " \\:d ..-- ,~.~- - of,;.. --.\ ';>>(-- c. Program ~ ::.v7,..._____-~=y".~.{(-- ,. I ,.".':" .~/.....- . )'Ii'" ~ ~ _~ . 'l'IQ\ ,.-;~ "I r,' . I ~7.' ". .... /r.- ...h( \ v-.:::;y 4i\ r OOKl'LeiE /~ '\~ ~~~ \. I <~"il LfttJ$5cAPIN~ 1 ~ :1..$".1..:::.$;: tiNt> 1l41L5 ./ __'._' ,,\ ow 'tOPL.A~ II~:II Object ives. \ , .. ----- _ ~~ ---- Q:llJ5'flalC1' ra:>~,.Itl'\tJ ~ \ . vl/ -' 1\\El::IJ4\t ~~u=.,# 'M\JIWc ~" ~'.~" . (OW&"~UC.T e.~" ,",oO:>E \.-..,,/ ~~I ,"--_...L--~ (' JbDJaDP \fIA2.lN~ WI11\ 400 ~I':> 0 - . CoMPLc:t'e t\Cc.e:& IMPmtEHIWlS ANt> ,.J "1\10 IV:.C~f(.'i \t>E5 !:XPAND ~~\N4 0 PA~UO "to elLJJ~ 1OflANt:6 ~ec" ""1'0 ~l'61l R.AtJ ~AATIOtJ l ~- , WATERSHED PLAN FIG.IO . j'/ IhemWo;>olilanlorollloanl.l.oglcn LAKE ONTARIO WATERfRONT BLUFFERS W A SEPT 1981 ~. cOllse.val,on aulholllv DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT REV. OCT. 'a~ / [8] _______ FIN~L ~Oi.ELINe pwu:c....no~ , ACU 10 e6 COHPLr.Tel> . ... ." ... "" ..... ............ D81etPP ~\loeEutJe PAt\\WA'1 :;''1stet1 ICM. ....' 0 ... ..., .... "AYI~ ~ tho metropolitan toronto and r.gion WATERSHED PLAN GUILD INN W A FIG 12 LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT conaorvalion aulhoritv DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM I I , l, ~ " ~, f, 1 ., n -- ~.. (d ell") -[ .J '-1 . . [' ., I 1 {) - ,. J 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Objectives: . DeJElOP pICNIc' Ae~ . l:.5TI\~U5t\ SE"f>\TIVf,. lJeGETJ\--nON ~(EQ Foe- ~TEV"ION I\N1) INT~T"TION . CDIJST~, ~\"\4'>r'i5 ANt) llOkO\l"tS . ca-lf;T0.t.,.\OW of ~Oji!."S fllUJ)s ~'1 , B ~\1 DR. t1e: Ii:O / ::-:___':L.---~ ~ WAy.1l1l0 ~ hr. WATERSHED PLAN ~ I 0 mOllOpo lIan 1010nl0 and legion LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT EAST POINT W A FIG 13 / CO,1SlIIV8110n aulholllV DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .. , 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program ---' Object ives : , 0 / lAI-tl> ~'S'T'OH u~J . - - - - - -.- - - .. -.- W"Y 1$10 ~ the metropolitan !4)fonto and region WATERSHED PLAN LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PETTICOAT CREEK W.A. FIG 15 COI\50rY8\100 autholllY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM _I' 1 ~ fo-=a-. ..., - '\ 1987-1991 lake Ontario Waterfront Program Objectives: r(.~1 . CoK1IMle ~CCilU,6IT'OtJ . Pea'.o.CE. Wlt.T~ PL-llN ANt> ~...;---- ~\JE': lIolblNG, STJ\-nl<;. 11'\ ~.- . OFfCIAt..- l'LAt-\ WAY 1$80 ~ h .. d WATERSHED PLAN (;;;:;' I . melropo lIan lDmnlO an rOOlon LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT FRENCHMAN"S BAY W.A. FIG. 16 conMrvallon aulholllY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM . I -- I / [E] ~..---- ~._- - . .COtJ1'ItJue. ~\JI&I-rION MAt lNO WATERSHED PLAN ~ the melropolilan toronlO end region LAKE ONTARIO .AnRI'RONT DUFFIN CREEK W. A. FIG. 17 . conMrvelion eulhorilV OEVELOPUENT PROGRAM ~ I "-'---...-.... ......c..______ , 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program / Object ives: [Bl ocoJTltJlJE f'IlO4~M OF= l.AiJt>~I\Pf IIIIP~O'Jat~ ~..: - - - - . colA.pu;:n; P2D<:tlAH Of' p~\~4\j'::' !\Ub ~ . ~ - -.- ~ ~ ...... UUtO ~ the metro!>olltan tor onto llnd region WATERSHED PLAN LAKE ONTARIO WATERfRONT -AJAX W A FIG.18A COIl5.ervllUon authority DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - -- . ~ ~'l , ; ,~\~I r . "' e oof)lIf"'\)J<:> I ) 'i rt'V3~ - -u--n I ' ) ') I' \.-, "-~ .~M.i.. / ~.~- . - 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Program ...---..-- -~- -- --.. , Objectives / .COlJl'ltVUe- IlCGl.UI~1110/ll OF P~PEf,."fIFS [BJ As FUNO~ peR.I'lIT ,- - - - - - ~._I - - -.. . ...- MAY laiO ~ h . WATERSHED PLAN (p I e meuopolllan loronlO and region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT AJAX W.A FIG 18 B conwrvation authorily DEVELOPMENT PROGRAIoI -- - . D- 321 SCHEDULE ','B" . PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1987-1991 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1987-1991 . OCTOBER 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY - 1 - CONTENTS OF BRIEF PURPOSE BACKGROUND AND POLICIES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCrNG APPROVALS - -- . - 2 - PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorities Act, R S 0 1970, Chap 78, as amended, to establish and undertak.e, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in accordance with that portion of the Erosion Control Program of the Watershed Plan which addresses a remedial erosion control work.s program The project covers a five year period, from 1987 to 1991 The goal of the Authority through this Project is to "minimize the hazards of life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shorelines, while cognizant of the natural attributes of the valley and lak.efront settings" within the Regional Municipality of Peel To achieve its goal, the Authority has defined the following objectives . i) To implement a program of erosion control work.s on a priority basis for public and private lands where lives and property are endangered by erosion iil To implement a progr3m of erosion control works on public and private lands where significant amounts of land and vegetation are being lost and/or adjacent waterways may be adversely affected by the erosion i i i ) To design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an integrated m3nagement system for the entire watercourse or shore1 i ne "hi ch wi 11 1 imi t erasi on, will enable public access adJ acent to the water's edge wherever feasible and will be conducive to maintenance i v) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of remedial works i~ excessive in comparison to the value of the property v) To secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the open space sy stems .- - 3 - vi 1 To protect and enhance natural vegetation and preserve the natural valley and shoreline character wherever feasible vii 1 To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation viii) To secure commitments for funding of erosion control measures from the Province of Ontario and the Member Municipalities as identified in the .Authority's multi-year erosion control projects ixl To investigate and secure additional funding from other levels of government for selected erosion control activities -- -- xl To provide erosion control services on private lands where the owners are willing to pay the entire cost - 4 - BACKGROUNO The Authority has been responsible for the implementation of a remedial erosion control works program, in the Regional M un i c i pal i ty 0 f Pee 1 since 1979 MTRCA's involvement in this activity was reconfirmed in the . Erosion and Sediment Control component of the Watershed Plan approved in 1980 Erosion control remedial measures were addressed initially in the 'Interim Water and Related Land Management Project 1977-1981' and the subsequent 'Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project for the Regional Municipality of Peel 1982-1984' and '1985-1986' Eleven erosion sites in the Regional Municipality of Peel have been addressed to date involving total expenditures of approximately $343,000 00 policies The policies and operational criteria of the Authority governing erosion control remedial works are as follows (a) Remedial works will be carried out on those watercourses which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares (b) For the purposes of erosion protection works, design blocks sha 11 be established and works undertaken on a design block basis Design blocks shall be 0 f a size to be technically and economically feasible (c) Erosion protection will be installed on a technical priority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction access and property acquisition Priorities shall be based on technical criteria including, but not necessarily limited, to the following - distance from top of bank to structure - rate of slope retreat - extent of groundwater seepage - height and steepness of slope - so 11 composition - vegetative cover, type and extent - evidence of previous movement - condition of toe of slope (d) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Au thori ty on an annual bas i s - 5 - (e) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authority shall require title to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a suitable fi nanci a 1 contribution from the benefiting owner(s) ( f) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of cost/benefit, with acquisition cost being used as a principal determining factor and where acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works (g) Design criteria for erosion protection works are dependent upon the nature of each specific problem Generally, two types of problems exist The first and less common type, involves a bank or valley wall instability in which slumping or major rotational failure i s involved due to inherent soil conditions or overloading of the bank The more common type of problem involves the river in coincidence with the valley wall Wherever possible, erosion control work s ha 11 be designed to - accommodate the 100 year flood for the 'coincident case' - accommodate t~e 10 year flow, in all other cases as a minimim, based on the ultimate development of the watershed - permit channel overtopping with minimal danger to the remedial work - decrease the velocity of the stream by flattening the hydraulic gradient and minimizing the flow energy - by incorporating meanders and/or controlled drop structures ( h) In the design of all protection works, the Authority s ha 11 be cognizant of the natural surroundings and shall endeavour to provide ancillary benefits, where appropriate ( i ) Work s sh a 11 be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and addressed in the "Class Environmental Assessment for Water Control Structures" - 6 - LOCATION ANO OESCRIPTION This project addresses itself to those watercourses within The Regional Municipality of Peel which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares and where it will be the policy of the Authority to carry out erosion control works On watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares the provision of such works wi 11 be the responsibility of the municipality Exceptions to this may occur where it is determined by the Authority and the municipality that specific watercourses, or sections thereof, due to their physical characteristics, warrant inclusion within the Authority's responsibilities Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses generally draining in excess of 1300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in erosion control works under this project Following is a list of watercourses or portions thereof which are generally in excess of 1300 hectares EtObicoke Creek Little Etobicoke Creek Mimico Creek West Humber River Salt Creek . Lindsay Creel<. Main Humber River Centrevi11e :reek Cold Creek In view of th~ number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Regional t1unicipa1 ity of Peel and in order to fairly assess which site s should be considered for work, for any given '",ork year, the Authority carries out its remedial works program on a technical priority basis Therefore the sites which appear on the erosion inventory list and which are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for remedial \~orks first The Aut~,ori ty currently maintains information on active erosion sites on those watercourses in the Region of Peel draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares From this informat on, the Authority has formulated a "p 00 1 of Erosion Priority Sites" (see Table 1) for the purpose of developing its remedial works program In preparing for the erosion protection work program, continued monitoring and updating of the data base is important in order to keep abreast of changing site conditions Because erosion is dynamic, priorities can change from year to year and sometimes even after a sin gl e storm The process of reviewing and updating priorities must be continued not only to make the system equitable but also to adj~st annual funding requirements I WATIIlCOUIIS€S O....IHINCI .. ... GeN(RALLY 1)00 HiCTAHE.S oa GR[ATlR ~ j WATERCOURSES DRAINING GENERALLY FIG. 1 !be meltopolilen 10<01'110 and region , 1300 HECTARES OR GREATER conaorv>>lion aUlhorily - 7 - [n evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered potential effect to structures, valley wall conditions and river action The potenti al effect on structures is deemed the most important and accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated with the other two factors Determining the potential effect on structures involves a number of parameters i ncl udi ng the state of erosion, distance to structures and the number, si ze and type of structure(s) affected Valley wall conditions include the height of vall ey wall, slope angle, vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics an d the so; 1 type and composition River action, as a factor, considers the present river alignment as well as the potenti al cutting action Minor remedial works will also be considered for those areas where significant amounts of land and or vegetation is being lost and where no structures are in immediate danger on both public and private lands Through this component of the project the Authority can maintain and provide protection to valuable open space. parklands, ESA's and further provide a 'stitch in time' approach to many areas with the result that expensive remedial works may not be required in the future Funds for this aspect of our remedial works project would not exceed twenty percent of our approved annual fL:ndi n9 Examples of a ty p j c a 1 erosion problem and a tipical remedial works solution are shown in Fig~re 2 and 3 These figures also serve to graphi:ally illustrate some of the preceding criteria The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion cont~ol works utilizing the "Pool of Erosion Priority Sites" and conservation of land sites, to the limits of the approved annual funding allocation and in accordance with the criteria developed for such work Specific sites will be reviewed on an annual basis and, to permit response to changes in priorities, work will not be projected beyond a one year period In any year, protection will be provided to those sites in highest priority which satisfy the criteria established to the limit of the S30,OOO identified as the annual funding required within The Regional f4unicipality of Peel - B - TABLE 1 , - POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES IN THE REGION OF PEEL * LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Adjacent to Albert St Humber River Caledon 2130 Dundas Street Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Netherhart Road Etobicoke Creek Mississauga WH-142 Beamish Court Humber River Brampton 44 Hickman Street Humber River Caledon 1726 Lincolnshire Blvd Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Toronto Golf Course - Site I Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Toronto Golf Course - Site II Etobicoke Creek Mississauga * Subject to annual review . T.LTIIIG i I , I'FHCUO 1'0l0 ENl.lllG(AfO I ITAUCTUAE I .. PfACHED ""UAT_eu i SfEPI'GE I --.