Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Advisory Board 1974 1rh~ M~1br~lP>~niit1:am\ 1r(u>lrlO>m\t~ am\<dl ~~gnol1i\ H-l CC\u)1Il\~~lrvattiiol1\\ A an tthonoihty . MllMlU1('IE,5> Waterfront Advisory Board Thursday-February-2l-l974 #1/74 The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, February 21, 1974, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice-Chairman R.W. White Members Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Harper Mrs. S. Martin G. Norton A.E. O'Donohue G.B. Sinclair K.D. Trebilcock Mrs. J. Tyrrell Secretary-Treasurer F.L. Lunn Adm. - Waterfront Division W.A. McLean Project Engineer M.R. Garrett ABSENT WERE Members J.E. Anderson G. Ashe WIn. L. Archer, Q.C. D.J. Culham B.G. Harrison D. Melnik, Q.C. P.B. Pickett, Q.C. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS Mr. Breen introduced all members of the Board. MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #5/73 were presented. Res. #1 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: J.E. Harper S' RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #5/73, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; PRESENTATION RE REGATTA COURSE The Chairman introduced Mr. G. McCauley and Mr. T. Finan of the Argonaut Rowing Club. Mr. McCauley made a verbal presentation on behalf of the Argonaut Rowing Club and requested the Authority's assistance with regard to a regatta course on the waterfront. Res. #2 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: J.E. Harper RESOLVED THAT: The Waterfront Division give consideration to the request by Mr. McCauley on behalf of the Argonaut Rowing Club for a regatta course for rowing and paddling on the waterfront, preferably at the present site, and report back. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; H-2 -2- REVIEW OF BOARD'S WORK AND PROGRESS REPORT Mr. McLean presented a review of the work accomplished to date by the Waterfront Division, together with an up to date Progress Report of current projects, for the information of the Board. HISTORY OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT FROM ETOBICOKE TO PICKERING A Staff communication having regard to the report "A History of the Toronto Waterfront from Etobicoke to Pickering" was presented. Res. #3 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J .A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Staff communication having regard to the report "A History of the Toronto Waterfront from Etobicoke to Pickering" be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Recommendations contained in the Staff communication having regard to the report "A History of the Toronto Waterfront from Etobicoke to Pickering", as set forth herein, be adopted: (a) The Historical Sites Advisory Board be requested to review the report and make recommendations with respect to continuing research into the waterfront historic sites noted in the report as worthy of identification by historic plaques, in order that recommendations can be made to the Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario; (b) The Waterfront Division staff be directed to carry out an inventory of waterfront areas having a significant forest cover and the preservation of areas so identified be established as Authority policy; (c) Interpretive displays proposed for waterfront areas include materials of historic interest; and ( d) The Historical sites Advisory Board be 'requested to consult with the Toronto Historical Board concerning the feasibility of establishing historical displays in connection with Fort Toronto and expanding historical marine activity in the Metro Toronto waterfront area. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; AQUATIC PARK PLAN PROGRESS A Staff communication having regard to Aquatic Park Plan Progress for the Waterfront was presented and discussed at some considerable length. Res. #4 Moved by: Mrs. J. Tyrrell' Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Staff communication having regard to Aquatic Park Plan Progress be received and appended as Schedule "A" of these Minutes; and further THAT The City of Toronto be advised of the Authority's planning process for aquatic parks. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; ADJOURNMENT On Motion the Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m., February 21. M.J. Breen F.L. Lunn Chairman Secretary-Treasurer Schedule lIA" H-3 To: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board Re: Aquatic Park Plan Progress By letter under date of August 2, 1973, the Honourable Leo Bernier advised The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that a Cabinet decision had given the Authority: (a) the mandate to co-ordinate recreation planning in the Central Waterfront Area; (b) responsibility of being the Province's agent with regard to the proposed Aquatic Park; (c) a request to carry out a study to determine the appropriate land forms for Aquatic Park and to reach agreement with The Toronto Harbour Commissioners on land form design; (d) to establish effective liaison between the Authority, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the several civic juris- . dictions which are involved; (e) involve local citizen groups in developing the plan. The Executive Committee of the Authority, at its meeting #13/73, by Resolution #319, accepted the mandate and responsibilities set out in the Minister's letter, subject to: (a) the approval of the Metropolitan Toronto Council; (b) the Province of ontario and Metropolitan Toronto providing the necessary planning funds. The Executive Committee further agreed to carry out its respon- sibilities within established planning structures and within policies and procedures established by the Authority for The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Plan, 1972 - 1976. . H-4 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Aquatic Park Plan Progress Page Two The Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, at its meeting held December 12, 1973, adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 21 of the Parks and Recreation Committee headed, llMaster Planning--Aquatic Parkll which included the following recommenda- tions: "l. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to undertake the above-described planning studies at a cost not to exceed $170,000.00, naming Tpe Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as the benefiting municipality; 2. Subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, the benefiting municipality1s share of the undertaking be financed as a capital expenditure in the amount of $85,000.00 by the issue of debentures having a term not exceeding ten years, this being the term suggested as appropriate by the Metropolitan Commissioner of Finance; and 3. The appropriate Metropolitan officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto. II . With the approval of Metropolitan Toronto in hand, a brief to the provincial government has been prepared requesting the provincial share of the funds required for the study. The Authority recognizes the Central Sector as an integral part of the system of Waterfront Areas under its jurisdiction. At the request' of Metropolitan Toronto, the Central Sector was excluded initially from the Authority's Waterfront responsibilities, and