--.----- I IIIPER\IIlltJS SOIL UP05(O SLOPE .sa.c.. (/odeA. UIISIOII CIlACKS EXPOSED eAA[O nOPE I RI' a Gull, E...... I ACTIVE AIVER , . fU\i[A ~ Iho mOI,opolilan 10,on10 and ,ogion TYPICAL EROSION PROBLEM FIG. 2 conS8"'allon aulhorolV . I ! , I I ! A[v[(;(TATEO 5L.OPl~ ;. I~' /' I GRADE I , ~ 7 1_ .t---_~U!f..HEO ....nRTA... l_--~__-)-ii . .--.--. /1l,~==I7C=/==->>---I- If ....[1lWJUS SOlL ; , //.:-// 1L /' . t..., , JlIP AU' AAWOUAlllG ..-;"::-1'-7 II fAjNCK ORAIN5 tw.. Pcrl PI"". I' .~~-::1/ / / / / / 1/ i -"-':-'7 I COWPACTlO / I / / I tOO-YEAR fLOW _ -;.--:.--;'-":7-':/ I a.J.fILI: / ,'// I I~ .:/ -- , II / / / / / I I . IO-YEAR fLCNJ _; ;;;;; / / / / I / I / / ! ; ;;;;-, TOE l'llOTECTlOH / / I' / ~ i .:::: rrLL_J_l__ L_L_L_-...ylT]..-b~l::.~(".-__L/ , I fl(~~[0 ~~'~:::::f'''::':,:,~Y I 6IlAMJLAft .0' OACllflLL 0# OLD RIvER 8[0 S~ tho motropolitiln loronto Bnd looion TYPICAL SOLUTION FIG.! 3 (:t/' c:on50IVillIon lIuthonty, I ~ , .- - -'- --..... - 9 - COSTS AND FINANCING The expenditures required to implement this project are based on the best - information currently avaiTable for works to be undertaken The costs stated shall be understood to include, legal and survey fees, land acquisition, engineering and geotechnical studies, site supervision and all materials, labour, equipment, etc associated with the construction The proposed allocation of funding for these works on an annual basis for the Five Year Project is as follows Costs 5 YEAR PROJECT YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL TOTAL $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000 Fi nanci ng The total cost of the Five Year Project is S150,OOO and the yearly costs will be funded as follows Total Annual Cost - S30,000 Regional Hunicipality - $13,500 of Pee 1 Share Province of Ontario Share - S16,500 The Regional Municipality of Peel ;s designated as the benefiting municipality The regional municipality may, ho~ever choose to pass on their share to the local municipality and the Authority will provide the necessary information annually should this occur - 10 - APPROVALS - (1) AUTHORITY (2 ) THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES (3 ) THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL (4 ) THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD . D-322 SCHEDULE "C" ,! PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1987-1991 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 1987-1991 OCTOBER 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CO~SERVATION AUT~ORITY - 1 - CONTENTS OF BRIEF PURPOSE BACKGROUND AND POLICIES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING APPROVALS . ..- - 2 - PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorities Act, R S O. 1970, Chap 78, as amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has juriSdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in accordance with that portion of the Erosion Control Program of the Watershed Plan which addresses a remedial erosion control works program The project covers a five year period, from 1987 to 1591. The goal of the Authority through this Project is to "minimize the hazards of life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shorelines, while cognizant of the natural attributes of the valley and lakefront settings" within the Regional Municipality of York ':'0 ach ieve its goal, the Authority has defined the following objectives i) To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis for public and private lands where lives and 9roperty are endangered by erosion i i) To implement a program pf erosion control works on public and private lands '"here significant amounts of land and vegetation are being lost and/or adjacent waterways may be adversely affected by the erosion iii) To de~ign remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of ah integrated management system for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, ,,,ill enable public access adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible and will be conducive to maintenance iv) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe aId where the cost of re:nedial wor~s is excessive in comparison to the value of the progerty v) To secure t.i tle to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the open space systems - 3 - vi) To protect and enhance natural vegetation and preserve the natural valley and shoreline character wherever feasible vii) To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation viii) To secure commitments for funding of erosion control measures from the Province of Ontario and the Member Municipalities as identified in the Authority's multi-year erosion control projects ix) To investigate and secure additional funding from other levels of government for selected erosion control activities x) To provide erosion control services on private lands where the owners are willing to pay the entire cost - 4 - BACKGROUND The Authority has been responsible for the implementation of a remedial erosion control worKs program, in the Regional Municipality of York since 1979 MTRCA' s involvement in this activity was reconfirmed in the Erosion and Sediment Control component of the Watershed Plan approved in 1980. Erosion control remedial measures were addressed initially in the 'Interim Water and Related Land, Management Project 1977-1981' and the subsequent 'Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project for the Regional Municipality of York 1982-1984' and '1985-1986' Sixteen erosion sites in the Regional Municipality of York have been addressed to date involving total expenditures of approximately $230,000 00 Policies The policies and operational criteria of the Authority governing erosion control remedial works are as follows ( a) Remedial works will be carried out on those watet"courses which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares ( b) For the purposes of erosion protection works, design blocks shall be established and works undertaken on a design block basis Design blocks shall be of a size to be technically and economically feasible ( -: ) Erosion protection will be installed on a technical priority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction access and propet"ty acquisition Priorities shall be based on technical criteria including, but not necessarily limited, to the ~ollowing - distance from top of bank to structure - rate of slope retreat - extent of groundwater see9age - height and steepness of slope - soil composition - vegetative cover, type and extent - evidence of previous movement - condition of toe of sl0ge (d) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved ~y the Authority on an annual basis - 5 - (e) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authori ty shall require ti tie to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a suitable financial contribution from the benefiting owner(s) (f) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of cost/benefit, with acquisition cost being used as a principal determining factor and where acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works (g) Design criteria for erosion protection works are degendent upon the nature of each specific problem Generally, two tYges of problems exist The first and less common type, involves a bank or valley wall instability in which slumping or major rotational failure is involved due to inherent soil conditions or overloading of the bank The more common type of problem involves the river in coincidence with the valley wall Wherever possible, erosion control work shall be designed to - accommodate the 100 year flood for the 'coincident case' - accommodate the 10 year flow, in all other cases as a minimim, based on the ultimate development of the watershed - permit channel overtopping with minimal danger to the r-emedial work - decrease the velocity of the stream by flattening the hydraulic gradient and minimizing the flow energy - by incorporating meanders and/or controlled dr09 structures ( h) In the design of all protection works, the Authority shall be cognizant of the natural surroundings and shall endeavour to provide ancillary benefits, where appropriate ( i) l'iorks shall be carried out in accordance with the r-equirements of the Envit"onmental Assessment Act and addressed in ~he "Class Environmental Assessment for Water Control Structures" - 6 - LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This project addresses i tse if to those watercourses within The Regional Municipality of York which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares and where it will be the policy of the Authority to carry out erosion control works On watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares the provision of such works will be the responsibility of the municipality Exceptions to this may occur where it is determined by the Authority and the municipality that specific watercourses, or sections thereof, dlle to their physical characteristics, warrant inclusion within the Authority's responsibilities Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses generally draining in excess of 1300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in erosion control works under this project Follo'",ing is a list of watercourses or porti"ns thereof which are generally in excess of 1300 hectares. Humber River - Main Branch - East Branch - Rainbow Creek - Cold Creek Don River - West Branch - East Branch - German Mills Creek Rouge River - t1ain Branch - Little Rouge - Beaver Creek - Bruce Creek Duffin Creek - Stouffville Creek In vie\~ of the number of sites requiring erosion control and slOge stabilization work throughout the Regional Municipality of York and in order to fairly assess which sites should be considered for work, for any given wor:< ieaq the Authority carries out its remedial works ;;>rogram on a technical priority basis Therefot"e the sites which appear on the .;!rosion inventot"y list and which are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for remedial wot"ks fit"st The Authority currently maintains intot"mation "r. active erosion sites on those watercourses i.n the Region of York draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares Prom this information, the A~thot"ity has formulated a "Pool of Eros.ion Priority Sites" (see Table 1 ) for the purpose of developing its t"emedial works program In 9reparing for the erosion protection work program, continued ~onitoring and updating of the data base is important in ot"cer to keep abt"east of changing site conditions Because erosion is dynamic, priot"ities can change from year to year and sometimes even after a single storm The process of reviewing and updating 9riot"ities must be continued not only to make the system equitable but also to adjust annual funding requirl:!ments r w. TERCOUft5[S DRAINING . .... GfNERALLY 1100 H[CTAIlI(S OR GREATfR ~ j WATERCOURSES DRAINING GENERALLY (z;;' lhe melropolilan 10roOlO and rogioo I consurvallon aUlhorlty 1300 HECTARES OR GREATER FIG 1 .. ..... , TABLE 1 POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES I~ THE REGION OF YORK * LOCATION NATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Mill Road Humber River King RR #3, WoodbLidge Humber River Vaughan IBM Golf Course Rouge River Markham 16 Ravencliffe Road Don River Markham 20 Deanbank East Don River Markham 9961 Warden Avenue Rouge Riv-er Markham 3272 McCowan Road Rouge River Markham 9854 H.....y #27 Humber River Vaughan 22 Framingham Don River Markham * Subject to annual review . - 7 - In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered potential effect to structures, valley wall conditions and river action The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated with the other two factors Determining the potential effect on structures involves a number of parameters including the state of erosion, distance to structures and the number, size and type of structure(s) affected valley wall conditions include the height of valley ...all, slope angle, vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics and the soil type and composition River action, as a factor, considers the present river alignment as well as the potential cutting action. Minor remedial works will also be considered for those areas where significant amounts of land and or vegetation is being lost and where no structures are in immediate danger on both public and private lands Through this com90nent of the project the Authority can maintain and provide protection to valuable open space, parklands, ESA's and further provide a 'stitch in time' ap9roach to many areas with the result that expensive remedial works may not be required in the future Funds for this aspect of our remedial works project would not exceed twenty percent of our approved annual funding Examples of a typical erosion problem and a typical remedial works solution are shown in Figure 2 and 3 These figures also serve tOo gra9hically illustrate some of the preceding criteria The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion control works u t il i zing the .Pool of Erosion priority Sites. and conservation of land sites, to the limits of the approved annual funding allocation and in accordance with the criteria developed for such work Specific sites will be reviewed on an annual basis and, to permit response to changes in tlriorities, work will not be projected beyond a one year period In any year, 9rotection will be provided to those sites in highest pt"iority which satisfy the criteria established to the lLnit of the $30,000 identified as the annual funding required within The Regional Municipality of York , I I I [tCl~NG[Rf D , -" PERCItED WATERTABL;: ----.