because of this, the Authority's affirmative response to the provincial mandate for Central Sector responsibilities had to be I subject to Metropolitan Toronto's approval which has now been received. Aquatic Park as proposed by The Toronto Harbour Commissioners would become a major recreational element not only in the Central Sector, but in the entire Waterfront system. Planning for Aquatic Park must be carried out in the context of over-all waterfront planning, in order that it can be not only an outstanding facility, but one that complements existing and proposed facilities in all sectors 0 In preparing its proposals for the co-ordination of recreation planning in the Central Sector, and the planning of appropriate land forms for Aquatic Park, the Authority has considered the specific requests of the province in the light of: (a) the principal agencies involved and their existing relationships to the Authority; (b) the approval procedures established by the Authority; ( c) an effective planning process, including public participation for a major facility which has been proposed in the midst of a variety of existing and proposed recreation facilities. H-5 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Aquatic Park Plan Progress Page Three . PRINCIPAL AGENCIES INVOLVED ( i) Province of ontario - land being created for Aquatic Park is on Crown land; - considers Authority plans through the Central Region Office, Ministry of Natural Resources; - participates in funding of approved Authority Waterfront projects. Present policy--50%; - has considerable expertise in technical staff helpful in the planning process. ( ii) Metropolitan Toronto - member municipality of the Authority in which project is located; - considers Authority plans through Parks Committee and Planning Board; ~ Authority lands in Metro' are managed by Parks Department; - has considerable expertise in technical staff helpful in the planning process. ( iii) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners - original proponents of the Aquatic Park proposals; - have developed the headland which makes the park possible, and are the federal government's agent in dredging contract which is creating basic land forms; - has regulatory responsibilities in harbour area; - has considerable expertise in technical staff necessary for the physical design of land forms; - has obligations to federal government for provision of space for federal facilities in Aquatic Park. (iv) The city of Toronto - under Authority procedures, approval is required before Waterfront work can be undertaken; - has planning and regulatory responsibilities; - has established procedures for carrying out planning and regulatory responsibilities; - has established a planning staff for Central Waterfront planning. In swnmary, there are four principal agencies with which the Authority must work in the development of an acceptable plan, each one having rights and responsibilities. H-6 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Aquatic Park Plan Progress page Four There are three functions for the Authority in Central Sector planning: 1) Co-ordination: It is important that all recreation planning in the Central Sector be carried out in the context of the over-all Waterfront Plan. The Authority, through its implementation responsibilities, is in a position to provide the necessary information for the planning bodies for effective co-ordination. This is done primarily through participation in various Central Sector planning committees. 2) The development of an acceptable concept for Aquatic Park: This is largely a consultative process with the principal agencies involved and the public. The Authority's policy is that the municipalities in which Authority projects are located initiate and conduct public participation. In the case of Aquatic Park, Metropolitan Toronto had agreed that the city of Toronto's Aquatic Park steering Committee will be the vehicle for public participation. 3) The preparation of a Master Plan for Aquatic Park: Based on a concept for the park which would have been subjected to review by the principal agencies and public debate, a Master Plan will be prepared. There are several major studies required in connection with an Aquatic Park Master plan, including access and transportation, boating needs, and environmental assessment, and these have been provided for in the estimate of study costs. In its submission to the Province of ontario, the Authority has identified the following costs with respect to Central Sector and Aquatic Park planning: 1) Co-ordinating recreation planning in Central Sector (staff time for committee work and reports)...............$14,OOO.00 spread over three years. 2) Development of Aquatic park concept and testing of concept ...............$34,600.00 3) Preparation of Aquatic Park Master Plan including required studies...o.......................................$121,400.00 The development of the Authority's role in the Central Sector and Aquatic Park has taken a considerable amount of time and a good deal of consultation between involved agencies. The Province of ontario, at the outset, indicated that funds for this role would be available. Approval of the provincial share has not yet been received. In the interim, the Authority staff has been made available as required in Central sector work, in order that delays are not encountered while waiting for all of the approvals. A full-scale effort, howeve r , cannot be made before provincial approval of funds is received. w. A. McLean Administrator Waterfront Division . February 19, 1974 1I'1h<2 Metbl'\\)1P~nii tt:<&1l\ 1I' ~1r~1l\1t~ a\1l\\.dl ~egiiom\ H-7 <C(tJ)1I\\~~1r\'1a. feft ~1l\ .A\ un l1ll\\~1rii l1y MllMlU'll'E5> Waterfront Advisory Board Thursday-May-9-l974 #2/74 The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, May 9, 1974, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice-Chairman R.W. White Members J.E. Anderson D.J. Culham Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Harper B.G. Harrison Mrs. S. Martin A.E. O'Donohue P.B. Pickett, Q.C. G.B. Sinclair K.D. Trebilcock Mrs. J. Tyrrell Authority Vice-Chairman R.G. Henderson Director of Operations K.G. Higgs Adm. - F&A Division D.L. Hall Adm. - Waterfront Division W.A. McLean ABSENT WERE Members Wm. L. Archer, Q.C. G. Ashe D. Melnik, Q.C. G. Norton MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #1/74 were presented. Res. #5 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J. Tyrrell RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #1/74, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; STAFF PROGRESS REPORT Mr. McLean presented an up to date Progress Report of current projects, for the information of the Board. Res. #6 Moved by: B.G. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs, J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Staff Progress Report be received. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; BLUFFER'S PARK - SMALL CRAFT RECREATIONAL llARBOUR PROPOSAL A Staff Report having regard to Small Craft Harbours - BlufIer's Park Area, was presented and discussed at some length. Res. #7 Moved by: G.B. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The StafI Report on Small Craft Harbours, BluIfer's Park, be received and appended as Schedule "A" of those Minutes; and H-8 -2- THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The recommendations contained in the Staff Report on Small Craft Harbours, Bluffer's Park, as set forth herein, be adopted: (a) The design of small craft recreation harbour proposed in Bluffer's Park, Phase II Master Plan be altered to: (i) enlarge the mooring area; and (ii) allow protection by a ship-type breakwater, if ships are available at a reasonable cost; (b) The Small Craft Harbour Branch of the Department of the Environment Canada be requested to contribute to the construction of the small craft harbour at Bluffer's Park in accordance with its established assistance programme; (c) Waterfront Division Staff investigate option/purchase arrangements for available suitable ships. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; MIMICO CREEK - PHASE II MASTER PLAN (ETOBICOKE COUNCIL) A Staff communication was presented having regard to Mimico Creek, Phase II Master Plan. Res. #8 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT': The Staff Report on Mimico Creek, Phase II Master Plan (Etobicoke Council) be received and appended as Schedule "B" of these Minutes; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The recommendations contained in the ~taff Report on Mimico Creek, Phase II Master Plan (Etobicoke Council), as amended and set forth herein, be adopted: The Master Plan for Mimico Creek Waterfront Area, Phase II be amended as follows: (a) Provision be made for boating clubs and public tie-up facilities; subject to the Zoning By-Laws of the Borough of Etobicoke; (b) Provision for bathing facilities be made in the Mimico Creek- Humber Bay area, and that the plans of both projects be reviewed to determine the most satisfactory way of providing bathing facilities; (c) The plan be forwarded to the Borough of Etobicoke, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the Director, Conservation Authorities Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, for their consideration and approval; (d) The shoreline configuration be subject to a detailed design from a coastal engineering and environmental quality point of view; and (e) The existing Etobicoke by-law regulating filling on the shoreline north of the proposed development be maintained. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; POLICY RE UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCES A Staff communication was presented having ,regard to the Policy on Unopened Road Allowances. Res. #9 Moved by: B.G. Harrison Seconded by: R.W. White -3- H-9 RESOLVED THAT: The Staff communication with regard to Policy re Unopened Road Allowances be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Authority recommend to the municipal- ities fronting op Lake Ontario within the area of its jurisdiction that unopened rights of way which can give pedestrian access to the lake be retained in public ownership; and THAT where possible, title to such lands be transferred to the Authority. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; NEW BUSINESS AQUATIC PARK DEVELOPMENT Considerable discussion took place regarding the development of the proposed Aquatic Park Development. Res. #10 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: All submissions with respect to the conceptual plans for the Aquatic Park be requested not later than June 29, 1974,in the light of constraints concerning dredging; and THAT a Meeting of the Board be scheduled for the end of July, at which time a decision regarding these plans would be made on consideration of submissions received. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m., May 9. M.J. Breen D.L. Hall, Chairman Acting Secretary H-10 SCHEDULE "A" TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD RE: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS--SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS BLUFFER'S PARK WATERFRONT AREA INTRODUcrION At the last meeting of the Task Force held February 11, 1974, the following recommendation was agreed to: "3 (b) the feasibility of providing boating facilities at Bluffer's Park somewhat faster than is presently proposed, be investigated by the Waterfront Division Staff". As directed, the Staff investigated the matter with the assistance of its agents, The Toronto Harbour Commission, who have considerable coastal engineering "know-how" and have been involved with the placement of ships at ontario Place. The Toronto Harbour Commission was asked to provide the Authority with alternative methods of creating the small craft harbour, stage II of the development, in the light of: i) limited quantities of incoming fill; ii) ~irtually no inco~ing rubble; iii) exposed location which results in severe erosion losses each fall and spring; iv) considerable and increasing demand to use the site now for boating, whether any facilities are there or not. The report by The Toronto Harbour Commission should be considered a preliminary one, and depending on the course of action desired, another more detailed report should be undertaken to define the specifics of the new proposal. SUMMARY OF THE TORONTO HARBOUR COMMI SSION' S PRELIMINARY REPORT The report investigates four of the most typical, as well as most feasible, types of breakwater alternatives: ( a) Landfill spit with armoured headlands; (b) , Stone breakwater; (c) Cellular steel sheet pile breakwater; (d) Ship-type breakwater. i) Armoured Landfill Spit This alternative involves the creation of the spit as outlined in the site master plan: Data: landfill: 22.5 acres 970,000 cubic yards $535,000 armour: 2,600 lineal feet $940,000 Continued H-ll 'fO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Proposed Modifications--Small Craft Harbours Bluffer's Park Waterfront Area page Two i) Data: protected water: 12.4 acres 490 wet berths time of three years plus allowance for construction: erosion losses ii) stone Breakwater This alternative involves the construction of a narrow stone causeway, as well as landfill, in the same configuration as the master plan: Data: landfill: 9.8 acres, 230,000 cubic yards $130,000 breakwater: 1.5 acres $1,440,000 protected water: 16.8 acres 670 wet berths time of 3~+ years construction: iii) Cellular Steel Sheet Pile Breakwater This alternative again involves the construction of a narrow causeway, as well as landfill, in approximately the same configuration as the master plan. Data: landfill: 10 acres 250,000 cubic yards $300,000 breakwater: 1.4 acres $2,510,000 protected water: 20.6 acres 813 wet berths time of 2+ years construction: iv) Ship-type Breakwater This alternative involves the placing of three lakers to serve as the breakwater in roughly the same configuration as the master plan, except for one important difference-- because the draft of these ships is approximately 31 feet, they can be placed in about 20 feet of water, which greatly enlarges the protected water area. This does mean additional landfilling for the back-up area and approach and entrance causeways. Data: landfill: 30 acres 955,000 cubic yards $520,000 continued H-12 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Proposed Modifications--Small Craft Harbours Bluffer's Park Waterfront Area Page Three iv) Data: armour: 1,400 lineal feet $350,000 ships: 1,630 lineal feet 2.1 acres $1,500,000 protected water: 27 acres 1,065 wet berths time of three years construction: (Note: Protected water available in first year.) Inserted here is the summary sheet from the report; of particular relevance are the costs per acre and number of acres of protected water. Also included are the pages comparing each alternative. continued (From The Toronto Harbour Commission's Preliminary Report) Cost per ~1-3 tIjO Acre 0 f Number Additional Acres of .. .. Total Cost Project Construction of Land Protected tI:PO 1-3 Project Alternative $ (PhaSE: II) Time Berths Created Water Area I-'Ii::t ~ 0 Cil Hl1J HlO() 1. Landfilling and Cil (/) ::t Ii Cil III Armouring - 0. 1-'- (/) :3: ~ IU 0 III ( a) Without 1,475,000 31,700 three years 490 22.5 acres 12.4 III 0. ::J Ii 1-'- Seawalls ~Hllll 1-'- ::J ~()o.. (b) With Seawalls 1,975,000 46,000 three years 560 20.7 acres 14.2 III III rtrt:3: Cil I-'.Cil Ii 0 :3 2. Landfill and Hl::JO' Ii (/) Cil Stone Breakwater 0 I Ii ::J I Ul rtCf) :3 0 (a) Trucking 1,568,770 55,800 three years 670 11.3 acres 16.8 ~llIHl Ii I-' Alone seven months Cill-'rt III ::t () CD (b) Trucking and 1,868,700 66,500 two years 670 11.3 acres 16.8 @ ~ scowing three months Hllll rtrt Cil :I: Ii 3. Cellular Steel III Hl Ii Ii pile 0'0 o ::J ~ rt ( a) East of 2,716,000 84,900 two years 813 11.4 acres 20.6 Ii (/) ~ Brimley Road (1.4 cell 0.. <: wall) 1-'- () Ul 0 0 ::J Ii rt 4. Ship-type IU ~ 1-'. III g Breakwater \.Q tJ:l (i) 0 Cil III 0. (a) East of 2,509,000 42,500 1,065 32.1 acres 27.0 ~ Ii one year 0 0.. Brimley Road (basic (2:1 slopes) ~ Ii protection) ...... ...... I two years I-' UJ (fill as required) ~-- - ---~--- -- - --- - H-14 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Proposed Modifications--Small Craft Harbours Bluffer's Park Waterfront Area Page Five COMPARISON OF RESULTS (From The Toronto Harbour Commission's Preliminary Report) Each examined alternative has its advantages and drawbacks. A seemingly good set of points for the evaluation of the'merits would be: 1) construction problems 2) marina operating problems 3) flexibility 4) timing 5) economics 6) other Assigning the following letters to each mode: L Landfill and Armour S Stone Breakwater C Cellular Steel Sheet pile Breakwater B Boat or Ship-type Breakwater, we compare them as follows: 1) Construction Problems L advancing, unarmed end highly susceptible to storms, wave- re-curved spits have to be dredged out S truck back-up unsafe C loss of incomplete cells in storms, construction at a stand- still in other but good weather B contractor chooses best weather, requires certain minimum depth for construction 2) Marina Operating Problems L & S shallow draft limits boat size or number S & C side slopes risky to hulls, wave overtopping likely C & B harbour resonance possible 3) Flexibility L & C cannot be economically moved 9r expanded S future expansion economics highly questionable B expansion or re-alignment relatively easy (refloat and move) continued H-15 TO: 'fhe Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Proposed Modifications--Small Craft Harbours Bluffer's Park Waterfront Area Page six 4) Timing (Desire two years or less) L exceeds two years S exceeds two years C may be done in two years B basic protection can be achieved in one season 5) Economics L best S fair C poor B good 6) Other B stands out with ability to: ( i) accommodate much greater number of boats; ( ii) allow landfilling during inclement weather; (iii) provide berth for much deeper draft boats; ( iv) provide strong structural support or enclosure for a variety of ancillary structures. GENERAL The recent shortages of steel and armour stone have started an up- swing in their prices. A price roll-back with improving supplies is, however, unlikely. Accordingly, these estimates would be reviewed prior to call of tenders. CONCLUSIONS A review of each alternative leads conclusively to the selection of either the landfilling with armoured headlands alternative or the ship-type breakwater alternative. In order to make a decision on the best of these alternatives, these comments may be appropriate: 1. The landfill spit option depends on the incoming fill, the rates of erosion and, at best, would take until 1978 before any protected water could be created. Also, it would be necessary to dredge the interior of the basin after completion to remove the eroded material which had accreted. Thi s would be an expensive job, since the bottom material consists of very dense clay. Moving the spit out into deeper water to avoid the problem would add time and cost to the operation, because of the "iceberg" characteristics of landfill. Continued ~---- H-16 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Proposed Modifications--Small Craft Harbours Bluffer's Park Waterfront Area page Seven 2. The ship option is expensive--about $1,000,000 more than the basic' landfill option. However, there are several distinct advantages: (a) double the protected water area (27 acres versus 13 acres); (b) an additional seven acres of land; (c) the protected water area could be available for interim use within one year; (d) 1,630 lineal feet of interior vertical walls; (e) dredging requirement is unlikely; ( f) an over-all depth is greater in the protected water area, allowing larger boats; (g) enables landfilling in a protected water area, which means only minor erosion losses which would appeal to the Ministry of the Environment and involve less fill; (h) the ability to use the ships elsewhere, if desired in the ~uture. The only problem with the ship option is the high initial costs, however, this is overcome by the distinct advantages of this alternative. Of course, the ship option depends greatly on being able to obtain the ships at a reasonable price. RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force agreed and recommends to the Waterfront Advisory Board that: (a) The design of small craft recreation harbour proposed in Bluffer's Park, phase II Master Plan be altered to: ( i) enlarge the mooring area; and ( ii) allow protection by a ship-type breakwater, if ships are available at a reasonable cost; (b) The Small Craft Harbour Branch of the Department of the Environment Canada be requested to contribute to the con- struction of the small craft harbour at Bluffer's Park in accordance with its established assistance programme; (c) Waterfront Division Staff investigate option/purchase arrange- ments for available suitable ships. W. A. McLean Administrator Waterfront Division April 23, 1974 H-17 SCHEDULE "B" TO: THE CHAIRMAN l\ND MEMBERS OF THE W,1\TERFRONT ADVI~ORY DOARD RE: MIMICO CREEK, PHASE II~-ETOBICOKE COUNCIL The Master Plan for the development of the Mimico Creek Waterfront Area, Phase II on the recommenda'tion of the Waterfront Advisory Board was adopted by the Executive Comnittee of the Authority at its meeting #16/73, by resolution #382. The plan proposes an offshore spit of land connected to the existing Mimico Creek Waterfront Area and extending westerly parallel to the shoreline of Lake Ontario. The use of the area would emphasis a continuation of the boating theme established in Mimico Creek with the launching ramps. The land would be created through landfill in approximately 20 feet of water located approximately 900 feet from the existing