-------- I -- --- ----- -- - i IWPfA\IIOUS SOIL I npOSfD SLOPE IShu' Eroloioo. 1 ENSION CRACKS BAAED SlOP[ t HII a Gullr ftg...... AC11"f 'WfR . ------ RIVER , ,. <s~ hI. TYPICAL EROSION FIG (ij 1 0 mellOpo nan loronlo and regIOn PROBLEM 2 consBrvallon aUlhorlly I , I j , ; I I REv(Gl fAnD I SlOPE - ~IP ; Pipe a -- - , - - I i I i GM.ltOt~S AkMQURING I 8ACKflll cw ! OLD ~lvE~ 8(0 I (~ I (7;;7 Ih8 metro r cons' po .Ian loronlo ll,"allon aulhocilV and legion TYPICAL SOLUTION FIG' I - 8 - COSTS AND FINANCI~G The expenditures required to implement this project are based on the best information currently available for works to be undertaken The costs stated shall be understood to include, legal and survey fees, land acquisition, engineering and geotechnical studies, site supervision and all materials, labour, equipment, etc associated with the construction. The proposed allocation of funding for these works on an annual basis for the Five Year Project is as follows Costs 5 YEAR PROJECT YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL TOTAL $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000 Financing The total cost of the Five Year Project is $150,000 and the yearly costs will be funded as follows Total Annual Cost - $30,000 Regional ~unicipalitf - $-13,500 of York Share Province of Ontario Share - $16,500 The Re~ional Municipality of York is designated as the benefiting municipality The regional munici~ality ~ay, however choose to pass on eheit" share to the local municipality and the AJthority will 9rovide the nt:cessat"y inEormatlon annually should this occur .- - 9 - APPROVALS ( 1 ) AUTHORITY (2 ) THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES (3 ) THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK (4 ) THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD . -- 0-323 SCHEDULE "0" . PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1987-1991 PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1987-1991 NOVEMBER 1985 THE METROPOLITAN TORO~TO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY - 1 - CONTENTS OF BRIEF PURPOSE - BACKGROUND AND POLICIES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION COSTS AND FINANCING APPROV.a.LS r,.... - 2 - PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Autho~ity to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorities Act, R S.O 1970, Chap 78, as amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conset"vation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in accordance with that portion of the Erosion Control Program of the Watershed Plan which addresses a remedial erosion control works program The project covers a five year period, from 1987 to 1991 The goal of the Authori ty through this Project is to "minimize the hazards of life and property that result from erosion of river lJanks, valley walls and shorelines, while cognizant of the natural att::ibutes of the valley and lake front settings" within the Regional Municipality of Durham To achieve its goal, the Authority has defined the following objectives i) To im91ement a program of erosion control works on a pt"iority basis for public and private lands where lives and pr0gerty are endangered by arosion i i) To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands where significant amounts of land and vegetation are being lost and/ot" adjacent waterways may be adversely affdcted by the erosion iii) To design remedial works, on a design block basis, as 9art of an integrated ~anagement system for the entire watercourse or shoreline whi..::h will limit erosion, will enable public access adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasilJle and will be conducive to maintenance iv) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazat"d is severe and where the ::ost of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property v) To secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to lJe constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the open space systems - 3 - vi) To protect and enhance natural vegetation and preserve the natural valley and shoreline character wherever feasible vii) To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation viii} To secure commitments for funding of erosion control measures from the Province of Ontario and the Member Municipalities as identified in the Authority's multi-year erosion control projects ix) To investigate and secure additional funding from other levels of government for selected erosion control activities x) To provide erosion control services on private lands where the owners are willing to pay the entire cost - 4 - BACKGROUND AND POLICIES BACKGROUND In compliance with the Shoreline Management and the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs in the Authority's Watershed Plan which was approved in 1980, the Authority has been carrying out remedial works on the designated watercourses and acquiring hazard lands along the Lake Ontario shoreline in the Regional Municipality of Durham A recent review of the Natershed plan recognized the need to combine these two programs which have identical objectives and funding sources under an overall Erosion Program Therefore for the purposes of this Project the shoreline erosion sites and river valley erosion sites will be considered under the one program --- prior to the approval of the Natershed Plan, the Authot"ity had been responsible for the imple~entation of the Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto t"egion since 1970 Shoreline management measures were a com90nent of that responsibility and were addressed in two Five Year projects, 1972-1976 and 1977-1981 subs~antial portions of the Lake Ontario shoreline property throughout Pickering/Ajax sector has been purchased c} the Authot"ity !he Frenchman's Bay area and the Pickering Beach area are vulnerable to flooding under high lake conditions and as such, were acquired as hazardous areas No extensive erosion control work has been carried out on these waterfront properties by the Authority To date approximately $8,000,000 has been spent on acquisition of hazardous and open space areas along the waterfront in picket"ing and Ajax The Authority ,as also been responsible for the implementation of a remedial erosion control ~orks program on the designated watercourses in the Regional Municipalitj of Durham since 1974 Erosion control remedial works were initially carried out ~nder the "Interim Water and Related Land Management project 1977-1981" and then continued mot"e t"ecently under the "Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Projects 1982-1984 and 1985-1986" Six erosion sites on the designated watercourses in the Regional Municipality of uurham have been addressed to date involving a total expenditure of a9proximately $60,000 - 5 - POLICIES The policies and operational criteria of the Authority governing erosion control remedial works are as follows (a) Remedial works will be carried out on those watercourses which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares and also along the Lake Ontario shoreline (b) For the purposes of erosion protection works, design blocks shall be established and works undertaken on a design block basis Design blocks shall be of a size to be technically and economically feasible (c) Erosion protection will be installed on a technical priority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction access and property acquisition priorities shall be based on technical criteria including, but not necessarily limited, to the following - distance from top of bank to structure - rate of slope retreat - extent of groundwater seepage - height and steepness of slope - vegetative cover, type and extent - evidence of previous movement - condition of toe of slope (d) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual basis (e) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authod tl shall require title to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a suitable financial contribution from the benefiting owner(s) (f) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of cost/benefit, with acquisition cost being used as a principal deeermining factor and where acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works (g) Design criteria for erosion protection works on the designated watet"cout"ses are dependent upon the nature of each specific problem Generally, two types of problems exist The first and - 6 - less common type, involves a bank or valley wall instability in which slumping or major rotational failure is involved due to inherent soil conditions or overloading of the bank The more common type of 9roblem involves the river in coincidence with the valley wall Wherever possible, erosion control work shall be des igned to - accommodate the 100 year flood for the 'coincident case' - accommodate the 10 year flow, in all other cases as a minimim, based on the ultimate development of the watershed - permit channel overtopping with minimal danger to the t"e:ned i a 1 work - decrease the velocity of the straa~ by-flattening the hydraulic gradient and minimizing the flow energy - by incorporating meanders and/or controlled drop structures ( h) The major emph3sis in shoreline erosion sites will be to control erosion due to wave action and will be designed in consideration of - maximum expected lake levels - peak storm conditions Consideraticn will be given to bank stabilization techniques to be combined with toe protection in areas where additional pt"otect_on is req~iced to retain slope angles at steeper than natural angles.. ( i) Exist_ng watet"front public lands provide valuable t"ecreational oppot"tunities and, in many cases, serve as buffer zones between the shoreline and private lands Therefore, the balance between funding allocated for protection of public and private lands is an important relationship which should be approved annually by the Authority ( j ) The Authority will assist in devel09in9 technology and distributing information which will aid property owners in limiting the erosion of the ban~ after the toe 9rotection is installed ( ~< ) In the design of all protection works, the Authot"ity shall be cognizant of the natural surroundings and shall endeavour to provide ancillary benefits, where appropriate (1 ) Works shall be cat"ried out in accordance with the requirements of the Envit"onmental Assessment Act and addressed in the "Class Environmental Assessment fot" Water Control Structures" - 7 - LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION LOC.~TION This project addresses itself to ( i) those watercourses within the Regional Municipality of Durham which generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares and ( i i) those Lake Ontario shoreline at"eas contained within the Regional Municipality of Durham where it will be the 901icy of the Authority to carry out erosion control works On watercourses draining less than 1300 hectares the provision of such works will be the responsibility of the municipality Exceptions to this may occur where it is determined by the Authority and the municipality that specific watercourses, ot" sections thereof, due to their physical characteristics, warrant inclusion within the Authority's responsibilities Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses generally draining in excess of 1300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in erosion control works under this project Following is a list of watercourses or portions thereof which are generally in ehcess of 1300 hectares Rouge River Little Rouge River petticoat Creek Duffins Creek - Main Branch - East Branch - I.lest Branch - Stouffville Creek ---I ,-- If G E He - O.'IHINCI ..UU4:0URSlloo HfUAllU H(~LY I) ..... ::. GI~"'TI" I INOIIU'HI Dnl~N..nD J UUt W4NACiE"EN CONTROL FIG 1 fR~~H AS J ARE . - ...,." L-.j----J ,.---~ Kitom.... o /:~ d regIon '. ' oliton 10(on10 an ' -'--.. the metro!' tho(;tv /;;?/7 conservation au \"'/ L i. - 8 - Along the waterfront, the Authority will continue to acquire properties particularly in the Frenchman's Bay and Pickering Beach Road areas as fundlng permits Through acquisition, the immediate need for erosion control work will be reduced substantially, however, the Authority recognizes the importance of preserving valuable waterfront property for recreational and open space purposes and will continue to monitor shoreline erosion along publicly owned lands Any remedial erosion control work required will be ranked with other sites within the Region of Durham to determine the ultimate priorization for future work DESCRIPTION In view of the number of sites requiring erosion control and slope stabilization work throughout the Regional Municipality of Durham and in order to fairly assess which sites should be considered for work, for any given work year1 the Authority carries out its remedial works program on a technical priority basis Therefore the sites which appear on the erosion inventory list and which are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for remedial works first The Authority currently maintains information on active erosion sites on those watercourses in the Region of Durham draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares and along the designated shoreline areas From this information, the Authori~y has formulated a "Pool of ErosiQn Priority Sites" (see Table 1) for the purpose of devel09ing its remedial works program - 9 - TABLE 1 POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES IN THE REGION OF DURHAM * LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 1840 Altona Road Petticoat Creek Pickering 1436 Highbush Trail Petticoat Creek pickering l714 Finch Avenue Duffins Creek Pickering Rotherglen Roac Duffins Creek Ajax - -- Valley farm Duffins Creek Pickering * Subject to annual review. . .