shoreline. The landfill area as proposed would consist of approximately 69 acres, and the facility would be capable of providing approximately 500 wet berths and 500 day sailed boats. The concept for the waterfront area indicated that the boating facilities could be provided through clubs and a commercial marina. In accordance with the procedures established by the Authority for the review of waterfront area Master plans, the plan was forwarded to the Council of the Borough of Etobicoke for consideration and approval. In this connection, the Borough of Etobicoke held a public meeting on February 25, 1974 and received a number of briefs from interested parties concerning the project. The Council of the Borough of Etobicoke, at its meeting April 1, 1974, by resolution #106, took the following action: "BE IT RESOLVED THAT Clause 43 of the Fourth Report 1974 of the General Committee, plus all relevant materials submitted to Council this day by concerned groups and residents, be referred to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for further consideration in light of all the concerns and submissions made by the aforementioned. CARRIED SIGNED: C. D. Flynn, Mayor II In summary, the submissions made to Council are as follows: (A) Report of the General Committee of Council "After discussing this matter at great lengths and taking into account all the submissions which were before them, your comnittee recommends that the proposal by the MTRCA, as outlined in Clause 142 of the Twelfth Report 1973 of the General Committee be approved as amended by the following conditions: (a) No outside boat storage to be allowed; (b) Day sailing (dry sailing storage to be allowed only); ( c) Only day-to-day running repairs to be permitted; ( d) The mouth of the basin to be widened." The Board of Control for the Borough of Etobicoke concurred in this report. continued H-18 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory aoard RE: Mimico Creek, Phase II--Etobicoke Council Page Two (B) Submissions by Etobicoke Residents Including the Lakefront owners' Association There were several submissions from individuals and groups which expressed the following concerns: - The number of boats provided for (approximately 1,000) would create congestion, noise and water quality problems, con- sequently an annoyance to the shoreline residents. - The commercial activities proposed in connection with boating facilities, particularly winter boat storage, would be un- sightly and incompatible with the adjacent residential area. - The degree of enclosure by the spit of land may limit the exchange of water and create quality problems for the bathing beach at Amos Waites Park. - No additional bathing facilities are proposed between Marie Curtis Park and sunnyside Beach; provision should be made for the creation of more public bathing facilities. - The original Waterfront Plan (1967) made provision for a recreational boat harbour where the Humber Bay Waterfront Area is now located. - Concern over the cost of development and maintenance of the project in relation to the public benefit. (C) Boating Interests The briefs of the boating interests pointed out that: - Additional boating facilities in the Toronto area are urgently needed. The only existing facilities in Etobicoke are the Toronto Humber Yacht Club and the Etobicoke Power and Sail Club. - Inexpensive boating facilities are best provided by clubs. - Winter boat storage areas are usually unsightly, but they do not have to be. - Control in a boating area is necessary. - A properly-planned and operated boating facility is consistent with a park setting. staff Comment The selection of the site at Mimico Creek, Phase II as a boating facility for the Etobicoke Sector was based on a number of con- siderations. - Existing boating facilities in the Borough are located up- stream of the Humber River and the Etobicoke ,Creek. These locations have severe physical limitations for the height, draft and number of boats. continued H-19 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Mimico Creek, phase II--Etobicoke Council page Three - At the time of making the proposal, there was no boating facility with space available for additional boats between the Western Gap in Toronto and Port Credit. (A large marina has subsequently been proposed and is under construction at the former Canada steamship Line dock in Port Credit.) - There are only three locations in the Borough of Etobicoke where public access by road is available to the Lake ontario shoreline without interfering with existing residential communities. These locations are Marie curtis Park, the Westerly Filtration Plant and the Mimico Creek-Humber Bay area. - Expansion of Marie Curtis Park and the Humber Bay Waterfront Areas beyond what is presently proposed is limited by the requirement that there is no interference with the outfalls from sewage treatment plants which exist in both locations. - The Westerly Filtration plant site is the least satisfactory because of its expo$ure (Marie Curtis is protected to some degree by the ontario Hydro dock; Mimico Creek-Humber Bay is protected by the Toronto Islands) and the deep water in which the project would have to be built. An agreement for access through the ontario Hospital site would be required. - The Master plan for Phase I, Etobicoke Sector, Scheme B, pre- pared for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board by a con- sultant, and adopted with some amendment by the Borough of Etobicoke, made provision for the re-development of the shore- line strip between the Mimico Creek and the Humber River from motel use to residential and proposed the creation of an offshore park in front of the re-developed area. The proposal recommended that the marina which had been proposed for this area be re-located to the west of the Mimico Creek. The Authority concurred in the action taken by the Borough of Etobicoke, and the Authority proposals for waterfront develop- ment in this area conformed to the plans adopted by Etobicoke. Subsequently, the Council of the Borough of Etobicoke has called for the re-examination of the residential proposals for the motel strip. The Authority's work in Humber Bay and at Mimico Creek, phase I has proceeded in accordance with the adopted plan. The Authority's Mimico Creek, Phase II proposal is in accordance with Scheme B as amended, referred to above, but the design of the facility was changed to avoid privately-owned waterlots which exist in this area. This design has the added benefit of having a water buffer between the existing residential development and the proposed park and boating development. It was evident from the public discussion of the Mimico Creek, Phase II proposal that there is no public support for a commercial boating facility. The Mimico Creek, Phase II plan did not specifically recommend a commercial boating facility, but indicated that the land and protective water areas created would be capable of supporting this type of activity. sub- sequent to presenting the Mimico Creek, phase II plan, a proposal for a commercial boating facility has been made at the Canada Steamship Line dock in Port Credit, and this development is already under way. This facility, while some distance away, will assist in filling a need that