- - 10 - In preparing for the erosion protection work program, continued monitoring and updating of the data base is important in order to keep abreast of changing site conditions Because erosion is dynamic, priorities can change from year to year and sometimes even after a single storm The process of reviewing and updating priorities must be continued not only to make the system equitable but also to adjust annual funding requirements In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered potential effect to structures, valley wall/ shoreline conditions, river and/or wave action The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated with the other two factors Determining the potential effect on structures involves a number of parameters including the rate of erosion, distance to structures and the number, size and type of structure(s) affected valley wall or shoreline conditions considered include1 the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics and the so il type and composition River or wave action, as a factor, considers the present river/lakeshore alignment as well as the 90tential cutting action 'linor t"emedial works will also be considered for those areas where significant amounts of land and or vegetation is being lost and whet"e no structures are in immediate danger on both public and private lands Through thi! component of the project the Authority can maintain and provide protection to valuable open space, parklands, ESA's and further provide a 'stitch in time' ap9roach to many areas with the result that expensive remedial works may not be required in the fut,ure The nature of the t"emedial works at sgecific site along the designated watet"courses will depend on the degree of protection needed to protect t:he stt"ucture and therefot"e could vary from armouring of the riverbank at the toe of the slOge to majot" slope rehabilitation, or a portion thereof Along the waterfront, shoreline remedial measures are requ ired to reduce the rate at which valuable shoreline tlroperty is lost To date, shoreline hazards have been reduced by land acquisition however, in the future armoured revetments, groynes and beaches may be considered to provide protection from the effects of lake action in high priority areas Examples of a tY9ical erosion problem and a typical remedial works solution are shown in Figut"e 2, 3 and 4 These figures also serve to graphically illustrate some of the preceding criteria .- ..- liLT"" fhO....'fR[D ~~ffAT!~~f 5(fPA'f -----.------ "'PfRVlOllS 50lL flPOSfD UARfO SLOPf I RI. II CiuIl, f,..... I AClI~( Hll/{R ------- RIV[A , I I C~I" . -, (?7 110 mlll/opo lIan loronlo and /1I010n I TYPICAL EROSION PROBLEM FIG: 2 _ conSllIVallon aulhofllV , I , I i . . i _~w,.w .~ ' ~.' ~. p ~.m..~/'- .." ..-. ~ ~ M'-' ~ ~. ~7~ --;;J'--rlf....L 'LOPE CiflAO( I U~[ I _.~ . 7 I /i. .. z~t;ti ~~.....z_!. ,,",,- --~~~" IV ~ ~/~~~7-;:~.:/! 1-1--fL---I----7~--.-~ ....'mHlL- / ~~1 I ./ IMP€ . ~~-:-~~ I / IMOUS SOIL -.- ___ /-:;_:;:;~ I fR€Hc'" - _ J-r--:-'/ 1 / / / OIlAIUS I..... P , ~ . ..... .. . ~_ IO-Y~!L.fI(JW I~ /!;:. :~::::-!~~7~ I I j""AC}fO / II I ?/ pol I __ .p __ ;;:/ I / / IlACKflLC / / // _ ",'f ! / - / / / / ' ~__-=Il-=d!~L.l. L r _"",;, / / / // .I I / i M!k"''- -, - ..L..I L / I. I I I " ' ~1v[1l lJ -- -- / /' . ~~ ~-- / ". ........~L ./ Gt.UIOIlS Ak"O ~';'f,-i~.j I UIlUd. --- .--,-,y'./ c;R.uUJlAft '0. __k_ I llMII 8(0 ., I ~ : (p Ihe melropolila _ conS8IValio n 10(Onl0 and I . n aulho,ilV tlil,on TYPICAL SOL UTION FIG i 3 SAFE STRUCTURE / ---- CREST INTERCEPTOR DRAIN (PERFORATED PIPE I IN SELECTED GRANULAR FILL OR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE) ;--- CONFIGURATION OF SLOPE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCT OF TOE PROTECTION ------~--- ~ ~ jANTlCIPATED LONG-TERM SELF-STABiLiZED SLOPE 2 ~ SLOPE INTERCEPTOR DRAIN GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE _____ ____"- _~_-=""'-';'_--=-r. FUTURE TALUS --COMPACTED RANDOM FILL ------------ CONTINUOUS FILTER ZONE DESIGN TO IMPERVIOUS SOIL HIGH WATER LAKE LEVEL . , ".' ~ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - ------.--- ---------- -- ----- PROTECTIVE TOE ~ TYPICAL SOLUTION FIG 4 tV the metropolitan toronto ana region . conservation authority - 11 - The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion control works utilizing the "Pool of Erosion Priority Sites" and conservation of land sites, to the limits of the approved annual funding allocation and in accot"dance with the criteria developed for such work Specific sites will be reviewed on an annual basis and, to permit response to changes in priorities, work will not be projected beyond a one year period. In any year, protection will be provided to those sites in highest priority which satisfy the criteria established to the limit of the $20,000 identified as the annual funding required within the Regional Municipality of Durham Annual funding for the various components of the Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project is proposed on the following basis Designated Watercourses Major Remedial Works $10,000 Minot" Remedial Works $ 5,000 Sub Total $15,000 Designated Shoreline Manaqement Areas Major Remedial Works - none foreseen at this time $ - Minot" Remedial Works $5,000 Acquisition will be continued under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Progt"am and funding for that acquisition will be raised under those Projects Sub Total $ 5,000 TOTAL $20,000 ------- ------- - 12 - COSTS AND FINANCING The expenditures required to implement this project are based on the best - information cut"rently available for works to b: undertaken The costs stated shall be understood to include, legal and survey fees, land acquisition, engineering and geotechnical studies, site supervision and all materials, labour, equipment, etc associated with the construction The proposed allocation of funding for these works on an annual basis for the Five Year Project is as follows Costs 5 YEAR PROJECT YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL TOTAL $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 Financing The total cost of the Five Year Project is $100,000 and the yeat"ly costs will be funded as follows Total Annual Cost - $20,000 Regional Municipality Durham Share - $ 9,000 Province of Ontario Share - $11 ,000 The Regional Municipality of Durham is designated as the benefiting municipality The cegional municipality may, however choose to pass on their share to the local municipality and the Authority will provide the necessary information annually shculd this oc::ur - 13 - APPROVALS (ll AUTHORITY - (2 ) THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (3 ) THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM (4 ) THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD D- 32 4 SCHEDULE "E" TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OUTER HARBOUR PUBLIC MARINA TO: THE CHAIRHAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER AND RELATED LAND ~IANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, M T R C.A - MTG 17/85 FROH MR J. C MATHER, DIRECTOR - WATER RESOURCE DIVISION RE TORONTO HARBOUR COM~IISSIONERS - OUTER HARBOUR PUBLIC MARINA At Meeting #9/85 of the Authority, the matter of the proposed Outer Harbour Public Marina by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners was referred to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board for a staff report In May, 1984 a proposal was released by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners fot" the deve~opment of a major public marina with a capacity of 1200 boats in Toronto's Outer Harbour The configuration