was recog- nized in the original Waterfront plan and has been recognized continued H-20 TO: The Chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Mimico Creek, Phase II--Etobicoke Council Page Four throughout Authority planning. The deletion or deferral of a cpmmercial marina facility as a potential use at Mimico Creek is acceptable. Enclosures like that proposed at Mimico Creek, Phase II have not been shown to create poor circulation conditions and consequent deteriorated water quality. The rise and fall in lake level due to wind and wave action provides sufficient exchange of water to prevent contaminants which may enter from being trapped. In the case of the Mimico Creek, Phase II proposal, the land form proposed would have the effect of preventing polluted water from the Mimico Creek from getting into the protected basin, and as is the case with the Humber Bay landfill now in progress, would encourage the collection of debris on the outer shoreline leaving the inner basin relatively free of floating debris. These conclusions are simplistic and based on simple observations. Recognizing this and the need for much more detailed study, the Mimico Creek, Phase II proposed Master Plan recommended that the shoreline configuration be subject to detailed design from a coastal engineering point of view. As has been the case at Humber Bay, Ashbridge's Bay and Bluffer's park, pre-construction design includes consideration of the effect of the shapes to be created, and modifications to the design are made during construction as monitoring information indicates the need for change. There was some public discussion of the cost of this project. The estimated costs were based on cost experienced by the Authority in development projects already under way and worked out to approximately $64,000 per acre of land created, serviced and landscaped. Mimico Creek, phase I, which is now complete, cost $40,000 per acre. Higher cost for Mimico Creek, ~hase II includes estimates for inflation, the deeper water in which the land will be created, and reflects the fact that no armouring for Mimico Creek, "Phase I is required, because of the construction of Phase II. During its develop- ment programme on the waterfront, the Authority has been unable to acquire a piece of land for less than $64,000 an acre. CUrrent land acquisition costs are substantially higher. A review of the proposed Mimico Creek, phase II development, and the public reaction to it indicates the following: (1 ) The need for better boating facilities in the Borough of Etobicoke remains. ( 2) The comnercial aspects of the proposal can be deferred or deleted. ( 3) The size of the land area required can be adjusted, but the outer edge will have to conform to coastal engineering design criteria. (4) provision could be made for bathing facilities. Continued H-21 TO: The chairman and Members of the Waterfront Advisory Board RE: Mimico Creek, Phase II--Etobicoke Council Page Five Recommendations It is recommended that the Master Plan for Mimico Creek Waterfront Area, Phase II be amended as follows: (a) provision be made for boating clubs and public tie-up facilities; (b) provision for bathing facilities be made in the Mimico Creek- Humber Bay area, and that the plans of both projects be reviewed to determine the most satisfactory way of providing bathing facilities; ( c) The plan be forwarded to the Borough of Etobicoke, the Munici- pality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the Director of the Conservation Authorities Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources for their consideration and approval; (d) The shoreline configuration be subject to a detailed design from a coastal engineering and environmental quality point of view; and (e) The existing Etobicoke bylaw regulating filling on the shoreline north of the proposed development be maintained. W. A. McLean Administrator Waterfront Division May 6, 1974 The Metlt'c1Pcnit~lTh 1'Olt'ClTh1to alThtdl ~egiom\ <Colfi\$eInTatticm\ A\\Ul1thoIr'i1l:y H-22 MllWlUTE5> Waterfront Advisory Board Thursday-August-1-1974 #3/74 The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, August 1, 1974, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Vice-Chairman R.W. White Members J.E. Anderson W.L. Archer, Q.C. G. Ashe D.J. Culham Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Harper B.G. Harrison Mrs. S. Martin G. Norton A.E. O'Donohue P.B. Pickett, Q.C. K.D. Trebilcock Authority Chairman F.A. Wade Authority Vice-Chairman R.G. Henderson Secretary-Treasurer F.L. Lunn Director of Operations K.G. Higgs Adm. - Waterfront Division W.A. McLean Project Engineer w/F M.R. Garrett ABSENT WERE Members D. Melnik, Q.C. G.B. Sinclair Mrs. J. Tyrrell MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #2/74 were presented. Res. #11 Moved by: R.W. White Seconded by: C.A. Harper RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #2/74, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; STAFF PROGRESS REPORT Mr. McLean presented a comprehensive verbal Progress Report on projects presently under development. AQUATIC PARK - STATUS REPORT The Staff presented a status report on the Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan, dated August 1, 1974. Res. #12 Moved by: G.B. Harrison Seconded by:, R.W. White RESOLVED THAT: The Status Report - Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan, dated August I, 1974, be received; and H23 -2- THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Staff be directed to prepare an Aquatic Park conceptual plan to include a major recreational beach, a water sports activity area, a small craft recreational harbour and natural areas as set out in the Report on Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan, dated August 1, 1974 and, in this connection, the following action be taken: (a) Work in close cooperation with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners; (b) Review and report on all of the briefs and submissions made in connection with Aquatic Park as they relate to the Aquatic Park concept; (c) Review and report on the submissions of the Central Waterfront Planning Committee as they relate to the Aquatic Park concept; (d) Conduct specific studies to determine access proposals to the Park area, the feasibility of alternatives for ite servicing, and an environmental assessment, of the concept proposals. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; AQUATIC PARK . PROJECT W.F.5 PROJECT FOR ADDITIONAL DREDGING A Staff communicRtion was presented advising that the Status Report for Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan indicated that there was considerable advantage in extending an existing dredging contract of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, to supply additional material to the land bases for Aquatic Park. Res. #13 Moved by: B.G. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THA'l': ' The Staff communication having regard to Project W.F.5, Additional Dredging, Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan, be received; and rfHE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: Subject to confirmation by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that the additional dredging required for Aquatic Park, Central Sector, Waterfront Plan can be carried out within the terms of their existing outer harbour dredging contract, Project W.F.5, a Project for the supply of additional Dredged Material for Aquatic Park, be adopted; and, in this connection, the following action be taken: (a) A project brief be prepared for submission to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of ontario; (b) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting municipality; (c) The Government of ontario be requested to approve of the Project and grant 50% of the cost established; ( d) When approved, the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required, including the execution of any necessary documents. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m., August I. M...T. Breen F.L. Lunn Chairman Secretary-Treasurer 1rlli\~ M~lbr~lP~hllitS\1Th 1r ~lf~lTh fc<lJ) S\lTh<d1 ~~gll~lTh H-24 CC~1Th~~irWS\ttll~lTh A\1llitI&<lJ)lfllity MllNlU1rIE~ Waterfront Advisory Board Thursday-September-26-1974 #4/74 The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, September 26, 1974, commencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Members J.E. Anderson W.L. Archer, Q.C. G. Ashe Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Harper B.G. Harrison Mrs. S. Martin D. Melnik, Q.C. G. Norton A.E. O'Donohue P.B. Pickett, Q.C. G.B. Sinclair K.D. Trebilcock Secretary-Treasurer F .L. Lunn Director of Operations K.G. Higgs Adm. - Waterfront Division W.A. McLean Project Engineer W/F M.R. Garrett Supervisor, Planning W/F C.G. Walker Research Assistant Miss J. Lay ABSENT WERE Vice-Chairman R.W. White Members D.J. Culham Mrs. J. Tyrrell - MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #3/74 were presented. Res. #14 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: K.D. Trebilcock RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #3/74, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; WATERFRONT PLAN 1972-1976 WESTERN BEACHES SECTOR SUNNYSIDE EAST & WEST MASTER PLAN . A communication from The City of Toronto, together with a Staff Report on the waterfront Plan 1972-1976, Western Beaches Sector, Sunnyside East and West - Master Plan, were presented. Res. #15 Moved by: W.L. Archer, Q.C. Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT: The communication from The City of Toronto and the Staff Report on the Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, Western Beaches Sector, Sunny- side East and West - Master Plan, be received; and H-25 -2- THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The recommendations contained in 'V'LC staff Report concerning the Master Plan of Development, sunnyside EaHt and West, Western Beaches Sector, Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, as amended and set forth herein, be adopted, subject to the recoIT@endations of The City of Toronto Committee on Parks, Recreation and City Property, as adopted at their meeting of September 19, 1974, being adopted by The City of Toronto Council; and further in this connection THAT the following action be taken: (a) The matter of the Master Plan, Sunnyside East and West, be referred to the Technical Task Force, Waterfront Development; and (b) Officials of The City of Toronto be invited to take part in the discussions of the Technical Task Force on this matter, in the spirit of recommendation (4) of The City of Toronto Committee on Parks, Recreation and City Property, as adopted at their meeting of September 19, 1974; and further in this connection (c) Following the Technical Task Force review, arrangements be made for meetings to be held between the Western Beaches Task Force and representatives of this Board. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; WATERFRONT PLAN 1972-1976 ETOBICOKE SECTOR MIMICO CREEK AREA MASTER PLAN PHASE II (REVISED) . A communication from the Borough of Etobicoke, together with a Staff Report on the Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, Etobicoke Sector, Mimico Creek Area - Master Plan Phase II (Revised), were presented. Res. #16 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: B.G. Harrison RESOLVED THAT: The communication from the Borough of Etobicoke and the Staff Report on the Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, Etobicoke Sector, Mimico Creek Area - Master Plan Phase II (Revised), be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The recommendations contained in the Staff Report concerning the Master Plan Phase II (Revised), Mimico Creek Area, Etobicoke Sector, Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, as set forth herein, be adopted: The Borough of Etobicoke be advised that, subject to the approval of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of ontario, the Authority will proceed with the development of Mimico Creek Phase II (Revised) on the basis of the Borough's approval insofar as is within the jurisdiction of the Authority to do so. The recommendations respecting leases and policing are not entirely within the jurisdiction of the Authority and the request of the Borough will be brought to the attention of Metro- politan Toronto who will, under an agreement with the Authority, be managing the park site. Compliance with recommendation ( 2) , concerning facilities and structures, will be achieved in the normal ways through the Borough's building permit process. CARRIED; CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS A Staff comnunication was presented having regard to Recomnendations of the Central Waterfront Planning Committee. Res. #17 Moved by: B.G. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED TH1\T: The Sta:Ef communication having regard to Recomnendations of the Central Waterfront Planning Committee be received; and -3- H-26 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Central Waterfront Planning Committee, City of Toronto, be advised that ~.e Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has given consideration to the recommendations with respect to planning in the Central Waterfront and, in this con- nection, the following action be taken: (a) The Authority convene a meeting with the appropriate agencies to develop a shoreline management policy for the Central Waterfront as part of a policy to cover the entire Metropolitan waterfront; and (b) The policy of the Authority to permit interim use of its lands where such use can be carried out in safety and without inter- ference with construction which may be taking place, be applied in the Central Sector in any projects in which the Authority may be involved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATES - 1975 The Preliminary Budget Estimates for 1975 were presented by the Staff. Res. #18 Moved by: G.B. Sinclair Seconded by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. RESOLVED THAT: The 1975 Preliminary Budget Estimates be approved in principle; and further THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The 1975 Preliminary Budget Estimates, as appended as Schedule "A" of these Minutes, be included in the 1975 Preliminary Budget Estimates of the Authority. Amendment Moved by: A.E. O'Donohue Seconded by: J.E. Anderson RESOLVED THAT: The 1975 Preliminary Budget Estimates be amended to provide $250,000.00 for the Western Beaches, Sunnyside West. On a vote, the Amendment was - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOT CARRIED; Amendmen t to the Amendment Moved by: . G.B. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Amendment be amended to provide $100,000.00 for the Western Beaches, Sunnyside West. On a further vote, the Amendment to the Amendment was - - NOT CARRIED; The original Resolution (#18) was - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CARRIED; ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m., September 26. ~ M.J. Breen F.L. Lunn Chairman Secretary-Treasurer H-27 SCHEDULE "A" TO: THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD RE: WATERFRONT PLl\N, 1972 - 1976 PROPOSED 1975 CAPITAL BUDGET WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT (A) METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION WATERFRONT PLAN, 1972 - 1976 PROGRAMME 33 '1975 1974 1974 BUDGET SUMMARY ESTIMATE ACTUAL ESTIMATE 01---Etobicoke Sector, Marie Curtis Park -- -- $ 82,600 03---Etobicoke Sector, Mimico Creek -- -- $ 69,400 04---Etobicoke Sector, Humber Bay $ 695,000 -- $ 297,000 12---western Beaches, Sunnyside west -- -- $ 25,000 31---Eastern Beaches, Ashbridge's Bay $ 510,000 -- $ 320,000 41---Scarborough sector, Bluffer I sPark $ 630,000 -- $ 825,000 42--- Scarborough Sector, cudia/Sylvan -- -- $ 5,000 52---pickering/Ajax, Petticoat Creek $ 385,000 -- $ 575,000 60---Monitoring $ 25,000 -- $ 31,000 70---Shoreline Management $ 110,000 -- $ 120,000 90-~-Land Acquisition $1,645,000 -- $3,600,000 ~~~ --- --~.- --- -- ---- TOTAL = $4,000,000 -- $6,000,000 ~ ----- ~- .- --- (B) AQUATIC PARK (PROGRAMME 34) Planning and Design $ 150,000 $ 39,200 Project WF-5 $ 1,100,000 ~~- TOTAL $ '1,250,000 $ 39,200 -~ - --------- ---- ----- -- - - w. A.McLean ~\[. A. McLean l\dministrator waterfront Division /MRG september 17, 1974 _ _"1_._1- 1rh e Me lclr<G> JP>(D) II n 11:(& 1l1\ 1I\r>> lr<lJ) 1Th lc<DJ ~JThd1 1.P2 ~ gJi <lJ) ffi\ H - 2 0 CC <G> 1Th~e1rW a itii (Q) 1t\\ A\ \Ullcn\\ (G) lrll fey MllNlD1r1E~ Waterfront Advisory Board Tuesday-November-19-1974 #5/74 --------.- The Waterfront Advisory Board met at the Authority Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Tuesday, November 19, 1974, comnencing at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT WERE Vice-Chairman R.W. White Members J.E. Anderson G. Ashe D.J. Culham Mrs. J.A. Gardner C.A. Harper B.G. Harrison Mrs. S. Martin G. Norton P.B. Pickett, Q.C. K.D. Trebilcock Mrs. J. Tyrrell Authority Chairman F.A. Wade Authority Vice-Chairman R.G. Henderson Secretary-Treasurer F.L. Lunn Adm. - Waterfront Division W.A. McLean Project Engineer w/F M.R. Garrett Supervisor, Planning W/F C.G. Walker ABSENT WERE Chairman M.J. Breen Members W.L. Archer, Q.C. D. Melnik, Q.C. A.E. O'Donohue G.B. Sinclair MINUTES The Minutes of Meeting #4/74 were presented. Res. #19 Moved by: B.G. Harrison Seconded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of Meeting #4/74, as presented, be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; STAFF PROGRESS REPORT Mr. McLean presented a verbal Progress Report, which was received. MINISTRY OF 'I'HE ENVIRONMENT REPORT 'SEDIMENT QUALITY ON THE TORONTO WATERFRONT' As requested by the Executive Comnittee, the Staff presented a Report on the Ministry of the Environment's Report - 'Sediment Quality on the Toronto Waterfront'. Res. #20 Moved by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner Seconded by: Mrs. S. Martin RESOLVED THAT: The Staff Report on the Ministry of the Environment's Report - 'Sediment Quality on the Toronto Waterfront', be received. CAHRIED UNANIMOUSLY; , H-29 -2- H,es. #21 Moved by: D.J. Culham Seconded by: C.A. Harper TI1E BOARD RECOMMENDS lTIAT: The Government of ontario be requested to consider the establisluoent of a sedimentation model project for shore- line processes and configurations, as suggested in the MacLaren Report (April-1972) ; it being understood that such a project could be a prototype for future waterfront projects on the Groat Lakes. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; WATERFRONT PLAN 1972-1976 ETOBICOKE SECTOR MIMICO CREEK AREA PHASE II MASTER PLAN A staff communication, together with comnunication dated November 6, 1974 fr0m the Metropolitan Toronto Clerk, were presented, having regard to Mimico Creek Waterfront Area Phase II Master Plan. Res. #22 Moved by: Mrs. S. Martin Seconded by: C.A. Harper RESOLVED THAT: The Staff communication, together with communication from the Metropolitan Toronto Clerk dated November 6, 1974, having regard to Mimico Creek Waterfront Area Phase II Master Plan be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The Staff be directed to carry out the necessary detailed coastal engineering and environmental quality studies for the Mimico Creek Waterfront Area Phase II Master Plan, Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, including embayment circulation as it relates to sediment deposition and water quality, for consideration by this Board, prior to re-submission of this plan to Metropolitan Toronto for their consideration and approval; and THAT the detailed review take into consideration the data sent out in the 'Sediment Quality on the Toronto Waterfront I report, together with other pertinent and more current data. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; WATERFRONT PLAN 1972-1976 PICKERING/AJAX SECTOR ROSEBANK AREA - SOUTH CONCEPTUAL PLAN A Staff communication, together with Resolution from the Town of Pickering having regard to the Conceptual Plan for the Rosebank Area - South, Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, Pickering/Ajax Sector, were presented. Res. #23 Moved by: Mrs. S. Martin Seconded by: G. Ashe RESOLVED THAT: The staff con~unication, together with Resolution from the Town of Pickering having regard to the Conceptual Plan for the Rosebank Area - South, Pickering/Ajax Sector, Waterfront Plan 1972- 1976, be received; and THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The staff be directed to develop a Conceptual Plan for the Rosebank Area - South, Waterfront Plan 1972- 1976, P ici<.ering/Aj ax Sector, for consideration of the Board and for the information of the Council of the Town of Pickering. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; WATERFRONT PLAN 1972-1976 SCARBOROUGH SECTOR FALLINGDROOK ROAD ALLOWANCE A Staff coromunication, together wi th corrununication from the Dorough of Scarborough were presented having regi1rd to the feasibility of re- storing Clnd llliJ.intaining the steps on the south end of Fallingbrook - Drive to the Lakeshorc, Scarborough Sector, Wi1.terfront Plan 1972-197G, -3- H-30 and advi.sing' the Board that in view of the local nature of all access streets in this area, maintenance and improvements to the ,steps be considered a local matter and that the Authority not participate. Res. #24 Moved by: P.B. Pickett, Q.C. SecC?nded by: Mrs. J.A. Gardner RESOLVED THAT: The Staff comm~nication and letter from the Dorough of Scarborough having regard to the Fallingbrook,Road Allowance, Scarborough Sector, Waterfront Plan 1972-1976, be 'received; and THAT the action taken by the Staff be approved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.; ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m., November 19. : R.W. White (Vice-Chairman) F .L. Lunn Acting Chairman Secretary-Treasurer - , ,