of this proposal is illustrated in Figure 2 1 of the Phase I - Aquatic Park Master Plan report By presenting this marina .proposal, the Harbour Commissioners viewed the concept as achieving four basic objectives 1 To reduce tne unsatisfied demand for recreational boating facilities on Toronto's central waterfront 2 To eX9and the opportunities for recreational use and public accessibility of Toronto's waterfront while preserving sufficient land for expansion of port and industrial activity 3 To stimulate the development of an industrial park at the foot of Leslie Street 4 To assist in the resolution of the fundamental issue p=eventing agree~ent on the future use of Aquatic Park by accommodating a major boati.ng facility and related car access wi~hout infringing upon the wildet"ness characteristics of Aquatic Park To eKamine the feasibility of the 1200 slip marina concept in the Outer Harbour, the Harbour Commissioners retained the services of a consultant consortuim headed by Harshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd, in June, 1985 In November, 1985 with the consultant having completed its feasibility study, recommended a marina alternative The Authority was invited by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to a public information meeting held Hednesday, November l3" 1985 at the Commissioner's offices At that time, Authority staff received the information kiG attached to this ~ommunication and viewed the recommended - Regional Marina Harbour Access Alternative It should be noted that the Harbcur Commissioners were interested in receiving comments on the ma=ina alternative The consultants schedule ~as to complete the Phase I - Feasibility Study by November 27, 1985 for consideration by the Commissioners In addition ~he Authority has not received as of the date of this co~munication, rpe completed consultants report Eor review and COmment The Re~iondl Marina Harbour Access Alternative includes 1200 wetslips with capacity for 84% sailboats and l6% Power Boats 900 winter outside storage slips fuel/ice harbour master operation marina repair services marina centre (small restaurant/cafeteria boat sales (Refet" to Drawing No 6 - Information Kit) -2- The consultant indicates that the recommended concept satisfies market requirements and expectations for marina markets maximizes potential economic return to the T.H C can be immediately implemented provides the T H C with sufficient flexibility to respond to evolving policy and land and water use conditions in the Outer Harbour area. A review of the information kit and the recommended Regional Marins Harbour Access Alternative by Authority staff raised the following preliminary comments The first question relates to whether the marina area is open to the public The consultant in further discussion indicated that public access is proposed along the new arm to a lookout point The alternative should indicate a link to the Martin Goodman Trail. Staff are of the opinion that the consultant should investigate further the adequacy of the winter storage area both in terms of capacity and - -- feasibility of operation Staff in early discussions with the THC's consultant indicated that provision be made in the Marina Centre for commercial facilities which could provide services to users of Tommy Thompson Park. Staff require more information on the proposed uses in the Marina Centre In planning marina/club facilities, the Authority generally requires .8 parking spaces per boat slip From Drawing No 3, the concept provides for 600 cars plus parking adjacent to the marina centre Utilizing the Authority's requirements, 960 parking spaces should be provided fot" The consultant should clarify how much parking is provided for the boat owners and commercial services users On Drawing No 3, Au thori ty staff have added the location of the property boundaries in relation to the marina concept It is noted that to complete the landfilling for the marina configuration, material would be deposited on Authority property In addition, all boat access would be via water within the land under the Authority's ownership Staff would recommend that the T H C be requested to alter its concept to limit all landf ill ing to their property and provide for water access above land under its ownership This alteration would maintain the Authority's options in the Tommy Thompson Park concept plan for additions to the adjacent land base (Peninsula E) On the issue of accE\ss, the Authority staff remain concerned with the traffic conflict at the proposed marina entrance This concept has moved the entrance some 450 metres towards the base than was proposed by the earlier 1984 concept However staff would recommend that the T H C give further consideration to altering the access point to a location off Leslie Street extended abutting the industrial park Further, the T H C consider the ultimate access for the marina th rough the proposed industrial park and make provision in the future design of the industrial park road system Staf: are unable to recommend any level of support for the Regional tlarina Hat"bour Access proposed until an opportunity has been given by the Toronto - Harbour Commissioners to review in detail the Phase 1 - Feasibility Study RECmmENDATIONS WHEREAS The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff have received an information kit and the consultants recommendation to The Toronto Hat"bour Commissioners for a marina in the Outer Harbour; AND HHEREAS the recommended marina concept is to be developed on land adjacent to Tommy Thompson Pat"k; -3- AND WHEREAS the Toronco Harbour Commissioners at the public information meeting solicited comments 1 AND WHEREAS the Authority referred the Outer Harbour Marina to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board for consideration1 AND WHEREAS Authority staff have reviewed the preliminary information without the opportunity to review the compolete Phase 1 - Feasibility Study report THEREFORE' THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT (1 ) The Authority request the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to clarify and investigate further ( i) the areas of the marina open to the public1 ( i i) the adequacy of winter storage, private vehicle parking and feasibility of the winter storage operation1 ( i i i) the types of commercial facilities anticipated in the Marina Centre (2 ) The Authority request the T H C to provide clarification on a public pathway link to the Martin Goodman Trail (3 ) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners modify the marina design to ensure that the landfilling 0geration does not encroach on M T R C A property (4 ) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners investigate the feasibility of providing a marina access point closer to Unwin and Leslie Street and further that consideration ~e given to marina access via the future industrial pat"k road system (:; ) The Authority request a copy of the Phase 1 - Feasibility Study from The Toronto Hat"bour Commissioners to facilitate formal Authority response AND FURTHER THAT the Authority forward the above comments to The Toronto Harbour Commissionet"s 1985 12 04 LF/fs